|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5192 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
If you wander the world and ask a question of the laws of science, you get the same result. No exceptions.
Ok, lets go ask the people of Hiroshima what they think of the atom bomb, then go ask an American. Its not the laws of science I have the problem with, its what we do with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Maybe you should do a little study on this.
No need to, you just proved my point. Fingerprinting was all fine and good, until we found it to be flawed. But hey, no big deal, its science, it can be wrong, until its right! WooHooo! Its not science, its what we do with it, that is the problem. Just like its not God, its what we do with it (religion) that is the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
We thought that no two fingerprints were the same because manual observation of fingerprints had shown no examples of two identical prints from different people. The argument was thst X number of prints have been examined and no two identical prints found. It never said that "we would not find two identical prints, only that so far we had not".
Right, lol, this brings me back to the big debate I had with schraf about odds, and probability. Science is based on that, and I feel it is a big mistake, but a necessary one I guess. I will ask you, if the odds of winning the lotto are 17 million to 1, and you win on your first play, then your personal odds for that play are 1 to 1. What did we learn from that? Knowing the odds, means you have to know all the variables, and possibilties, and we will never really know all that. Especially now, we are finding out that yes, some things can happen by mere chance, well until we find out that we were wrong, at aleast.
With the advent of computers and the combinination of the many fingerprint databases into one unified database, it then became possible to make such comaprisions.
Right, we are limited.
Science is self correcting.When evidence is found that overturns a supposition, then science does just that. It says "What we believed was wrong and we can no longer support that belief."
Otherwise known as the back peddle claus. For a bunch of people who claim to know so much, they really don't do they.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Does anyone know in here how science and religion can get along?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What makes you think I fear death? quote: What I actually said was that fearing the unknown, including death, is part of the human condition and I implied that this is why many of us tend to cling to belief systems which give us "ultimate absolute answers" reagardless of that belief having no rational basis in facts. I do not particularly fear death, personally, as an individual.
That's why the entire scientific method and peer-review system is designed to be a powerful, sophisticated, illogic and bias detection system. quote: Because science, being a human-run endeavor, is not perfect. But we did, eventually, correct ourselves, right? It was continued application of the scientific method, and nothing else, which led to the correction of this error, right? ..and that strongly suppors my claim that science is a very good tool to use to detect bias and illogic. Sometimes it takes a while (because humans are using the tool) but it can get us closer to the truth about natural phenomena if we use it properly.
quote: Well, I do believe that some people are addicted to drama in their lives and the spikes in adrenaline that come with it.
You DON'T think skeptically nor scientifically about your religious experiences, rat, that much is clear. quote: You immediately jumped to the "Godidit" conclusion WRT your laughing incident.
What happened, and what you interpreted and perceived about what happened are two different things, rat. quote: Ooooh, spooky! It must feel pretty exciting to have all of these "unexplainable" things happen around you, eh rat? Makes your heart beat a little faster, doesn't it? Feels pretty powerfully emotional and special, right? Did it ever ocur to you that just because YOU are not able to come up with a mundane explanation, doesn't mean that there isn't one?
quote: You have been given several alternate explanations, but you have rejected all of them. I strongly suspect that you are going to reject any and all alternate explanations.
You experienced the situations through the misty cloud of emotion and personal bias. There was nothing that anyone could even remotely call "objective" in your recording of the event. quote: So, people rolling on the floor, laughing, has nothing to do with emotion? Your just having had a spiritual experience with your fellow believers had nothing to do with emotion? There are no emotions connected to your spiritual beliefs or faith at all?
The fact that you think you are somehow immune from your biases just shows how deeply devoted you are to keeping hold of them. quote: Group spiritual experiences greatly heighten emotions. Laughter is infectious. You are jumping to the wrong conclusions about causes. You are indulging in post hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
quote: Well, MY point is that you, due to your bias, did a poor job of gathering facts, and you are do determined that God HAD TO be the explanation that you are blind to any other explanation. See, YOU were the one that was there, rat. YOU are the one who should be trying really hard to come up with any other explanation than Godidit if you want to show that you are thinking about this objectively and not just jumping immediately to Godidit. But you aren't trying. You have already made up your mind, and then you have the gall to expect US to explain to you how God wasn't making everybody laugh. That's how you don't think about these things objectively, rat.
quote: Oh please, you get backed into a corner and now you drag out the Devil?
quote: Well, that's not entirely true. Bias can be corrected for to a great extent. You can test for bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Well, I am going summerize what I am trying to say here, and I'll give everyone the last reponse. I think we got off the topic too much.
I agree with the OP completely, and was just tryng to help break it down a little. To show just what peer pressure in a church can do to a person. Science can be good, and religion can be good, but they also can both be bad. You may choose to devote yourself to science because you like the method, but you will live your whole life, and never know the answers to most questions. Plus there are some questions that science may never be able to answer, because of the limitations of the universe we live in. This is a possibility. Religion may also never be able to answer your questions either, but I believe if you keep searching, that God will point you in the right direction. Follow your heart, God put directions there. I love science, and I love my religion. But even more, I love God, and I love you guys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5192 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Soz but doesn’t this Beg the question?
Every observed raven is black Pete has a raven Pete's raven is black. Doesn’t this implicitly assume that Pete’s raven has been observed, as the second condition only states he owns a raven but mentions nothing as to it’s observed status? surely it should be.
Every observed raven is black
Pete has observed his raven Pete's raven is black.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Incorrect. Science is a method of inquiry used to discover and understand natural phenomena. It is the most reliable one we have found thus far.
quote: Science, as a method, is biased in favor of the evidence, it's true.
quote: No, religion, being non-testable and relevatory in nature, is fraught with far, far more potential for error than science. Science is self-correcting, religion is dogmatic.
quote: Rat, are you really going to say stupid things such as the above this late in the game? Come on, now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, it depends what you mean by "truth". If you are referring to some Ultimate Absolute Truth, deep with meaning and Irrefutable, then no, science has nothing to do with finding that. That is religion's claim; that it has The Ultimale Absolute Truth that is Irrefutable. Science is the search for truth regarding natural phenomena, but it is also understood that we will never have perfect knowledge. That is the scientific tenet of tentativity.
quote: "truth", with a small "t". Science is a method, a tool.
quote: That is a poor definition. There is nothing in science which is considered to be absolutely true.
quote: But don't you always say that you cannot show any evidence to anyone else for God, and that it is an individual thing? That is not how the scientific method works at all. The scientific method requires constant verification from outside sorces and parties. It is the opposite of what you describe, in fact.
quote: The same is true for every possible subject of study. How does it follow that science and religion are the same just because it's impossible to know everything about either in a lifetime?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How on earth does this follow? Please explain to me how the fact that we are not all working towards "righteous goals" (whatever that means) shows that the scientific method is biased in favor of anything other than the evidence? Remember, you have to show that the METHOD is biased, because that is the claim you just made.
quote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *Wipes tear from eye, gasping from laughing so hard* Almost all science is money driven, riverrat? Can you point to all of those wealthy scientists living it up in their vacation homes in Maui and in their penthouses in Manhattan?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
If you wander the world and ask a question of the laws of science, you get the same result. No exceptions. quote: This is a dishonest debate tactic, rat. You know very well that the question you asked and was answered had nothing at all to do with "what we do with the laws of science" and everything to do with your claim that religion and science were very similar. The truth is, if you went to Japan and asked Japanese Nulear Physicists about how an atomic bomb works, they would give you the exact same answer as an American Physicist's would give. And that is the great, great difference between religion and science. Don't you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Maybe you should do a little study on this. quote: OK, now you're just behaving like a child. Science is self-correcting. Religion has no means to correct itself; instead, it just sends off splinter groups and spawns new religions, each of which hold to it's new doctrine as the Absolute Truth. Don't you agree that this is a fundamental difference between science and religion?
quote: That's not what you were saying before. You were saying that the scientific method itself was biased and flawed. Are you backing away from that now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Science is self correcting.When evidence is found that overturns a supposition, then science does just that. It says "What we believed was wrong and we can no longer support that belief." quote: Call it what you want. It is better to be able to admit a mistake and work to correct it when the error comes to light than forever cling to error with no desire or hope of correcting it.
quote: I think that if you think that scientists claim to "know so much", you havn't spoken to many scientists. On the other hand, you claim to know that God exists, and all of these things that you, personally can't think of any explanation for, just HAVE to be caused by God. Seem to me that you are the one claiming to "know so much."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Religion needs to stop meddling and interfering with science and then all will be well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
It seems that a lot of what's being posted does not belong in this topic. Topic turning into a babble fest, which may be fun times but is not the way things are intended to operate around here.
Will probably reopen in an hour or two. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024