Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on May 21, 2007, 08:29:47 PM
-
Read an interesting article about a paper today:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/05/21/science-education-requires-overcoming-childhood-understanding
The basic idea is that kids form their own mistaken understanding of how things work at an early age, and that mysticism, astrology, and stuff like that is a side effect of this. It makes some interesting observations, thought some of you might find it interesting (at least, those who don't call to have me burned as a witch). :D
-
Well, that certainly explains lasersailor....
-
Ha! PWND!
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Well, that certainly explains lasersailor....
LOL!:rofl
-
"The authors cited a paper that showed that many college students erroneously believe that a ball traveling through a curved tube will continue to travel on a curved path once it exits."
This author may not have cosidered that a ball rolling through a curved tube will in fact be spinning when it exits said tube and a spinning ball will curve after leaving the tube. Wondering who the real dummy is here.
-
It really was a pointless editorial, with very cleverly hidden agendas.
Basically it says that as children, we believe things work the way we perceive them to until we choose to prove those beliefs otherwise. This is pretty much understood by everyone.
However, it insinuates that the parents control over what the child can learn could be damn near criminal because of content.
The author also fails to recognize what a choice is. And in the process, derides and insults at least half of the american population. He states that nearly most Americans trust the scientists, but only half believe them. He insults their intelligence, based on the simple fact that while they can trust him, they can choose to follow a different path.
If the author had continued to write for one more paragraph, he would have been demanding thought legislation and more control being taken away from parents.
-
Goodness, telepathy must be real, 'cuz Laser claims he can read the authors mind! Fascinating!
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Well, that certainly explains lasersailor....
I dunno lasersailor but it explains the Jebus people and the global warming deniers and all the other irrationals. Remember truth is not important. It's truthiness that matters. Objective facts? Sorry factinistas, I'm going with my gut!
-
Narrowing things down to a single variable is a method I remember recognizing as the only way to know something for sure from as far back as my memories go. It appeared far back enough that at the time it seemed my own idea.
The bit about earth's roundness being unimagineable, or out of reach of someone's mind till 8 years old... All you need to do is watch some scifi, or a zoom out from common to planetary scales, e.g. something like that documentary segment with the nano-scale to comsic-scale zooming.
A view from high enough will also reveal the curve in as as natural and credible a way as watching birds' poop fall down or any other more relate-able scene...
I do agree that learning/plasticity is something that solidifies, or gets into too much of a groove or mold, too quickly. Still too quickly for man's own good, in my opinion.
-
I always find it amusing when someone mocks another for ignorance when it is the mocker who is truly the ignorant one as in the curving ball story. Things may not always be as simple as even those who claim to be scientists often think.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
This author may not have cosidered that a ball rolling through a curved tube will in fact be spinning when it exits said tube and a spinning ball will curve after leaving the tube. Wondering who the real dummy is here.
A ball which exits a curved tube is does not necessarily spin. And a spinning ball does not necessarily curve.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
A ball which exits a curved tube is does not necessarily spin. And a spinning ball does not necessarily curve.
I agree. However, the question posed to the college students did not specify abnormal conditions. Under circumstances which any reasonable person might be expected to assume, a ball shot through a curved tube will contact the outer side of the tube which will impart a spin to the ball. Any nomal ball (which does not have a theortically smooth surface) will curve through the air if it is spinning sufficiently fast enough.
I think the author of that article, and probably the test creator, thought the students erroneously expected the ball to continue following the same path as that established by the tube because the tube imparted some sort of curving inertia. It appears to me that they didn't understand all of the dynamics involved sufficiently well enough to judge another's knowledge.
-
Even through out all these times, why can't people understand that's is as simple as a choice. You can't control what people choose.
-
Maybe we can get eskimo to test the ball through a tube thing and make us a video? ;)
-
A study that shows Pre-School age children have a hard time with the function of the brain. They are aware of the Brain being involved in math, but not the imagination aspect of pretending to be a Kangaroo. What a moron, most pre-schoolers think they Are Kangaroos, who's pretending??
Science and Education is nothing BUT overcoming childhood understandings! How much did this joker get paid to figure That one out.
-
I think Hamlet put it intriguingly if not substantively when he told Horatio "There are stranger things in this world than in all your philosophies".
My quote is lacking but the spirit was willing. ;)
-
this seems appropriate, but in the face of the Arstechnica piece...
MIMSY WERE THE BOROGOVES
'T was brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Alien toys, cast adrift through time,
Washed up on our shore,
Fall into the hands of children
Who wonder what they're for.
Children need to learn to see the world the way their parents do
If they learn to think a different way, they'll be gone from you
Before you know it...
Move the beads upon the wire frame
Make one disappear.
Learn to guide the people in the cube
You see so crystal clear.
There is more in heaven and on earth
Than your parents dream.
If you try, you'll understand at last
'Bout the way things seem.
Children need to learn to see the world the way their parents do
Now they learn to think a different way, and it's just as true,
But you don't know it...
Little girl no longer speaks in words
You can understand.
Little boy, no longer quite content
With his blocks and sand.
One dark night, you hurry to their room
Wakened by a cry,
Just in time to watch them fade away
Who knows where or why (where or why)
Children need to learn to see the world the way their parents do
These two learned to think a different way and now they're gone from you.
How could you know it?
Alien toys, cast adrift through time,
Washed up in the reeds.
Little girl tries to tell her friend
'Bout the sliding beads.
'T was brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.
And the mome raths outgrabe.
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Outgrabe!
-
Uh, is that english?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Uh, is that english?
Allow me to translate, it's full of stars. ;)
-
not sure Lazer... but the thrust of it is that small children have ways of thinking that are figuratively beat out of us by age 5. its something like pure intuition and creativity. then socialization forces them to think like adults -and this way of thinking is gone for good in most people. people who have made some of the great eureka-type discoverys still have some of that way of thinking. most of us adults do not...
i agree the article has a subtle agenda.
don't know where the piece originally came from, but it was quoted in something i read by Lewis Padgett, a 1943 short story by that title, "Mimsy Were the Borogoves". it is about some alien devices that come into our hands, and nobody can figure out what they are or how to make them work... except the very young children of course, who intuitively know how to understand the secrets of the universe until we beat it out of them.
The languages are actually a combo of english, french and german, according to an article i read.
You are correct AKIron!
-
If we are here for a reason, are we defeating our purpose or embracing it by seeking that from which we came?
-
no doubt we are embracing it. we were made for that.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i agree the article has a subtle agenda.
About as subtle as a brick.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
... the global warming deniers and all the other irrationals.
So it is irrational to come up with a contrarian view...
‘Tis the death of debate and that is the death knell of science.
-
I don't think that anyone denies that the globe gets warmer and cooler from time to time.. often... in one day!
There is a whackjob element tho that believes that the tiny amount of mans contribution to co2 (of all things) can warm the planet and overcome the natural effects of even the sun...
lazs
-
"There is a whackjob element tho that believes that the tiny amount of mans contribution to co2 (of all things) can warm the planet and overcome the natural effects of even the sun... "
Oh yeah, and some morons claim that oil is going to end and that whacking down trees in Brazil makes it more difficult for us to breathe! :D
-C+
-
"Two developmental psychologists at Yale are now suggesting these and many other non-scientific beliefs—their list includes "unproven medical interventions; the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences; the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies; and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination"—all originate in childhood"
"supernatural entities" = religion?, the omnipresent invisible man counts as "supernatural" IMO.. interesting article.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
There is a whackjob element tho that believes that the tiny amount of mans contribution to co2 (of all things) can warm the planet and overcome the natural effects of even the sun...
Your opinion is a good example of what they are talking about. Solid science is trumped by subjective impressions about the sun and an invisible atmospheric gas. I don't know if opinions like this are due to a lack of formal scientific study or a closed mind, but it shows what we are up against, and not just in the area of climate science.
-
yeah... that "climate science" thing that "we" are part of... Hell... I am just glad you guys were all wrong in the seventies when "science" told us that we would all be under an ice sheet here in North America by the year 2000 and... all caused by man.
I think it was man made dust particles in the air back then or some such...
so who is "we" lemur... not that many real climate scientists out there... I have listened to some of the most prestigious and they say that it is the sun not co2. I don't believe they (scientists) know much about it yet.
maybe your studies are different and you can prove it to me?
Hell.. they can't even tell you if butter is good for you or bad for you one year to the next. One thing is certain about science and scientists... they are wrong a lot... and.. they more complex the thing the more likely that they are wrong. And.. that they have no trouble saying "nevermind...sorry you lived your life based on one of our theories and it turned out to be wrong but... ya got to believe us this time."
lazs
-
I see Chair, so because my children are being taught Science by two committed Evangelical parents they won't be able to comprehend gravity or believe that the solar system is Heliocentric?
Would you mind explaining a few things, like how most of the scientific advances made prior to the 19th century were made by scientists who were also believing Christians? Why the Royal Academy of Science was founded by the Puritans, who were the most conservative evangelical Christians of their day? How it was that Sir Isaac Newton, in addition to making minor discoveries like the aformentioned gravity was also able to write an excellent and thoroughly evangelical commentary on the book of Daniel (I actually referred to it occasionally when I was preaching through Daniel last year)?
Funny how men like the Wright brothers have somehow overcome their Christian upbringing and convictions to make minor contributions to the progress of science, eh?
Perhaps there might be something in the fact that we Christians actually believe that God is a God of order and not confusion, and therefore that the universe is orderly, knowable, and has a purpose and that history is moving towards a good end, and further that He has created that Universe to give Him glory and that as we we observe His creation and figure out its laws and principles we glorify Him in the process.
It just might be that that would give us more incentive to "do science" than the idea that the universe is fundamentally without design or purpose, that meaning is an illusion, that order is a comforting lie we overlay on chaos and that in the end Science is a pointless endeavor that cannot "improve life" as life is a brief meaningless blip between two oblivions, that we are just temporarily sentient piles of matter engaging in frantic self-delusion because ultimately this universe and everything in it will die not with a bang but whimper as the last usable energy is expended. If such is the case, then what does it matter if the ball goes straight or curves on exiting the tube, and how could we ever really know anyway?
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, what are you talking about?
-
Chair,
You really don't understand what I was saying? My persistent cold, caused no doubt by demons and the evil eye (I'm not going to get better until we burn a witch or two, I'm sure of it!) must be making me even more incoherently fanatic and rabid than usual... Let me wipe the froth from the screen and I'll try to explain.
Timmer attacks religious belief in general, and Christianity in particular as an impediment to knowledge and the understanding of scientific principles. For instance:
The authors go into extensive details about two cases: rampant teleology and mind-body dualism. Children tend to believe that every object has a specific purpose or function, which fits in nicely with the teleological view of life espoused by many forms of creationism, such as intelligent design. They also view the mind and brain as operating on different levels and performing distinct functions.
And yet for centuries, Christian teleology and the belief of the survival of the soul gave men a reason to pursue science and an assurance that there were answers to be found and that they were actually part of the grand design of things.
Now we have this bizzarre respinning of world history, that makes the same Christian worldview that gave birth to most of the scientific advances of the modern age from about 1500 on, an impediment to science and which makes atheistic materialism the only hope for mankind to be able to actually figure out anything.
The funny thing is, if I wrote the same kind of thing from the opposing view, and submitted it to a scientific magazine, you'd immediately tag it as "religious" and "unfounded opinion" and dismiss it. However, the fact is that Timmer's article is an example of dogma. He is simply stating the beliefs of secular humanism, which in addition to being the ruling atheology of the scientific academy, is rapidly becoming the established religion of the Western nations.
The scary thing is, this is a faith that is saying things like "parents should not be able to teach their children any dogmas but ours" and "certain jobs should not be available to people who disagree with us". Evangelicals like myself are watching as we are gradually being consigned to the intellectual and social ghetto, and looking at previous experience with what happens when states become expressly materialistic, we can only wonder how long before someone starts thinking about camps and compulsory reeducation or perhaps a more "final" solution to our "God delusion."
-
"God delusion."
You read it yet? Good stuff.
-
Hi Dadano,
Originally posted by Dadano
You read it yet? Good stuff.
No, to tell the truth I haven't had the time, and I'm a little burned out on having to read books where its 1938 again and I'm the religion that is threatening the progress of humanity that needs to be isolated and dealt with. I had my fill for a little while with Sam Harris and his improbably titled Letter to a Christian Nation.
For the last 20 years I've been reading Dawkins (Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker), Pinker, Gould, Dennett, Eldredge, Harris, Russell, Scott, and a host of other popularizers of scientific materialism, I've even written a few critiques and reviews of their works, but in the end they all sound like me prior to about 1993 (albeit quite a bit more intelligent) and I'm tired of listening to me when I was still shaking my fist at God. These days I read them in order to be able to respond, but I have to admit that I don't do it as a labor of Love and as the amount of time I have to read shrinks I'm finding that I want to spend the time I have reading that which is edifying and profitable (or at least entertaining) to me. Too often I find I finish a book and just want the time it took to read back.
Just out of curiousity have you done any reading on the other side? Say Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Francis Beckwith, or James Sire?
- SEAGOON
-
I've always wondered why some people (maybe alot of people) believe science and religion have to be mutually exclusive.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Your opinion is a good example of what they are talking about. Solid science is trumped by subjective impressions about the sun and an invisible atmospheric gas.
Last time I saw some CO2 it was invisible.
-
What Majic said.
-
I'm tired of listening to me when I was still shaking my fist at God. - Chair
that is revealing... an angry butterfly in a bag, waiting to be released... and our Lord will be right there to forgive you and let you settle in His hand when you are finally released from your private hell... :)
-
and yet... catholic schools turn out better students than secular public schools... better in everything including science.
maybe it is because they look at science as a tool and not a religion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
that is revealing... an angry butterfly in a bag, waiting to be released... and our Lord will be right there to forgive you and let you settle in His hand when you are finally released from your private hell... :)
Gunthr, why'd you attribute that to me? That was Seagoon. I imagine this must be somewhat awkward...
-
not really Chair, other than posting without my reading glasses. you may be angry, i don't know. the rest of my post may well apply to you ... :)
-
Nope, not angry, just thought it was an interesting article.
-
chair is fair and balanced like NPR is fair and balanced...
The devil is in what they think are "interesting" Take NPR.. they can spend an hour on some book about a politician who is corrupt. guess which party the corrupt guy belonged to?
chair finds articles that try to debunk religion or show it and the people in it "interesting" and worth linking.
When you see what get's their attention and what they think needs to be spotlighted... it really doesn't matter how fair you are if you stack the deck.
It is like... if you are talking about race relations and you spend that time talking about the KKK or Wallace or something or... books on the sacrafices of the freedom riders say.. That is NPR.
Chair does it with religion. never a link to the charitable or the good.
I don't really like the tactic when used by him or NPR.
lazs
-
Lazs, the article addresses the roots of astrology, mysticism, and pseudosciences like that. Are you saying those are the on the same level as deep, religious convictions? Maybe I need to re-read the article, I didn't see it as an attack on religion. I thought it was an interesting analysis of how the psychic quackery and sorcery and whatnot end up being so pervasive, even when folks are grown up.
-
Chair, i can only assume that you have "issues" about faith in God - otherwise why would you regularly post what i would otherwise consider to be a troll - about the same thing over and over? you seem fixated on the topic. Maybe like Lazs implies you have an agenda, or maybe as i just theorized, you are crying out for help. either way, you sure do beat it to death...
i sure don't want to tell you what you can post or not, particularly if you like discussing issues around religeon and government, and belief in God. etc. but you do keep highlighting anti-religious articles or news that is often contemptuous but always a negative slant on religeon. im not even all that religious but i find it tiresome and the way you present these as "interesting" intellectually dishonest.
-
I am not implying anything.. the article implies that all "mysticism" including religion is the same.
I am not implying that you have an agenda.. I am saying your posts prove it. I don't care if it is labeled a "cry for help" or mean spirited agenda or whatever.. it is simply obvious. Your motives matter little to me.. I am not smart enough nor do I care enough, to worry about motive.
lazs
-
Hasty conclusions.. :)
-
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.
For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
Einstein in 1954 on His 75th Birthday
-
Fantastic quote, Dadano, thanks!
-
Is it not a fact, that science, religion, mysticism, astrology etc all have roots in the human need to explain the world or the universe around them? They are in that way related.
If people retain their childlike belief magic or whatever, can this be a surprise? Adults ensure that children believe in magic, Santa, fairies etc. This coming at the most impressionable part of their lives. We all retain a little of that into adulthood. In fact, I often think nostalgically of the time when I believed the world made sense. It's nice to believe life has a purpose other than ensuring the maintenance of the species.
Science of course, is mostly about what can be proved or demonstrated repeatedly. That is not to say the others are not in fact real, merely because we cannot prove them. I always believe, (in an intuitive and unscientific way), that just because something is not yet understood doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Going back in the past, many things we take for granted now would appear to be black magic. Electricity, bacteria, radio waves, etc etc.
I, for example believe in ghosts as a phenomenon, with the proviso that their existence is probably scientifically explainable but not just yet. We simply haven't advanced that far scientifically. I also believe, (with no scientific basis whatsoever) that the ability to predict the future is sometimes probably because of something to do with Einsteinian relativity. Both beliefs come about because of some experiences I've had. I can either deny them or try to rationalise in some form of pseudo scientific way. I chose the latter. Others choose a more mystical approach.
I don't, therefore dismiss intuition out of hand. Our instincts are well honed over millions of years and few scientists will claim to know how our subconscious works. Just because it's hard to prove something doesn't mean it's not real.
But I do have a problem when a religion, tries to push back science because it contradicts their world view. The old evolution-V-creationism debate. Although, I always maintain there is no debate. It's really caused by a literal belief in the bible which is not universal among Christians merely a small subset.
God and science are not mutually exclusive. But I don't believe in God. I'm not angry at God and I'm not part of any 'ism'. I simply don't believe there is some omnipotent being out there with my interests at heart however appealing that is. I'm quite happy to let others believe it, if it makes them happy. I'm sure Seagoon has never been happier since he stopped being angry at God. I'm happy for him even though I have my own views on that subject.
Christian teleology and the belief of the survival of the soul gave men a reason to pursue science and an assurance that there were answers to be found and that they were actually part of the grand design of things.
There doesn't have to be a grand scheme of things. I'm happy enough knowing that when I die it ends for me. That in itself gives me incentive enough to make the most of my life right now. That doesn't mean doing evil things. In any case as most people come to know, it's the nice stuff that makes life worth living, family, friends, good food and having something interesting and satisfying to do with your life. I don't need the fear of retribution or the loss of the golden ticket to heaven to make me be nice to people. I do it because it makes life more bearable and pleasant.
Simple as that.
-
Cpxxx, the article deals with undeniably mistaken theories.. whether born from freak occurences or made up from head to toe by bias such as anthropomorphism or other fancies of the mind. These things seem fine on their own but inevitably break down when subjected to consistency checks with larger fields of view of the whole picture. Eventualy a child will grow up to be at once aware of larger and larger amounts of the whole picture, and no fog of war (so to speak) is left for innacurate guesses as to what is unseen or how neighbouring parts coexist..
I often think nostalgically of the time when I believed the world made sense.
If something exists, it cannot not make sense.
Astrology for example. You can find in your first hits in google whole communities and/or so-called reference websites that add their own theories to astrology out of thin air.. there's tons and tons of stuff that doesn't match other parts of the system, and comparable amounts that are just not consistent even with the basic premises.
And yet it is kept around because it makes life more bearable and pleasant.
Simple as that.
And that's bias.. it's a conscious and deliberate departure from reason. It is kept around because that, not accurate description of reality, is its purpose.
There doesn't have to be a grand scheme of things.
Even the most minute irrational element anywhere in a predictive construct, a clockwork of rationality so to speak, will pollute the proverbial given time by the clock.
(http://www.physics.uci.edu/~jeff/grfx/miracle.gif)
-
Ok... I believe there is a god. I believe that science just doesn't have the ability to prove it yet tho.
lazs
-
I suspect science may never be able to prove the existence of the supernatural, something which may be by definition beyond our natural existence. I believe that we are here for a purpose, perhaps one we were aware of and even yearned for prior to our current incarnation, and while that belief is not evidence it is also not insubstantial.
-
I really don't mind what anyone believes regarding the existence of a higher power. i only care about my belief. i don't push my beliefs on anyone.
i just wonder about some of the evangelistic athiests who regularly make passive-aggressive aspersions and attempt to show supporting documentation in the guise of"interesting" news or articles, and insinuate that those who believe in some concept of God are stupid.
it reminds me of the old ladys who regularly show up at your door with pamphlets about all the reasons why you have to believe what they believe.
For some people, athiesm is not only a relgion, its a hobby. and, i suspect that in their own minds, when they feel that they have "proven" on a BB that there is no God and that the believers are stupid, they get some sort of an emotional payoff.
well, there are all kinds of people in this world. if that is what they want to do with their time, its ok with me.
like Gump, thats all i have to say about that.
-
Too bad the atheist will never be able to gloat and say "I told you so". ;)
-
Gunthr, as I understand it, it's the religious equivalent of those petty trolling evangelistis atheists you describe that Chairboy (mostly?) argues against. I think both of them are equally trite and puerile.
I have to say that watching Dawkins' militant atheist speech as given at TED was a bit puzzling. I mean, there's no god, so what's all the fuss about? Just ignore it and focus on what is real.
Instead people (more or less) like him not only work to disprove the supernatural interpretation of natural phenomena but also work to discuss and establish rules of things that couldn't be studied or accounted for anyway.. it's a waste of time.
Just like Religion is of absolutely zero value in concrete reality. What needs to be rooted out is not just pseudo-science but pseudo-spirituality/religion/etc, which was sort of what the article was after, as I understood it.
-
Atheism 101 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4321574955310561251)
Atheism102 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7619161192220036050&q=root+of+all+evil+dawkins+duration%3Along)
-
Yep... that's it.. the athiests are preaching at us because they know all the evil that religion does around the world and they want to stop everyone from practicing it so that we have a better world like say... soviet russia was where no one was killed in the name of religion.
Point is.. moot gets it.. it is disturbing to see how fervent the athiests get... I don't pretend to understand what drives em but I believe it is a combination of jealousy and anger. It may also have some aspects of eliteism involved.
Like moot says.. you don't believe in god? good deal. now shut up about it.
I say the same for the religious of one religion or another... you think we get 72 virgins when you die? great.. now shut up about it.
I understand that athiests don't want to be made to feel guilty about what they do and don't want someone telling them what to do...
neither do I... I hate socialists but... they actually can tell me what to do... the religious can't. I don't see them as a hated threat and I sure as hell don't feel guilty over the things they think I should feel guilty about.
As for the science? even einstien felt a presence.. he claimed it did not watch over us or had any real design but that makes no sense. I feel that there is a god and that we can tap into his strength if we ask. I feel that I have been given strength when I asked and it was more than I was capable of.
I don't pretend to understand my god past these simple things and don't expect you to even care.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't pretend to understand my god past these simple things and don't expect you to even care.
lazs
cool, now shut up about it
-
I mean, there's no god, so what's all the fuss about? Just ignore it and focus on what is real.
Dawkins' believes that Islamic/Judeo-Christian philosophy is dangerous. Much the same way as Einstein believed patriotism and nationalism were detrimental to humanity. It has to do with the divisiveness of the beliefs and the intolerance they breed. From this intolerance comes hate and from this hate comes persecution.
Edit: Not to mention children being intellectually abused. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/another_christian_science_fair.php)
-
Originally posted by moot
What needs to be rooted out is not just pseudo-science but pseudo-spirituality/religion/etc, which was sort of what the article was after, as I understood it.
I think something else that should be "rooted out" is the belief that human science has or even can have all the answers. That assumes that nothing beyond our physical universe is possible. True science makes no such assumptions.
-
I think something else that should be "rooted out" is the belief that human science has or even can have all the answers.
I agree. Anyone who thinks science has all the answers is most definitely not a reasonable human being. Who claims this?
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I agree. Anyone who thinks science has all the answers is most definitely not a reasonable human being. Who claims this?
Religious folks fear science has all the answers and rail against it, because they thought they used to have all the answers and have been shown wrong time and time again for generations by science and the examination of reality.
No one claims it. It's religions strawman.
The religious now hide their gods outside the universe beyond time and space, where science can't look, in order to save them. I'm sure their weak little gods thank them.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Dawkins' believes that Islamic/Judeo-Christian philosophy is dangerous. Much the same way as Einstein believed patriotism and nationalism were detrimental to humanity. It has to do with the divisiveness of the beliefs and the intolerance they breed. From this intolerance comes hate and from this hate comes persecution.
[/URL]
heh, which is funny, because theres a higher proportion of athiests that are foaming at the mouth about teh debbul kristeuns!
than there are religious people who even bother trying to argue with them, let alone get angry and hatefull.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
heh, which is funny, because theres a higher proportion of athiests that are foaming at the mouth about the devil Christians!
than there are religious people who even bother trying to argue with them, let alone get angry and hatefull.
Let me dumb down the idea a bit; people are killing each other over these conflicting philosophies. Day in, day out women and children are being blown to pieces in the name of these personal Gods. This is the problem.
It is no laughing matter. Grow up.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Let me dumb down the idea a bit; people are killing each other over these conflicting philosophies. Day in, day out women and children are being blown to pieces in the name of these personal Gods. This is the problem.
It is no laughing matter. Grow up.
If you can't laugh at other people's stupidity, then what good are you?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you can't laugh at other people's stupidity, then what good are you?
I do not think Voticon is stupid. His point was just a bit out in left field. I felt I had to clear things up a bit about the dangers of blind faith.
-
Originally posted by Booz
Religious folks fear science has all the answers and rail against it, because they thought they used to have all the answers and have been shown wrong time and time again for generations by science and the examination of reality.
No one claims it. It's religions strawman.
The religious now hide their gods outside the universe beyond time and space, where science can't look, in order to save them. I'm sure their weak little gods thank them.
I think there are more than a few who scoff at those who believe in God while feeling superior that their own views are "scientific". A very unscientific attittude imo.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I do not think Vorticon is stupid. His point was just a bit out in left field. I felt I had to clear things up a bit about the dangers of blind faith.
"
Let me dumb down the idea a bit; people are killing each other over these conflicting philosophies."
i didnt actually read whatever place it came from, and i should have edited it down to the divisivness and intolerance bit...
since my response was in context to rash of posts on this and other boards involving "science", and athiests use of it to try and demonize religions.
when i want to talk about evil wackjobs killing people in the name of religion, i'll go over to one of the radical islam threads. not a derrailed to atheism vs. theism thread.
oh, and i'm pretty sure laser was referring to people blowing themselves up in the name of religion as being stupid, not me...though that could just as easily be wishfull thinking on my part...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think something else that should be "rooted out" is the belief that human science has or even can have all the answers. That assumes that nothing beyond our physical universe is possible. True science makes no such assumptions.
Yes, for now.. science has a way of increasing knowledge, shall we say, somewhat faster than religion? :D
Pullin your leg.
theres a higher proportion of athiests that are foaming at the mouth about teh debbul kristeuns!
than there are religious people who even bother trying to argue with them, let alone get angry and hatefull.
Source? Sounds like a very scientific (no pun intended) study. :p
Seriously though, and sorry for continuing the derailing:I think something else that should be "rooted out" is the belief that human science has or even can have all the answers. That assumes that nothing beyond our physical universe is possible.
It's a belief, so on the same premises that (e.g.) your faith is to be respected (if for no other reason because faith cannot be reasoned true or false), that belief oughta be respected as well.. as irrational as it is. Not disagreeing with what you meant to say Lukster, just taking the opportunity to illustrate the perils of irrationality.
In all fairness, everyone has a bit of a leap of faith to them, since you must take it on faith that you are not fooled into believing reality is real, as opposed to an illusion pulled over your eyes by (e.g.) a god, à la Descartes. One way from the branch of that choice leads to nowhere decisive, the other doesn't.
That branch is precursor to everything.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
this seems appropriate, but in the face of the Arstechnica piece...
MIMSY WERE THE BOROGOVES
'T was brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.
That bit is Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll (Dodgson)
The rest of it is awful doggerel.
This is how it should go
The Jabberwocky
by Lewis Carroll
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
-
Originally posted by bounder
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
That's also quoted in Gribbin's "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" where he explains that the quantum world is so different then the one we experience, that using terms like "spin" and other analogies just confuses the issue and you would better off just using gibberish.
Probably what gunthr was getting at.
-
None of Jabberwocky is gibberish though - it gave rise to at least one addition to the English language.
-
It would be fantastic if the nuttier than Squirrel poop jesus freaks would "shut up" and leave us non believers alone... apparently I'm going to hell anyway, so whats the point of berating me when I'm taking my GF to the clinic for a legal medical procedure that is absolutely 100% none of their business?
According to "them" if I show up to the big hell in the sky with a few abortions on the resume, eternal damnation is going to totally harsh my mellow... FINE!!, whoop de-freak'n do I'm going to hell, great, now go home and preach to someone who gives a feces, ya freaks, and let us get on with our personal business.
I really don't care that some invisible man says I'm wrong, but I do care when my GF and I are greeted with hate by strangers with nothing better to do than shout their opinions at me.
I was never prouder of my xGF about how she handled it tho, she let her pepper spray to the talking.. nailed a few of their fat ugly brainwashed kids too. I almost proposed right then and there.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i didnt actually read whatever place it came from, and i should have edited it down to the divisivness and intolerance bit...
Ah...I understand what you mean. Yes, Atheism can be just as divisive, just as intolerable, and can produce hate. The bloody persecution is the subtle difference.
when i want to talk about evil wackjobs killing people in the name of religion, i'll go over to one of the radical islam threads. not a derrailed to atheism vs. theism thread.
oh, and i'm pretty sure laser was referring to people blowing themselves up in the name of religion as being stupid, not me...though that could just as easily be wishfull thinking on my part...
To me, it is unreasonable to conclude that the problem lies solely in the Muslim faith. The Judeo-Christian philosophy is just as much a problem. Both equally as irrational, out-dated, misinterpreted and detrimental to the world population.
-
socialism and secularism has killed more people in modern times that religion.
Anyone... any group who has too much power is a threat.
As for booze and his total faith in science.. science is theory... the scientific fact of today is just something that will be disproved the next. I have lived long enough to see them change their minds hundreds of times.
That is fine... that is what science is about.. where it gets ugly is when they want us to live our lives.. to modify our lifestyles and give up freedoms based on their latest theory.... or.. when they kill people based on a theory or a ban or whatever not well thought out. Not proven.
They can't even tell me if butter is good or bad for me from one year to the next... I certainly don't care to put much stock in their theories of what the universe is all about and how it came to be. I certainly do not want to have to modify my behavior based on their weak theories on what makes the globe heat and cool and by how much.
lazs
-
This weeks parade magazine reminded me that science may require overcoming a lot more than just our "childhood understanding". With 2/3 of the energy in our universe being completely undetectable by any current methods or theories I think we may have to reevaluate all of our so called knowledge.
-
Dark energy is a hypothetical explanation to the apparent accelleration of the universal expansion.
There is an observed phenomemon (expansion acceleration) and a theoretical explanation.
so "With 2/3 of the energy in our universe being completely undetectable by any current methods or theories" is not entirely correct. We can observe and explain its effects.
We have done that on many other physical phenomenon, such as gravity: We see that it's associated with mass, and that it attracts stuff, and it may attract because it warps spacetime, but what it really is is beyond our current knowledge. All we can do is just observe and explain its effects.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Dark energy is a hypothetical explanation to the apparent accelleration of the universal expansion.
There is an observed phenomemon (expansion acceleration) and a theoretical explanation.
so "With 2/3 of the energy in our universe being completely undetectable by any current methods or theories" is not entirely correct. We can observe and explain its effects.
We have done that on many other physical phenomenon, such as gravity: We see that it's associated with mass, and that it attracts stuff, and it may attract because it warps spacetime, but what it really is is beyond our current knowledge. All we can do is just observe and explain its effects.
Dark energy is only the description of a force we think exists to explain said expansion. I think it's a stretch to call it a theory. I could as easily (and quite possibly more accurately) call it the will of God.
-
Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
I think it qualifies
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
I think it qualifies
The term dark in this phrase doesn't mean only that it is not observable but also represents our understanding, or lack thereof, of it's nature.
That there must be something which we cannot observe, but of a nature similar to that which we can, suggests to me insecurity whereby we are reluctant to consider our current theories false. This reluctance is human nature and one of those attributes that require overcoming for there to be true knowledge imo.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The term dark in this phrase doesn't mean only that it is not observable but also represents our understanding, or lack thereof, of it's nature.
That there must be something which we cannot observe, but of a nature similar to that which we can, suggests to me insecurity whereby we are reluctant to consider our current theories false. This reluctance is human nature and one of those attributes that require overcoming for there to be true knowledge imo.
Gravity is unobservable... we only see it's effects.
The nature of gravity is that it is somehow intertwined with mass and it is a fundamental force of nature.
What gravity really is is unknown and much debated. Particle physists look for gravitons. Nobody has seen them yet. There is some indirect evidence that gravitational radiation exists from observations of pulsars and that suggests gravitons exist, and gravitions are but a possible explanation of gravity. But fundamentally, what gravity is is unknown.
-
I think it's a stretch to call it a theory. I could as easily (and quite possibly more accurately) call it the will of God.
Scientific dead end. What would the use of that be?
Were microwaves fake too? We're only getting started on our way to understanding all we can, and it will never be "Godly" since it would take us infinity to understand the infinite, so what's the big deal?
The supernatural should be kept where it belongs: out of rational discourse. There have been, are, and always will be loose ends in our attempts to make sense of things, and dead ends like "Hey - I know - It's the hand of God" are no use.
If God really is "God", then everything is "him".. no more, no less; including all the things we have understood and those we will in the future.
You have to admit the incongruity of saying both that God is infinite etc, and comparing anything we do or think (that includes anthropomorphisms such as pretending to know anything about such a thing as God) with God.
Apples and oranges.
-
I don't care if you think it is a form of energy not yet discovered or god or... the effects of the tooth fairy and bigfoot partying with aliens..
So long as you don't want me to live my life based on what you think it wants.
lazs
-
What I or any other human alive think God wants of you lazs means little or nothing. What he wants of you is between you and him and I think he is more than able to make that known to you. But you knew that.
-
Gravitons, curved space, or maybe even interactions at the quantum level with dimensions we can only imagine. Theories are fine until they become knowledge which blinds us to the truth.
-
You mean an irrational thing such as faith would interfere with a rational one such as science?.. How?
How is knowledge ever anything else than truth?
-
Originally posted by moot
You mean an irrational thing such as faith would interfere with a rational one such as science?.. How?
How is knowledge ever anything else than truth?
For the first question, ask Tycho Brahe.
The second question: One can have knowledge of astrology, sasquatch, or nessie, or knowledge of the language of Klingon or Elvin. All those are knowledge of false.
I suppose one can argue that knowing they are false is truth, but knowing that Bilbo Baggins had ugly feet is knowledge of false.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
this seems appropriate, but in the face of the Arstechnica piece...
MIMSY WERE THE BOROGOVES
'T was brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Alien toys, cast adrift through time,
Washed up on our shore,
Fall into the hands of children
Who wonder what they're for.
Children need to learn to see the world the way their parents do
If they learn to think a different way, they'll be gone from you
Before you know it...
Move the beads upon the wire frame
Make one disappear.
Learn to guide the people in the cube
You see so crystal clear.
There is more in heaven and on earth
Than your parents dream.
If you try, you'll understand at last
'Bout the way things seem.
Children need to learn to see the world the way their parents do
Now they learn to think a different way, and it's just as true,
But you don't know it...
Little girl no longer speaks in words
You can understand.
Little boy, no longer quite content
With his blocks and sand.
One dark night, you hurry to their room
Wakened by a cry,
Just in time to watch them fade away
Who knows where or why (where or why)
Children need to learn to see the world the way their parents do
These two learned to think a different way and now they're gone from you.
How could you know it?
Alien toys, cast adrift through time,
Washed up in the reeds.
Little girl tries to tell her friend
'Bout the sliding beads.
'T was brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.
And the mome raths outgrabe.
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Outgrabe!
What happened to the Bandersnatch, Jubjub bird and the most important of all, the Jaberwokee??
-
What happened to the Bandersnatch, Jubjub bird and the most important of all, the Jaberwokee?? - Bluedog
i thank our English friend 'Bounder' for supplying the original poem by Lewis Carroll:
That bit is Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll (Dodgson)
This is how it should go
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jabberwocky
by Lewis Carroll
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________ - Bounder