An honest answer for a newbie, please.

Guide to the World's Philosophers - philosophers.co.ukcurious on your thoughts of this article

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:
Guide to the World's Philosophers - philosophers.co.uk

​

curious on your thoughts of this article

---

It strikes me as being pretty descriptive of how science actually works. I'd venture the statement that other arenas function the same way, not just science. Maybe you have a more specific question? Comment? I don't know if I'm on the right track.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:
Guide to the World's Philosophers - philosophers.co.uk

​

curious on your thoughts of this article

---

​

It strikes me as being pretty descriptive of how science actually works. I'd venture the statement that other arenas function the same way, not just science. Maybe you have a more specific question? Comment? I don't know if I'm on the right track.

---

i agree with john... sometimes an observation is made that flies in the face of accepted scientific thought (such as the bbt)... often (we see it in some areas of science more easily than others) an attempt is made to mold these observations into a preconceived box... when this fails, sometimes the new paradigm is criticized almost to a point from which it can't recover... if the evidence is so strong that the preconcieved box implodes, the new paradigm becomes the standard, and challenges to it are handled the same way (speaking of paradigms in individual disciplines)seldom is there a paradigm shift in the scientific community, at least not of the type where you see large groups of disciplines abandoning their presuppositions in order to embrace, or even reflect upon, the new paradigm... the mini-debate in another forum on red shift and humphreys is an example... if a new paradigm seems to conflict with a belief system held my most members of a community, adherents to the new paradigm find their numbers growing slowly, if at all... sometimes they shrink... peer pressure never stops working our entire livesof course just because there is a new paradigm doesn't mean the conceptions it challenges were wrong... but it's good that thinkers are free to think, it's good that objectors are free to object.. we (the lay person) can only hope that all parties are working in good faith so that the information we receive is honest and factual

"I am sorry that you do not understand but I cannot force you to think outside of your trick question."
--I am curious about Johns notion of 'no causality'. I have followed this thread briefly, and have seen little scientific application, and much more semantics. Explain to me this 'theory' of no causality. Is there potential falsification? If space-time does not exist, thus there being no room even at a singularity. Without appeals to cause and effect, explain to me how existence is formed with only non-existence to work with? Why is your scenario scientific and not wishful thinking? Your 'explanation' seems to be only correct in rhetoric, but completely inapplicable in reality. This sounds like sophistry.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Your 'explanation' seems to be only correct in rhetoric, but completely inapplicable in reality. This sounds like sophistry.

​

---

Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply."
--You have no singularity either. A singularity is an 'asymptote' in space-time. You have neither of these to work with. So, do you have the resources to answer my questions?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--You have no singularity either. A singularity is an 'asymptote' in space-time. You have neither of these to work with. So, do you have the resources to answer my questions?

---

TC, call it what you will. It makes not difference. The point is that causality is tied to space-time-- causality as we know it anyway. Causality implies time and space. No spacetime, there goes our comfy rules of causality as well. Now maybe there is causality without space and time but it isn't what we know from experience within spacetime.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

"TC, call it what you will. It makes not difference. The point is that causality is tied to space-time-- causality as we know it anyway. Causality implies time and space. No spacetime, there goes our comfy rules of causality as well. Now maybe there is causality without space and time but it isn't what we know from experience within spacetime."
--How do you know that 'causality' is so attached to space-time that it does not exist if space-time does not exist? Space time still exists in a singularity and is only warped. Your explanation here is the semantics of your argument, you have not applied it to reality yet. Is there potential falsification of your 'theory of causality'?------------------

quote:

---

The theory stated that every time a memory or a thought happens a virtual black hole is formed in the brain. And if this other dimension were infinitely large, that would account for the infinitely large memory capacity of our brains.

---

But if we have not lived an infinite length of time, we really have no way of knowing if we have an "infinitely large memory capacity". What evidence is provided that our brains have an "infinitely large memory capacity?I can think of memory research that contradicts the idea that our memories have an infinitely-large capacity.How can something be "formed in the brain" if it is virtual?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2002]

quote:

---

seldom is there a paradigm shift in the scientific community, at least not of the type where you see large groups of disciplines abandoning their presuppositions in order to embrace, or even reflect upon, the new paradigm... the mini-debate in another forum on red shift and humphreys is an example... if a new paradigm seems to conflict with a belief system held my most members of a community, adherents to the new paradigm find their numbers growing slowly, if at all... sometimes they shrink... peer pressure never stops working our entire lives

---

Are you implying that scientists tend to resist new ideas because they feel pressure from their peers to continue to think the way the group thinks?If so, you don't have a very accurate view of the competative nature of science.Many scientist's careers are made when they overturn part or all of some past scientist's important work.Gould and Elderidge are famous, in part, because they made a large modification in Darwin's theory. Einstein is famous, in part, because he modified Newton. It is considered a particularly excellent coup to overturn the findings of a famous past scientist in your field.Have you ever been to a scientific conference? Scientists rip each other's ideas up, as to how they do or do not reflect the evidence, as a matter of course. It is the way of science. It is quite vigourously contentious and not monolithic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
How do you know that 'causality' is so attached to space-time that it does not exist if space-time does not exist?

---

Maybe you missed what my original statement. What I contend is that at the edges of our universe, all bets are off.Why do I think that causality is tied to space-time? ... a cause PRECEEDS its effect, for example. If the cause occurs after the effect it is hardly causality as we experience it, yes? Describe to me a cause or an effect that does not occur in space?

quote:

---

Space time still exists in a singularity and is only warped.

---

Warped to zero, TC. Divide by zero and see what happens. Lets see, space-time exists but is infinitely massive and occupying zero space--- of wait, it is space in the case of the BB. But it has no size....I am not making this stuff up. It has been part of cosmology for a hundred years. Hawking, in fact, has gone to great trouble to get around the problem of the breakdown of the laws of nature at the BB singularity.

quote:

---

Is there potential falsification of your 'theory of causality'?

---

Sure. It ought to be settled by cosmologists, eventually.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[quote] [B]

quote:

---

seldom is there a paradigm shift in the scientific community, at least not of the type where you see large groups of disciplines abandoning their presuppositions in order to embrace, or even reflect upon, the new paradigm... the mini-debate in another forum on red shift and humphreys is an example... if a new paradigm seems to conflict with a belief system held my most members of a community, adherents to the new paradigm find their numbers growing slowly, if at all... sometimes they shrink... peer pressure never stops working our entire lives

---

Are you implying that scientists tend to resist new ideas because they feel pressure from their peers to continue to think the way the group thinks?[/quote]no, i know it's competitive, even within disciplines... i'm saying that scientists are human too, they bring their own presuppositions to the table... those who believe in macroevolution, for example, know it's not "scientific" (repeatable, falsifiable, etc) so they aren't going to be quick to adopt a new paradigm if it includes a disbelief in macroevolution.. that's just an example, by the way

[QUOTE][B]no, i know it's competitive, even within disciplines... i'm saying that scientists are human too, they bring their own presuppositions to the table... those who believe in macroevolution, for example, know it's not "scientific" (repeatable, falsifiable, etc [/QUOTE][/B]You mean, it's not repeatable in that it cannot be done in a lab. But the sciences of geology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, forensic pathology, and others have the same problems yet they are sciences.It is repeatable in that it happens. Speciation has been observed. Macroevolution is obeserved through fossils...and since there are more fossils out there to be found it is still being tested. It could be falsified if the right kinds of fossils were found...people from the Precambrian for example. Clovis points in a hadrosaur femur. That kind of thing. Yet we don't find those. What we do find is dinosaurs with bird femurs and "human" skeletons with very primitive features. This sort of thing cries out for evolution.The most common argument that is levied in evolution is that not enough transitionals are being found. That's just a very blunt way of saying not all the data is in yet, hardly a serious challenge to the predominant paradigm in biology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You mean, it's not repeatable in that it cannot be done in a lab. But the sciences of geology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, forensic pathology, and others have the same problems yet they are sciences.

---

hmmm... ok... but those sciences, is the problem of repeatability the only thing they have in common with macroevolution? iow, are they observeable? falsifiable? [quote] The most common argument that is levied in evolution is that not enough transitionals are being found. That's just a very blunt way of saying not all the data is in yet, hardly a serious challenge to the predominant paradigm in biology. [/B][/QUOTE]ok, let me ask you a serious question here... can i use the above paragraph for my worldview, and if i can will it be accepted the way you want yours accepted? for example, can i reword your paragraph to read:"The most common argument that is levied ~~my edit~~ against the creation of the universe by God ~~end edit~~ is that not enough ~~my edit~~ proofs of his existence ~~end edit~~ are being found. That's just a very blunt way of saying not all the data is in yet, hardly a serious challenge to the predominant ~~my edit~~ worldview held by most people ~~end edit~~."if your paragraph is acceptable, it seems to me mine is also... yet, i doubt it will be

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

hmmm... ok... but those sciences, is the problem of repeatability the only thing they have in common with macroevolution? iow, are they observeable? falsifiable?

---

What would this matter? Evolution is both observable and falsifiable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

ok, let me ask you a serious question here... can i use the above paragraph for my worldview, and if i can will it be accepted the way you want yours accepted? for example, can i reword your paragraph to read:

​

"The most common argument that is levied ~~my edit~~ against the creation of the universe by God ~~end edit~~ is that not enough ~~my edit~~ proofs of his existence ~~end edit~~ are being found. That's just a very blunt way of saying not all the data is in yet, hardly a serious challenge to the predominant ~~my edit~~ worldview held by most people ~~end edit~~."

​

if your paragraph is acceptable, it seems to me mine is also... yet, i doubt it will be

---

From where I stand your paragraph is not acceptable mostly because it isn't accurate. It isn't that not enought evidence for your god is being found. It is that NO evidence for your god (or any other) is being found. Perhaps if we had some evidence that there was a a god-like being out there that was interfering in the way the universe operates. That would still leave us with questions as to its nature. It could be any number of gods (Christ, Zeus, Thor, etc) or it could be some god that we have never considered, or it might just be extremely powerful but not a god at all.------------------
compmage