|
|
|
 |

May 19th, 2003, 08:05 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Linghem, Östergötland, Sweden
Posts: 2,255
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
quote: Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers
|
Not really. (link) So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!
|

May 19th, 2003, 08:31 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
In all the times I have discussed creation/evolution with evolutionists, I have not been accused of being closed-minded about science; but I have been accused of being closed-minded because I would not accept macroevolution and origins theory as more scientific than creation. That reflects a mindset of superiority and a refusal to distinguish between belief and science.
|
The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world. Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point. Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach. This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.
|

May 19th, 2003, 08:32 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruatha:
So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!
|
Perhaps I should have elaborated more. It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).
__________________
Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.
|

May 19th, 2003, 08:37 PM
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,727
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Originally posted by Krsqk:
[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below.
|
Actually, it was my third in this thread. I encourage everyone who can to go back a few pages and give my other Posts, one of which was very essay-like, a read. While you all are back there, catch up on the thread as a whole. This is the sort of thread that can revisit issues.
Perhaps you should say "essay before Last"...
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).
|
Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.
Crack-science serves only to line the pocketbooks of crack-scientists. If I found out that my tax dollars were paying the bills for some clipboard jockey filing reports on something that Science has proven (really, really proven) will not work I would not be pleased. I might write a letter. I might just vote.
Quote:
Originally posted by Krsqk:
"I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'"
|
I like 'In the beginning, dirt.'! That pretty much sums up a health secular outlook.
The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...
I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.
[edited for lag]
[ May 19, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Loser ]
|

May 19th, 2003, 08:39 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process.
|
So I see I failed to get through to you on the explaination of the term "faith" in the Last debates on these issues... should I go dig up those Posts again? You are using the wrong connotations of faith in the wrong place here...
|

May 19th, 2003, 08:47 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world.
|
Arbitrary vs. Arbitrary - equivalent; of course, the arbitrary person you refer for the creationist side isn't (in most cases) still around to have their evidence questioned - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there for him/her to view, which you seem to assume.
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point.
|
Why not? Many of the great advancements in science have come about from someone assuming something with no empirical reason, checking it against observed evidence, and finding a better fit than previous theories.
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach.
|
Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.
|
Doesn't apply to theories about the past, as they cannot be properly tested. Besides, there is historical precedent for theories to become widely accepted by the scientific community without being subject to this bombardment, as was the early Version of evolution as Darwin wrote it.
__________________
Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.
|

May 19th, 2003, 09:00 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In the diaspora.
Posts: 578
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.
There is no way anyone can prove how old is a rock. That is a fact.
Of course, the High Priests of the new religion wants you to abandon the ways of the old religion.
Just like every time before.
That's why I embrace technology, but not that cult called Science
[ May 19, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: Aloofi ]
__________________
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
When somebody says he is going to kill you.........believe him. -Holocaust survivor
.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|