Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

O.T. - Climbing For Christ Australia


GravityHound

9-May-2010
8:12:45 PM

On 9/05/2010 Hendo wrote:
>
>If people are curious about science or consider that they believe in science,
>Google philosophy of science + scientific method and I’m sure you will
>find something interesting, most importantly that the ‘scientific method’,
>the demarcation between science and non science, doesn’t really exist,
>at least not in the form many people (including scientists) would naively
>expect.

care to elaborate. i googled and the first para of scientific methods in wikipedia seemed to be a pretty accurate description of what I (a perhaps naive scientist) would consider guidelines to demarcate science from non-science.

>On 9/05/2010 rodw wrote:
>>Sorry hendo intellegent design has nothing to do with science...
>
>Many scientists in the past and present, including many of the greatest
>names, (perhaps even a majority?), have been motivated by exploring and
>understanding what they believe to be a universe created by an intelligent
>being. From this perspective it is relevant. What is currently considered
>intelligent design is a permutation on this, similar approaches have their
>place in the history of science.

Sure many of the great scientists have held a belief in a higher being (Einstein was one of them). Unlike intelligent design, these scientists did not setout to prove their higher being was responsible for a particular aspect of the world, they were trying to figure out a particular aspect of their world. But, along the lines of demarcation that make sense to me, intelligent doesnt have a hypothesis or a line of enquiry so it isnt science or even remotely related to science. It is a theory or even a philisophy. Maybe it has something to do with science, but if it does I reckon it really isnt much at all.

patto

9-May-2010
9:04:58 PM

On 9/05/2010 Hendo wrote:
>On 9/05/2010 patto wrote:
>>Why is there a requirement for "THE" scientific method and more than
>there
>>is a requirement for "THE" economic method or "THE" religious method.
>
>Because people often talk about science in a naïve way and see it as a
>gold standard. Scientific knowledge is not the result of pure logic and
>reason, independent of politics, religious ideas, social acceptance etc
>etc. It is very dynamic and uses all sorts of different approaches and
>has influences like any other human activity.
>
Actually I would argue that good science does follow logic and reason. Poor science done by poor scientists often does not. Of course scientific research is done by humans which can be biased and have completely different motives beyond discovering knowledge.

The way you talk about science indicates to me that you are the naive one.

>My day job is science and it is the same mind doing that as writing these
>posts…that has got to make you think twice :P ha.
No it doesn't surprise me or make me think twice. What would surprise me though is if you were a physicist as the other sciences are just stamp collecting.

>
>If people are curious about science or consider that they believe in science,
>Google philosophy of science + scientific method and I’m sure you will
>find something interesting, most importantly that the ‘scientific method’,
>the demarcation between science and non science, doesn’t really exist,
>at least not in the form many people (including scientists) would naively
>expect.

I'm not finding much interesting you seem to be skirting around your point.

>I think the creationist trump card is to say that the universe was created
>~4000 years ago (or whatever) with a history, it only appears to have this
>long, long past/other point of creation etc. For example, the dinosaurs
>never lived, they were created as fossils. I’m not sure it is possible
>to argue with that aside from Occam’s Razor type ideas. It seems to be
>a choice to believe one way or the other.
Trump card!? More like a cheating ace up their sleave! If scientists too this attitude towards explaining the world around us then we'd be stuck in the dark ages. Resorting to ideas of magic is the anti-science.


Chuck Norris

9-May-2010
9:31:04 PM

Hendo - until you came along a troll has never irritated me. If however you are not a troll I can honestly say I find you irritating.

I've a q for you: How long would you take to decide whether to jump to the left or right when you are standing in the middle of the road staring at the headlights of a semi coming at ya at a 100 miles an hour?

You of course would say it don't matter. But unfortunately for you (not me) you are ketchup by the time you have realised this.

A christian would say that god told them to jump very very high over the semi and I say good luck to them.

ness

9-May-2010
9:31:49 PM

Ah. I become angry when reading other people discussing religion. Sometimes I joint in when they are discussing science.

I'm glad Rutherford postulated the existence of the neutron in the first place. I'm surprised we didn't move onto Popper during this discussion (scientific method via advancing falsification).

Bored now. Goodnight.


Hendo

9-May-2010
10:09:57 PM

On 9/05/2010 GravityHound wrote:
>care to elaborate. i googled and the first para of scientific methods
>in wikipedia seemed to be a pretty accurate description of what I (a perhaps
>naive scientist) would consider guidelines to demarcate science from non-science.

Maybe this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

I'm no expert but as I understand it basically the problem is that no one has been able to define a set of criteria that

1) Seem philosophically ok; it seems like science and is like what we want science to be
2) Fits with history; the way people have been practicing science
3) Includes all of what is considered science, so that sections of what are currently considered science do not have to be relegated to non-science
4) Does not include things considered non-science.
5) maybe some other points I have forgotten.

On 9/05/2010 patto wrote:
>What would surprise me though is if you were a physicist

SURPRISE! Hehe.

>Trump card!? More like a cheating ace up their sleave! If scientists
>too this attitude towards explaining the world around us then we'd be stuck
>in the dark ages. Resorting to ideas of magic is the anti-science.

Pretty much agreed.

On 9/05/2010 stugang wrote:
>Hendo - until you came along a troll has never irritated me. If however
>you are not a troll I can honestly say I find you irritating.

Sorry, just some topics on here I find interesting recently. I’m not trying to get people worked up, just discussing, see what people think etc, sometimes it is necessary to take a differing opinion to do so. Also I’ve had flu so been sitting around not doing much.


DaCrux

9-May-2010
10:44:44 PM

What I find funny is the number of “atheists” on chockstone, who don’t believe in god because there is no scientific proof he exists, yet would rather go to a naturopath than a doctor...

martym

10-May-2010
6:08:24 AM

On 9/05/2010 DaCrux wrote:
>What I find funny is the number of “atheists” on chockstone, who don’t
>believe in god because there is no scientific proof he exists, yet would
>rather go to a naturopath than a doctor...

How many Chockstoners go to either? I know I avoid going to the doctor for months until whatever injury I have is almost healed...
That'd be an interesting poll actually... might sway the tide of abuse away from this thread.

Wendy

10-May-2010
2:31:32 PM

On 9/05/2010 DaCrux wrote:
>What I find funny is the number of “atheists” on chockstone, who don’t
>believe in god because there is no scientific proof he exists, yet would
>rather go to a naturopath than a doctor...

I'm quite generous in my disbelief. I am an atheist, I don't go to naturapaths, bowen therapists, reiki masters, transcendental meditation, energy channelling, rebirthing etc etc, all sorts of stuff that I loosely call new age fluffy hippyism. Mind you, I am also sceptical of modern reliance on techno solutions and ready prescribing of pharmaceutical solutions.

hero

10-May-2010
2:58:24 PM

Any of you who know me personally will know that I have a history of becoming the very thing I criticise, whether it be students, academics, artists, vegans or cyclists.

In keeping with this I think it is about time (as everyone has been waiting for it) for me to find religion. And when I thought about it, it was easy. I have been searching my whole life for evidence of god to no avail but then realised the evidence is everywhere, but that it is a malicious god. So I looked around to find a religion that believed in a malicious god, and didn't have to go far. But then my other requirement is that I still be allowed to drink alcohol, which puts Islam off the agenda.

So now I'm a Catholic.

another dave

11-May-2010
11:30:11 AM

On 10/05/2010 hero wrote:

>but that it is a malicious god.
Yes Christians believe that God has complete control of world event's. Yes that includes events such as a certain tsunami a few years back.
I would be agreeing with you if I thought that this life is all there is.

>So now I'm a Catholic.
You know that means you get to go to Heaven and spend eternal life with this Malicious god of yours.
You should have gone Islamic then you could have relaxed and had palm fronds waved at you by young virgins.
Valhalla sounds the coolest. You get eat heaps get drunk heaps and pick fights with each other with battle axes. ggggrrrr
Not a fan of Buddhism you just get to come back here and live this crap life again with no memory of having done it before. yay

BTW all above descriptions are adjusted for this post and therefore are all incorrect.
If you can be bothered reading it heres the more correct versions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_life

Got a question for you scientists that has been bugging me (I'm not trying to prove anything by it I just won't to know what the answer is)
The universe came into existance by a series of random events. Everything in it is random yet it can all be controlled by maths which is not random. How can this paradox exist?


ajfclark

11-May-2010
11:36:44 AM

Chaos theory shows that mathematical systems can appear quite random.


dimpet

11-May-2010
11:40:33 AM

How is the universe controlled by maths??????
The only thing maths does is attempt to approximate what is observed.

On 11/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>Got a question for you scientists that has been bugging me (I'm not trying
>to prove anything by it I just won't to know what the answer is)
>The universe came into existance by a series of random events. Everything
>in it is random yet it can all be controlled by maths which is not random.
>How can this paradox exist?
>

patto

11-May-2010
11:40:33 AM

On 11/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>The universe came into existance by a series of random events. Everything
>in it is random yet it can all be controlled by maths which is not random.
>How can this paradox exist?
>

How the universe came into existance is unclear (big bang is normally the beginning) but I'm not sure it is normally described as a series of random events. 'A seriees of random events' thats how life came into existance.

Oh and maths certainly can be describe random events. In fact the quantam theory describes EVERYTHING in probabilistic (random) terms.

hero

11-May-2010
11:47:56 AM

"I would be agreeing with you if I thought that this life is all there is."

oh anotherdave,

don't you see that this is just another symptom of human arrogance. Best explained in Red Dwarf.

Kryten: But of course you do! For is it not written in the electronic bible, "The Iron shall lie down with the lamp." It's common sense sir, if there weren't a better life to look forward to, why on earth would machines spend the whole of there lives serving human kind? - Now that would be really dumb!

Lister : Yeah it makes sense. Yeah. Silicon Heaven(!)

Kryten: Don't be sad, Mr David sir. I am going to a far, far better place.

Lister: Just out of interest, is Silicon Heaven the same place as human Heaven?

Kryten: Human Heaven? Goodness me! *laughs* Humans don't go to Heaven! No no, someone just made that up to prevent you from all going nuts!


tonyj

11-May-2010
11:56:07 AM

wow I never imagined that there would be such a discussion going on here.There are some interesting points of veiw.

another dave

11-May-2010
12:22:36 PM

On 11/05/2010 patto wrote:
>Oh and maths certainly can be describe random events. In fact the quantam
>theory describes EVERYTHING in probabilistic (random) terms.

Its probably a stupid question. But why can maths always predict it.
Like when I through a tennis ball north why does it go in a straight line and not weave, or go straight up or split into two or give physics the finger and cease to exist.
Why can maths explain it all (kinda)?
Why do objects obey these laws?
Why is the universe ordered?

Hero - red dwarf is totally cool but I choose not to live my life by its deep and meaningful proverbs. Otherwise I would have to take into account the heretical stories of Bold and The Beautiful and validate why I choose Red Dwarf over such filth. Then with I may conclude its all stupid and go and worship Star Trek.
http://theinfosphere.org/Church_of_Trek


Hendo

11-May-2010
12:25:03 PM

On 11/05/2010 another dave wrote:

>Got a question for you scientists that has been bugging me (I'm not trying
>to prove anything by it I just won't to know what the answer is)
>The universe came into existance by a series of random events. Everything
>in it is random yet it can all be controlled by maths which is not random.
>How can this paradox exist?

Hey Dave, 'controlled' seems to imply there exists a controller doesn't it? Some people see maths merely as a descriptive tool like words, the fact that it seems so revealing leads others to think it goes deeper. This is moving from science to metaphysics.

Probability is part of quantum mechanics. Some people don't like the idea that the universe should be random, they think that it deterministic and only appears random, hence quantum mechanics is incomplete and there are undiscovered laws that will explain these apparently random phenomena. To test this there have been quantum mechanical experiments (Bell experiments) performed in which the results depend on if a phenomena is truly random, or there is some unknown law behind it. The consensus I was taught was that the results seem to indicate that there are no hidden laws and so everything is fundamentally random. No doubt there is more to be argued however.


Eduardo Slabofvic

11-May-2010
12:29:10 PM

On 11/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>Like when I through a tennis ball north why does it go in a straight line

It doesn't

>and not weave, or go straight up or split into two or give physics the
>finger and cease to exist.

It could - repeat the experiment an infinite number of times and you will observe this behavoiur

>Why can maths explain it all (kinda)?

because if maths can't explain it, a mathematician will invent a new form of math that can.

>Why do objects obey these laws?

Because they don't want to go to the big house to b(*)t fcuked in the showers by the Bowling Ball Gang.

>Why is the universe ordered?

It isn't


Hendo

11-May-2010
12:50:52 PM

On 11/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>Its probably a stupid question.

NOT a stupid question!

>But why can maths always predict it.

You are asking metaphysical questions here which are sort of like the foundations of scienctific thinking so science can't really answer them. The fact that there is order in the universe and we exist at all does lead people to religious beliefs. Read Plato's Timaeus for an interesting example. As a side note, while I might not agree with it, it does show that people have been having very clever ideas for a long time and there were people living many thousands of years ago who could be considered much more 'enlightened' than many people today who believe they live in an 'enlightened' age.

You have to be careful here about saying math can always predict everything, by focusing and shaping your mind toward mathematical ideas it is easy to miss other things. During the scientific revolution there was a transition to focus on quantities rather than qualities. I think it was Galileo who talked about describing a feather, he cannot imagine it without a size, shape, mass etc, all things which you can put a number on easily, however he can imagine it without the quality of ticklishness and relegated such things to secondary qualities (this is all vague memories so check this before you go spouting about it). By ignoring certain things it could be construed as cheating, or as progress.

There are 159 messages in this topic.