Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 335 of 389 (631654)
09-02-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Dogmafood
09-02-2011 8:12 AM


Re: ad populum
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Dogmafood, posted 09-02-2011 8:12 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 9:05 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 337 of 389 (631658)
09-02-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 8:14 AM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:
I suspect it is the contents and not the shape of what I am saying you are so uncomfortable with.
I don’t know. Haven’t figured out what you were trying to say yet.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
I am sure you would be still less happy with my meaning if I wrote the post in the style of Hemingway.
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!
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Anyway, the gist of it was that the expert is very happy with the blind acceptance of his expertise by the layman,..
That sounds very much like religion. Never experienced that when I was studying.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
the expert would never say: "I am likely be totally wrong..
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.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
and if the layman believes that I know better than he does that is all down to his ignorance.
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.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
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".
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.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Still hard to decipher?
Yes, you still don’t make sense at all.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 8:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 10:27 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(6)
Message 364 of 389 (631982)
09-05-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-04-2011 10:27 AM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:
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.
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.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
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.
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.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Traditionally such claims are made only by priests and philosophers which is firmly placing cosmologists in either of these groups.
Cosmologists are firmly placed in the natural sciences. Nowhere else.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
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.
Natural scientists don’t belong to any of these groups. Different methods, you see.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
They are mostly on the side of the physical and logical necessity whereas the priests on the whole plump for magic.
No, natural scientists are on the side of empirical evidence. That’s it.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Otherwise both are equally self-assertive and dogmatic.
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.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Now since the modern cosmologists in their explanations invoke a lot of magic such as space in proper motion,.
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?
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
the whole of existence popping out of nothing to expand into nowhere,.
A straw man. There’s absolutely no scientific theory claiming anything even close to this.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
the laws of necessity possibly breaking at a certain point and in certain conditions, etc.
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?
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
that firmly places them in the category of priests. Simple.
Your straw men would. Luckily your straw men don’t exist in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 10:27 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 365 of 389 (631991)
09-05-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 9:05 AM


Re: ad populum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 9:05 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 3:02 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 369 of 389 (632517)
09-08-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Portillo
09-08-2011 3:02 AM


Re: ad populum
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:
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 .
Furthermore, he held the post as Professor of Geology at King’s College.
Wiki writes:
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.
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.
By the way, how is your homework going?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 3:02 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 10:25 PM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 371 of 389 (632571)
09-08-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Portillo
09-08-2011 7:49 AM


Re: ad populum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 7:49 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Dogmafood, posted 09-08-2011 4:37 PM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 374 of 389 (632616)
09-09-2011 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Portillo
09-08-2011 10:25 PM


Re: ad populum
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
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.
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.
They don’t follow the scientific method. Therefore not science. Therefore not peer-reviewed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 10:25 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by DubyaDeeEm, posted 09-10-2011 5:38 PM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 375 of 389 (632617)
09-09-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Dogmafood
09-08-2011 4:37 PM


Re: ad populum
That's why you're not a creationist. You know how much you don't know. Only they think they know it all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Dogmafood, posted 09-08-2011 4:37 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 379 of 389 (632636)
09-09-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Larni
09-09-2011 5:34 AM


Re: Shows what you know.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Larni, posted 09-09-2011 5:34 AM Larni has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 386 of 389 (632929)
09-11-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by DubyaDeeEm
09-10-2011 5:38 PM


Re: ad populum
DubyaDeeEm writes:
Sorry. This is an unfair appraisal of what Behe said.
Not at all. Here is the link again Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by DubyaDeeEm, posted 09-10-2011 5:38 PM DubyaDeeEm has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024