|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Alfred Maddenstein writes: Hey, you called me (a geologist) simple-minded. Speak for yourself. I’m not. I know a lot about my speciality. I was appointed to do a job as an expert on that subject. I'm doing rather well, too. Unfortunately in spite of the intrinsic impossibility of those complicated matters being explained in a way to make sense to the commoners by the caste of those well qualified, it is those simple-minded janitors, engineers, geologists and philosophers on whose faith in the correctness of the explanations offered by the elite of mathemagicians, the very upkeep and existence of the mathemagicians entirely depends. I'm not simple-minded enough to tell all those experts on the subjects of physics, maths, cosmology, etc. that they all are wrong. I don't know enough about those subjects to do it. That's not simple-mindedness, it's facing reality.Dogmafood writes: Exactly. The experts do have a more relevant opinion than people who only pretend to be experts when talking to complete novices on that subject.
Fortunately, we are moving toward a time when the truth is not dependant on it's popularity or ease of comprehension. There is plenty of nutritional value in a steak but not if you are a herbavore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Alfred Maddenstein writes: I don’t know. Haven’t figured out what you were trying to say yet. I suspect it is the contents and not the shape of what I am saying you are so uncomfortable with. Alfred Maddenstein writes: I don’t know. What was the style of Hemingway (remember, I’m not a native English speaker. Never read a Hemingway book in my life)? Ever heard of N.P. van Wyk Louw? Now that’s the best writer, ever! I am sure you would be still less happy with my meaning if I wrote the post in the style of Hemingway. Alfred Maddenstein writes: That sounds very much like religion. Never experienced that when I was studying. Anyway, the gist of it was that the expert is very happy with the blind acceptance of his expertise by the layman,..Alfred Maddenstein writes: The expert would say, I could be wrong, what do you think? The expert would even give reasons why he or she might be wrong. the expert would never say: "I am likely be totally wrong.. Alfred Maddenstein writes: This doesn’t make sense. I’ve mentored quite a few students, not laymen, and some of their ideas were actually way better than mine. I accepted those ideas. I know more now. and if the layman believes that I know better than he does that is all down to his ignorance. Alfred Maddenstein writes: The layman is welcome to do it. There’s lots of Universities all around the world where they can do exactly that. The only problem then is: when they study physics and maths, they still don't become experts on geology, chemistry, cosmology, etc. The expert would never admit: if the layman studied physics and mathematics as long as I did, he would have easily seen all the blunders in my reasoning I fail to notice".Alfred Maddenstein writes: Yes, you still don’t make sense at all. Still hard to decipher? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Alfred Maddenstein writes: In science, things are written with the aim of getting your peers all over the world to understand exactly what ideas you are trying to convey. This includes using the accepted definitions of words. Word salads don’t make the publication stage. Okay, the style of Hemingway is called telegraphic. Simple, bare bones sentences. Unlike Faulkner's who was prone to make a sentence half a page long. I don't find one easier to understand than the other, by the way. Not really. All depends on the actual content and context and so on. Alfred Maddenstein writes: I’ve never seen any cosmologist, following the scientific method, making any claims to the ultimate nature of existence as a whole. I’ve only seen them giving verifiable evidence. No claims involved. Otherwise, you confuse the cosmologists and the rest of specialists. No other specialist is making any general claims as to the ultimate nature of existence as a whole. Alfred Maddenstein writes: Cosmologists are firmly placed in the natural sciences. Nowhere else. Traditionally such claims are made only by priests and philosophers which is firmly placing cosmologists in either of these groups. Alfred Maddenstein writes: Natural scientists don’t belong to any of these groups. Different methods, you see. Now, the only way to distinguish between the two groups is that the philosophers on the whole tend to offer natural explanations to the ultimate nature of existence. Alfred Maddenstein writes: No, natural scientists are on the side of empirical evidence. That’s it. They are mostly on the side of the physical and logical necessity whereas the priests on the whole plump for magic. Alfred Maddenstein writes: Luckily natural scientists don’t fall in either of these groups, except for the fewer than 0.1% who call themselves creationist scientists and have abandoned the scientific method. Otherwise both are equally self-assertive and dogmatic. Alfred Maddenstein writes: Oh, I don’t know. Physical phenomena measured for the first time in 1718, which could even then be explained naturally, wouldn’t really be called magic. Do you know what proper motion actually is? Now since the modern cosmologists in their explanations invoke a lot of magic such as space in proper motion,. Alfred Maddenstein writes: A straw man. There’s absolutely no scientific theory claiming anything even close to this. the whole of existence popping out of nothing to expand into nowhere,. Alfred Maddenstein writes: Do you mean the Laws of Nature? We’ve actually measured them breaking down in certain circumstances. I hope you realize that, what you call the laws of necessity, called Laws of Nature in the natural sciences, have been changed in the past when we measured that we were wrong about these laws? I don’t think you realize that the Laws of Nature only describe observed reality? the laws of necessity possibly breaking at a certain point and in certain conditions, etc. Alfred Maddenstein writes: Your straw men would. Luckily your straw men don’t exist in science.
that firmly places them in the category of priests. Simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
An opinion is like an arsehole: everybody has one.
That's why we've discovered a very good way of weeding out the ignorant opinions from the valid and relevant one's. A very reliable way is to go and do an in-depth study on the subject and get qualifications on that particular subject. At accepted, recognised institutions where quality control on the training is monitored. That's why we only allow trained, qualified medical doctors to be medical doctors. That's why we allow only trained, qualified geologists to work as geologists. MD's and geologists still would know just as much as chemists, engineers and janitors about the BBT. Not much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This criticism displays the error of trying to impose today’s standards on the people who lived in the past. This is done by creationists only to provide excuses for creationists with false or irrelevant degrees .
What you were saying about Darwin and Lyell was inaccurate anyway. There simply were no scientific degrees in those days. Darwin might have got a mathematics degree from Cambridge, but that would not have trained him as a scientist (or naturalist). Darwin studied under the best scientists of the day, including Henslow, Owen, Lyell and Grant. While doing the first years of medicine at Edinburgh, and then the theological studies at Cambridge, he gained the very best education in science one could get in those days. As his initial writings and specimens sent from the Beagle caused an immediate stir in the London scientific community (unknown to Darwin himself), he not only had an excellent reputation as a first class researcher upon his return, but was accepted by the naturalist community as an expert. Not only that, he also presented his research and findings to the scientific community for peer review. In other words he followed the scientific method to the letter. Creationists refuse to do it, but only present their findings in religious tracts. You are wrong about Lyell, too. He attended lectures from one of the best geologists of the time and was elected joint secretary of the Geological Society. In other words, his peers recognised him as an expert.Charles Lyell - Wikipedia Wiki writes: Furthermore, he held the post as Professor of Geology at King’s College. Lyell entered Exeter College, Oxford in 1816, and attended William Buckland's lectures. He graduated B.A. second class in classics, December 1819, and M.A. 1821.[2][3] After graduation he took up law as a profession, entering Lincoln's Inn in 1820. He completed a circuit through rural England, where he could observe geological phenomena. In 1821 he attended Robert Jameson's lectures in Edinburgh, and visited Gideon Mantell at Lewes, in Sussex. In 1823 he was elected joint secretary of the Geological Society. As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.[3] His first paper, "On a recent formation of freshwater limestone in Forfarshire", was presented in 1822.[3] By 1827, he had abandoned law and embarked on a geological career that would result in fame and the general acceptance of uniformitarianism, a working out of the idea proposed by James Hutton a few decades earlier .Wiki writes: So, next time Portillo, before believing and then spreading the deception you find on creationist websites, check your facts. Both Darwin and Lyell were recognised as experts. They followed the scientific method and also had their work peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Creationists don’t do any of these. Lyell had private means, and earned further income as an author. He came from a prosperous family, worked briefly as a lawyer in the 1820s, and held the post of Professor of Geology at King's College London in the 1830s. From 1830 onward his books provided both income and fame. Each of his three major books was a work continually in progress. All three went through multiple editions during his lifetime, although many of his friends (such as Darwin) thought the first edition of the Principles was the best written.[6] Lyell used each edition to incorporate additional material, rearrange existing material, and revisit old conclusions in light of new evidence.By the way, how is your homework going?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
No, the less you know, the more you think you do know.
One only becomes an expert at something the moment you realise how much you don't know about that subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Oh I see they mislead you about this, too? Goodness, don't you read anything other than creationist tracts?
Read something else. Ever heard of the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It involves one of the leading lights of ID, Dr. Michael Behe . Start reading this link: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe Remember, this is Dr. Michael Behe testifying under oath.
Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1
There you have it, Dr. Behe calls astrology a "scientific" theory. So if your star sign is a virgo and your daily horoscope predicts that you are going win a million bucks later today, ID would classify it as science. Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. They don’t follow the scientific method. Therefore not science. Therefore not peer-reviewed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
That's why you're not a creationist. You know how much you don't know. Only they think they know it all!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
And quite a few excellent scientists. This one is one of my favourites. iview
Prof. Geoff Taylor really is brilliant. Edited by Pressie, : Change "This one is my favouite" to "This one is one of my favourites" after thinking about a few other Aussie scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
DubyaDeeEm writes: Not at all. Here is the link again Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe. Sorry. This is an unfair appraisal of what Behe said. Behe made up his own definition of what he thinks a scientific theory is, all to pretend that ID is a scientific theory before the judge. Then he had to admit, under oath, that his made-up definition of a scientific theory would also include astrology as a scientific theory. In other words, ID is pseudo-science. He had to admit it under oath. The fact that he still pretends that ID is science when he speaks to the sheep in church and in religious tracts (which he also calls scientific), does say a lot about what his idea of honesty is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024