Quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur. I wave my privates at yer aunties!

apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
from that 'special hell'

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur. I wave my privates at yer aunties!

apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
from that 'special hell'

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

---

Quote:

---

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

---

Quote:

---

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
You're talking to someone who is a scientist and has a smattering of philosophy. If we were to discuss this at length, we would eventually get to our "a priori" assumptions. My a priori assumptions are:

There is a real world.
We are connected to it through our senses.

What are yours?

As for science: Science is not a collection of "facts", it is a process of asking questions and testing the answers. Religion, however, does not put it's answers to the test. Science has allowed us to design an electric light switch that works most of the time. I can't say the same thing about religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The usual trio of verbotten subjects is politics, religion, and sex. Sex is boring. We need a third verbotten topic.

---

Quote:

---

However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

Quote:

---

To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists) who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NervousPete:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur. I wave my privates at yer aunties!

apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
from that 'special hell'

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

---

*Bops Capnrahn on head with stiff cardboard tube out of sense of principle, but respects comical and original over-the-top surreal delivery. Bad lad! Stop!*

This is an example of...

*Sigh*

*Retreats to watch exciting fight because he can't be bothered. And he's wondering why he cares so much about people debating on the net. And he realises that it's because he's tired and he hasn't let go yet. And he believes that there's still hope out there. And now he's realising that he's probably wrong, and that people will always be arrogant and arsey, and that arrogance is ignorance grown up, and that he can no longer tell between playful jape and dangerous trivialisation in posts, and he wonders if it's because something is wrong with him, or he's just tired, and that maybe he's a fool for believing in stating his principles when a foreign land dismisses him, and then he knows that he feels beaten and that he still wants to stand up - and now he feels that he has to go and read some Calvin & Hobbes and forget.

*Sigh*

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I think you are coming with a different set of references and vocabulary, which is making it hard for me to get what you are saying.

So here's my take on some topics. Maybe we can go back and forth long enough to establish a dialogue.

Quote:

---

However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

Actually, science can't prove anything, it can only disprove. (To prove something you'd have to test EVERY instance in the forever universe - an impossibility; to disprove something, you only have to do that once.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:


While it may be that people (in general) think that science has Truth, or perhaps many lesser truths, the scientific process isn't directed that way at all. And as I said, even scientists can't 'prove' anything is true, which makes it a 100% human condition. We are all puny questers.

Quote:

---

To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists) who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

I'm not sure I follow step 2. What is a crisis event? How does it apply to science? Please explain. Thanks. Merci beaucoups.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I think only in the realm of mathematics and logic can things be 'proven' consistent (not necessarily true), but even then one starts with unprovable assumptions.
However, even in mathematics, it's hard to understand the limits of your assumptions. For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.

Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Or something like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

My point is that society as a whole takes science on faith. 90% of the world knows the earth is round, water is made of H2O, and that there are 8 other planets. However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Furthermore, there are quite a few gaps in sience such as why Newton's laws don't work on the sub-atmoic level, which are glossed over with "science hasn't discovered it yet." Which sounds rather similar to "God hasn't revealed it yet."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Finally, I will end with religion does not make light bulbs that mostly work, they make societies which mostly work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

If you look at the birth of Mathematics and Science, you'll find guys like Pythagorean who basically formed these huge cults where they studied the mystical properties of numbers. All of these scientists and mathematicians through the early industrial period were pretty much all very devoutly religious people who wanted to deduce the mysteries that "God" has created.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

Quit your bitching and do something about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by danfan:
Pete,

I love the way you think. Thanks for keeping the focus on the important stuff. I feel the need to comment on one thing you said:

"And yes, I think the US is mired in one of its darkest days..."

i know many think this is "one of the darkest times" or "the darkest time" or "the dawn of a fascist state." These comments are cropping up all over the place. They seem like hyperbole to me. One could argue that this is or isn't a "bad" time. But darkest?

In the 1860's, this nation turned on itself like a savage dog and tried to tear itself apart. Them's DARKEST days. And before anyone says that's what's happening now, park the hyperbole and remember: we've yet to see thousands of citizens (often family members on both sides) firing guns at each other and leaving bodies in the field for weeks on end.

Then for nearly a generation after that war was "Reconstruction" (which was far from what it claimed to be) and the aftermath. Very bitter time indeed.

Then, closer to now, shortly after Pearl Harbor, my mother watched all four of her brothers go off to fight a war for the survival of our nation... a war that we were LOSING at the time. Neighbors were getting their family members back home in bags and boxes. When she talks of that time, she still chokes up... and she's one of the strongest woman I've ever known.

So... scary? Dark? Maybe. Darkest? I disagree. I believe we need more perpective than that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
There are two big problems in ther United States that prevent rational discussion, one that most other devloped nations don't have and can't possibly comprehend from a distance.

In the past four years, there have been major scandals in the Bush administration and Republican policy - the energy trading deregulation that gave us Enron,...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

My point is that society as a whole takes science on faith. 90% of the world knows the earth is round, water is made of H2O, and that there are 8 other planets. However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

So what? No-one can be an expert on everything. Everyone has to take something, on faith (regardless of education) in there day to day life. It doesn't make it religion, it just makes it reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Furthermore, there are quite a few gaps in sience such as why Newton's laws don't work on the sub-atmoic level, which are glossed over with "science hasn't discovered it yet." Which sounds rather similar to "God hasn't revealed it yet."

---

Newton's physics only applies to a specific situation. Since then, we have learned about many things that makes them "invalide." Everyday new holes are found in theories and others are filled. It is the nature of science.

It's called learning.

You seem to not realize that every physical system that is constructed has built-in limitations. Why doesn't Newtonian physics work at the sub-atomic level. Because it wasn't designed to! It was designed to explain other things. It is a limiting case of another theory. The goal of physics is to go up that theory heirarchy to one in which everything else is a limiting case, connecting all theories together.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

Science is only a religion to those that don't understand science and have heard someone say, that they consider "smart", that science is a religion and give some "logical proof" of why it is that way. Normal people wouldn't have even given this topic a moments thought if someone else hadn't brought it up. It is these people that spred this mis-information that started this whole feasco in the first place. Otherwise this wouldn't have be an issue.

The main problem that I've seen when discussing these things with laymen, is that people cannot distinguish between physics and meta-physics/science and the "meta"-science. Unfortunatly one must know what science is to have that fuzzy line become distinct.


Religion doesn't have peer review. In religion things don't/can't change extremely fast. Religion doesn't admit it's mistakes. Religious people don't have to be intellegent to be religious.

Science on the other hand does have peer review. In science things can and do change etremely fast. Science admits mistakes regularly. Scientists do have to be intellegent to be a scientist.

I could go on.


I would also like to make the statement that sociologists being sociologists don't know what science is since they've spent all there time studying sociology. One cannot read a book on "science" and think they know about it. One cannot interview scientists and think for a second that they know about the culture. One must study and live as a scientist before one can. Scientists work on a much too different level for others not in the culture to be able to interpret them (Please note that I'm not saying that this means scientists are better than anyone else. I'm just saying that they are different enough to illude analysis from those outside there culture.). Thus they shouldn't be talking about a culture that they don't understand.

Note: This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means that different people are good at different things. The problem comes into play when different people attempt to do or understand things that they can't or are only capable of partially understanding (for one reason or another). And then since they think that they understand, they come to *incorrect* conclusions (ie science = religion).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Finally, I will end with religion does not make light bulbs that mostly work, they make societies which mostly work.

---

Actually, it'd be the people that make societies mostly work. It's called living in a secular society. Welcome to the 21st century.


To get back to the first comment I made at the top.

I currently don't understand how the internet works. I know it involves certain protocols, but in the end, it's still just voodoo black magik to me. I would imagine that many people here are in the same boat.

Does this mean that I'll start worshiping my computer and the internet? Of course not, it's just something that I don't understand.


I would think that a HUGE difference between science and religion is that science *can* be understood. I can read books (RFC's in this case) and ask people "in the know" questions and understand something in science (in this case how the internet works).

Religion on the other hand cannot be understood. It must be taken solely on faith, nothing else.

ie Read the bible and see how many contradictions you can find, ugh. No scientific paper has such things. To be sure it has come up, but these things are handled two different ways.

Science - We *need* to fix this. And they promptly do.
Religion - What contradictions? You're interpereting it "wrong."


So, clearly science is *not* religion.

It is up to the scientists to come out and say that science isn't religion and here's why. The problem is that people like you come out and say the opposite and ruin it, making the scientists lives very difficult. If people like you would just stop the maddness, this problem could be solved.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I also included Republican policies as part of the problem. If you were to look up the history of energy trading deregulation that was behind Enron, you would see what I mean. Look it up yourself. Perhaps if you had to find this info on your own you would vaue it more instead of just quibbling.

---

Quote:

---

It is the practice on internalizing a system of believes that rationalizes your world

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I also participate in a neurology web forum, and it never ceases to amaze me that after someone's child has had a successful surgery, the parents often say "THANK YOU JESUS".

Just a comment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

It is the practice on internalizing a system of believes that rationalizes your world

---

My daughter is (to put it kindly) delayed. It's very hard to explain the difference between "Jesus" and "electrons", both of which are really just concepts.

The only way to demonstrate the difference is to say: Well, we think of electrons because it helps us explain things like lightening, and with that understanding we can light up lights and make motors spin. You can't do the same thing with Jesus- he won't make the lights light up or turn a motor or make your medicine.

I find it a little unnerving that she hears more about Jesus in her day to day life- even tho we are an atheistic family of scientists- than she does about electrons. I also participate in a neurology web forum, and it never ceases to amaze me that after someone's child has had a successful surgery, the parents often say "THANK YOU JESUS".

Just a comment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


This morphing of the facts is the same to me as the Lancet's claim of 100,000 deaths in Iraq becoming 100,000 "civilian" deaths, then 100,000 civilians killed by Coalition forces, then "mostly women and children targeted by smart bombs". The fact that you want to make a point or support a position doesn't validate altering the original information.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

As an ex-physics major and a member of both "worlds" as some people would put it, science is certainly fallible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

Science itself is based on faith and experience, just as religion is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War

---

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Another verbotten topic to mangle! Thanks!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

What I actually said was that to be religious you don't need to be intellegent as opposed having to be intellegent to be a scientist. But, since you seem not to understand this... well, it begs a certain question about you.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NervousPete:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War

---

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Another verbotten topic to mangle! Thanks!

---

Heh heh! Chat away!

Here in England, it's more like 'The North Will Rise!'

Death to the southern jessies!

*Nyuk*

'tis all in fun, though the English civil war did kill 1/4 of the population apparently - some millions - they're about to release a book on it.

Pete

P.S: My home town was Royalist, in case you're asking. The one I'm living in now was Parliamentarian (the winning side) but changed allegiance to the Royalists just before they lost! How mad is that?

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NervousPete:

Hullo, Connorflynn.

I have a sense of humour. I have one of the darkest senses of humour around. I watch and ENJOY Chris Morris for God's sake, and he is utterly twisted. The only comedian who can make jokes out of child murder and make a point.

But the trouble is, both your's and Greyjedi's comments don't come across as harmless jokes. They come across as something I cannot abide: Gloating. And lack of respect.

I'm proud to call myself a liberal. My grandmother was a conservative, my grandad was a communist (until invasion of Poland and it all sounds unlikely, but, y'know, only in Britain) and I've inherited beliefs from both. Calling me a fag, or a pinko (what the hell is a pinko anyway, it's catchy, but what is it?) or a hippy, or a commie is automatically voiding my arguements and beliefs solely because you view them as leftist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
stantly.

>snip<
There is a difference between faith and belief. And just because belief is involved, it doesn't make it a religion. Proof by contradiction: I believe that the internet will work along with my computer. It doesn't mean that it's a religion for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:

Alright mister. You just started a religious war. Igod is gonna smack down your ethernet connection faster than you can say Allah Ackbar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

The useless bitching I speak of has been going on for 2 years. I think I gave plenty of time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

And voting did work. Apparently the majority of the American people agree with him, at least the majority of those who care enough to actually vote. 4 million is not a small number.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

If the protests were large enough he would have been voted out of office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I noticed that you've only quote the necessary portion of my post. I thank you for that, along with all the dial up users here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.

---

You prove my point. And it is *not* what you say it is. I am *not* proving my intellegence nor thinking I'm on shaky ground. I am proving that you don't know as much as you think you know and as such have been quite misguided regarding this topic. I also pointed out that you didn't actually read my post. Could I have put it in nicer terms? Yes. Oh well, live and learn (science).

But then again, your words kind of lose there weight when you become a hypocrite and do what you say I did (Becoming condescending and insulting). Which from your post above you think is wrong. Perhaps your discorse here isn't as shiny as you think it is. Perhaps this is (to quote you) "a bit much for you".

But then again (again), maybe you just read it that way. Maybe you are just being too sensitive. Perhaps it's just how I wrote it and not what I wrote. Maybe you just should've taken that comment as a hint to be more careful when reading posts here.

I also notice that you haven't even touched on any of my points. Can I assume that we've reached a consensus?


I know my limitations and have stayed out of many conversations here because I wasn't well versed in the topic in question. I definitly read them and have learned a lot from the people here, but I tend only to participate in the discusions that I can contribute to.

I'll also note that I don't doubt that I've learned something from you. Here for instance, our conversation has taught me a lot about the general perceptions of science among the masses and how different it is from reality. It is something that can and should be fixed. Unfortunatly it'd take a national (actually world wide) effort to do, which would require the teachers at all levels to change most of there current system. Somehow I think it's an uphill battle.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---