The Cult Of Science, Politics & Religion

^ nitpicking nothing-to-do-evening comment: it's 'the universal law of gravitation' dude

  On 4/11/2013 at 11:47 PM, luke viia said:

^ nitpicking nothing-to-do-evening comment: it's 'the universal law of gravitation' dude

err no nothing every graduates past a scientific theory

the "law of gravity" is a theory, not a law

science (the process, not the community) is very humble in this way

things remain theories and either they are disproved (disproven?) or they remain a theory

(this of course confuses people and makes some think that all theories--by virtue of being called 'theories'--are equally valid..."evolution is only a theory, man")

Something becomes a law when it is universally applicable, as gravity is. I stand by what I said.

(just to add a semantic disclaimer so this doesn't turn into a lame drawn out argument, there is also the "theory of gravity" -- it is the "why" or framework explanation of bodies attracting each other, but "the law of gravity" exists and is the mathematical description of attraction between bodies.)

religion offers more than science does because at least religion makes us happy

religion: the root of the world's happiness

  On 4/11/2013 at 11:56 PM, Hoodie said:

religion offers more than science does because at least religion makes us happy

if science doesn't make you happy that's a shame

IMO the natural beauty of the universe makes me happier

than some fairy tale that coddles people's fears

and tells you that this world is just a dress rehearsal

(IMO religion is some depressing toxic shit)

  On 4/11/2013 at 11:56 PM, luke viia said:

Something becomes a law when it is universally applicable, as gravity is. I stand by what I said.

 

(just to add a semantic disclaimer so this doesn't turn into a lame drawn out argument, there is also the "theory of gravity" -- it is the "why" or framework explanation of bodies attracting each other, but "the law of gravity" exists and is the mathematical description of attraction between bodies.)

ok great prove that the law of gravity is universally applicable. the fact that it seems to apply in all known cases does not prove it as an absolute.

  On 4/11/2013 at 11:56 PM, Hoodie said:

religion offers more than science does because at least religion makes us happy

happy has nothing do do with it

Hey man, it's not like I made up the term "The Universal Law of Gravitation." I was more just making a joke about your nitpickers comment, because it's true. But seriously now. There is a law of gravitation. There is a law of conservation of energy, and of mass. I'm surprised I'm having to argue this to people who enjoy science.

Here, I'll pull a compson:

  Quote

 

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonicflight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

We are not talking about a semantic distinction

There is no higher status in science than "theory"

and then either they're are disproven or they're not

if they're disproven they are demoted

since theories can't be proven they forever remain theories

the "law" part refers to the prescriptive nature of the theory

"things do this, things do that"

it is not the case that "it's a law, not a theory"

as I said (in the only phrase that I could think would clarify the issue) the "law of gravity" is a theory

look guys, all i said was that the two things can be compared. you can come in and find differences within the framework of my initial comparison, but guess what you are doing? comparing.

asses

  On 4/12/2013 at 12:18 AM, MisterE said:

look guys, all i said was that the two things can be compared. you can come in and find differences within the framework of my initial comparison, but guess what you are doing? comparing.

asses

that doesn't make sense

  On 4/12/2013 at 12:18 AM, LimpyLoo said:

We are not talking about a semantic distinction

 

 

There is no higher status in science than "theory"

and then either they're are disproven or they're not

if they're disproven they are demoted

since theories can't be proven they forever remain theories

 

the "law" part refers to the prescriptive nature of the theory

"things do this, things do that"

 

it is not the case that "it's a law, not a theory"

 

as I said (in the only phrase that I could think would clarify the issue) the "law of gravity" is a theory

lol. All I said in my original post was "it's the universal law of gravitation" because the claim was that it's not a law. I never said anything about "it's not a theory."

Go form your own cult of science if you don't like the one they teach in school. *sticks tongue out*

my main point was that both have potential for abuse, corruption, and for being used to manipulate people.

either you agree with that or you don't. and if you don't, you are an ass.

and if you try to say i can't compare even though i just made a solid comparison, and then you proceed to show differences which still falls under the definition of 'comparing', you are an ass. comparing means to look for similarities AND differences. to say two things can't be compared is attempting to shut down that conversation before it happens or goes somewhere you don't want it to.

people are so vehemently opposed to religion that they absolutely do not want it and science to ever be spoken together. they are allowing their bias to fuck with their logic, and that's not my problem, it's theirs.

  On 4/12/2013 at 12:22 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 4/12/2013 at 12:18 AM, LimpyLoo said:

We are not talking about a semantic distinction

 

 

There is no higher status in science than "theory"

and then either they're are disproven or they're not

if they're disproven they are demoted

since theories can't be proven they forever remain theories

 

the "law" part refers to the prescriptive nature of the theory

"things do this, things do that"

 

it is not the case that "it's a law, not a theory"

 

as I said (in the only phrase that I could think would clarify the issue) the "law of gravity" is a theory

 

lol. All I said in my original post was "it's the universal law of gravitation" because the claim was that it's not a law. I never said anything about "it's not a theory."

 

Go form your own cult of science if you don't like the one they teach in school. *sticks tongue out*

there's no need for facepalms

I'm just trying to help clarify the issue

talk to the hand

luke I only responded because my original point was exactly that scientists don't assert absolutes. denominations like "law" (ie "universal law of gravity" are essentially utilitarian shorthand.

it's like when we talk about reality without explicitly acknowledging the solipsistic problems with the assumption that one can trust one's own senses (brain-in-a-vat stuff). we treat gravity as if it were absolute because it's useful and has a flawless track record so far, but the scientific method itself prevents us from defining it as absolute. there are no rules, only trends in the available data

i don't think i would agree with that. you can see plenty of scientists actually asserting things as absolutes all the time. it might have 'theory' attached to it in the text books, but not in every day discourse, at all.

Fair enough, law doesn't mean "absolute" though. I dunno where that idea came from.

I really gotta rollerskate outta here though, there are now way too many posts about this topic and I'm starting to feel embarrassed for all of us involved in it

and even if things are referred to as theory in a text book, it doesn't change the fact that they are people who's theories have influence. there is money in science. there is government interest in science, and scientists often rely on gov funding. data can be falsified, requests for data can be ignored, large sets of data can conveniently be accidentally deleted, etc. and there are authorities in science. to a layperson, scientists are the authorities. the scientists themselves probably always have over them, someone who could be viewed as an authority. would you say that there are no positions of higher influence in scientific circles? people who can maybe even pull strings and have careers ruined, or put on a fast track?

how are those not authorities?

  On 4/12/2013 at 12:45 AM, MisterE said:

i don't think i would agree with that. you can see plenty of scientists actually asserting things as absolutes all the time. it might have 'theory' attached to it in the text books, but not in every day discourse, at all.

I think it's more a matter of levels of confidence than certainty.

The reason scientists speak confidently about things like gravity, relativity, evolution and the big bang is because thus far nothing observed in the natural world has yet conflicted with these models (as soon as any of them were contradicted they would be thrown in the garbage). And the more and more we observe the more confident we get about these theories. But that confidence never ever reaches the level of certainty.

but scientists can be seen talking about things as if they are absolute certainties all the time, regardless of whether it is written down somewhere or chiseled into a stone tablet, as being absolute truth.

and their talking like that has influence on people.

  On 4/12/2013 at 1:04 AM, MisterE said:

but scientists can be seen talking about things as if they are absolute certainties all the time, regardless of whether it is written down somewhere or chiseled into a stone tablet, as being absolute truth.

and their talking like that has influence on people.

can you give an example?

i read a pop science book on proving fermats last theorem a while a go, it stated that there is not yet such a thing as scientific proof, not proof as in mathematics.

  On 4/12/2013 at 1:12 AM, messiaen said:

it stated that there is not yet such a thing as scientific proof, not proof as in mathematics.

nor will there ever be (IMO)

  On 4/12/2013 at 1:12 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/12/2013 at 1:04 AM, MisterE said:

but scientists can be seen talking about things as if they are absolute certainties all the time, regardless of whether it is written down somewhere or chiseled into a stone tablet, as being absolute truth.

and their talking like that has influence on people.

 

can you give an example?

 

sure. Neil deGrasse Tyson. probably every time he talks with a camera pointing at him, he talks about stuff that we now know. same with every other scientist you see on the history channel or anywhere on tv. do you really want me to find you specific examples? i'm looking at a video where he's talking about how we know what goes on in the center of stars, and how that is where all of the elements come from. does that count?

i also see him throwing out that retarded 1% statistic about how we are only 1% different from chimps, with our DNA. that's so misleading it's a joke. they say that all people share 99.9% dna. they also say that we share 99% of it with mice. it could be said that we share a % of DNA with an apple pie. maybe the amount of DNA that all or most living things has in common should be removed from the comparison before trying to talk about how closely related two animals/species/whatever are? for example lets say for simplification that all living things share 50% dna. wouldn't it make sense to discard that part, and only look at what is different between the species, before comparing how much of the molecule we have in common with chimps, as if that number should make some kind of point? if we also share 99% of dna with mice, then Tyson's point in mentioning that we share 99% of dna with chimps is rendered 100% bullshit. but people happily propagate that. DNA is a molecule with a huge amount of information in it, so if huge chunks of it are common among ALL species, then it's completely pointless and intellectually dishonest to pick one species to compare us to in a conversation to support a point. Tyson's point was that if we are only 1% different from chimps but this much more intelligent than them, imagine a being 1% more different/advanced than us. i mean we supposedly also share 50% with a god damned banana. so nevermind that fact that within that measly 1% there are millions of bits of information. it may be true, but the throwing out of the stat as if it shows how much like some other species we are is intellectually dishonest. usually they throw out the comparison to chimps at 98/99% because evolution right? we came from them so wow look at how 'close' to them we actually are. but then it turns out we are also 99% like mice? it's pretty obvious that there is a world of difference between us and mice, so there must be a lot of info in that 1%. but people lap it up.

and ok, there are HUGE differences between religion and science, obviously. i get that. the foundation of science is measurements of phenomena, the basis for religion can be philosophical ideas, moral codes, old stories in old books with any number of possible interpretations, and in cases like cults it can be the personal gain of a single person. maybe there could be more to it. there could actually be some kind of biological urge for religious devotion, possibly even a product of evolution itself. people are afraid of death and the unknown too.

so my comparison was just to focus in on that relationship between the general public and what are to them, scientific and religious authorities. and how both could be used to manipulate society, because of the ignorance of the public on both topics. the public has to weigh whatever they are told and form an opinion on it, but in both cases, for most people, they will be forming opinions on something they don't actually know to any real degree of certainty. they are placing faith in scientists, and/or priests.

Firstly, we didn't come from chimps. We descend from a common ancestor.

Second, can you concisely state your grievance? I think more than anything DeGrasse uses these sorts of numbers to wax poetic and philosophic about human intelligence and alien intelligence and worm intelligence and mice intelligence and humility. I don't think he's trying to pull a fast one on anyone.