A Person Believes in Science by Faith if...

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wish you are right. But, let us be realistic. Whenever someone believes/trusts another person blindly (that is... more than himself) concerning an idea (he accepted), scientific or else, he would be a believer by faith not by mind.

Here's the thing....
The trust put in the scientific process, is not "blind".

Yous said:
"We have faith in a theory because it has been put to the test by observation and found to work."

It has been put to the test by whom?!

Standard procedure in the scientific process. Theories, by definition, are hypothesis that have been "promoted" due to them being well-tested and well-evidenced.

Theories are, by definition, the best explanations that best fit the evidence in any given field or scope.
It's how science works.

Secondly, by the technological implementations. Thus the practical applications of the theory.
Technology that is literally underpinned by said theories.

Like how GPS only works because it keeps into account the relativistic effects of orbiting the planet at high speed. If one doesn't calibrate the internal clocks to make them run at slightly different speed then those on earth, to account for the relativistic effects as Einstein's equations describe, then GPS is off by several miles.

If you don't build a nuclear reactor according to how atomic theory says atoms work, then it won't be generating workable energy.

If you don't build a nuke according to how atomic theory says atoms work, then it won't explode.

Science is extremely results based, in that sense.

If this has been done by you, in one way or another (even indirectly by using 'your' logical reasoning, for example), your belief would be based on reason, not faith.

Every time you successfully use your GPS to get from point A to point B, you have successfully tested Einstein's theory of relativity.

If your home gets power from a nuclear plant, then every time you successfully boot your computer or switch your TV on, you successfully have tested atomic theory.


The statement that people accept science on faith is only true if those people have no clue what science is about, how it's done, how we know it works,... and are just all round scientifically illiterate in every single sense of the word. And then still accept whatever a scientist says merely because (s)he views them as an authority. I would agree that such people would be accepting science on very bad and irrational reasons.

The thing is, though, I know of nobody like that.
Even the biggest science denying creationists has some rudimentary knowledge of science is done. They compartmentalize off course and engage in serious mental gymnastics to keep their beliefs intact. But one can easily see whenever the topic does not concern a science that they perceive as a threat to their beliefs, that in that case they have a pretty rational view and understand that the conclusions of the scientific process can be trusted to a fair degree.

 

[KerimF]

I would imagine there are many people that have managed to stay alive for 30 or more years that don't even know how they did it or have any opinion on science.

Do you mean they also joined the RF forums

 

[KerimF]

Nope, that is not faith. That is parroting.

The reason the teachers at the university have the right to give you the grade is that *they* have done the work, they have done the research, they have looked over the arguments. And they are distilling that for you so you can see the broad picture (I am assuming you only took lower level courses).

If you continue on to graduate school, you would also learn enough to understand the detailed experiments that lead to those viewpoints. But it is simply impossible to do that in a lower level course.

It would be like trying to prove the commutative law of addition to someone first learning arithmetic. get the basics down first, then look into the details.

It also seems to me that you missed opportunities to learn why those teachers believed as they did. if you had challenged them (preferably in office hours), you may have found out much more than simply what you got in the classroom. It is simply impossible to go over *everything* in a classroom.

It seems you used seeing the world as if it is ONE world, just because we are all born and live on the same planet, called Earth.
I mean I was simply describing my world. Now you are describing yours.

For example I had once a so-called professor in electrical engineering who couldn't solve any new problem in electricity (say related to motors) if it is not already solved on his book (likely translated from English to Arabic). At that time, I never imagined such a teacher, called professor, can exist. At his exam, I was surprised that the 4 problems I should solve (using a scientific slide rule) were rather long in comparison to the allowed time for them. The result was I failed while almost all my colleagues passed it. They (unlike I) knew that this teacher gives always in his exams problems which are already solved on his book. Naturally, they memorized them and didn't need using their rulers during the exam. I hope this example, since there are many others, could be enough to give you what I meant by 'we live in two different worlds on the same planet'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you mean they also joined the RF forums

I am sure some did join, but I do not mean them specifically. I imagine it is a pretty large group crossing many lines.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Truth be told, if your reaction was different, I would be real surprised because billions are invested every year to let the world's multitudes forget for good what was revealed once as 'The New World Order'.

But nothing can be done if someone still believes, even after 20 years, that the horrible crimes committed on 9-11-2001 was planned because of jealousy and not for gaining continuously more legitimate rights and incomes (besides other bonuses when necessary). This person is simply made to be always ready to believe anything he is allowed to see and hear on his monitors. On the other hand, I bet that the stories of the investigators, at that time, were also supported by so-called scientific facts (that is, if we hit a big tower with a plane having enough gasoline to burn a few floors on it, the tower will scroll fully soon later. Yes, this was a scientific discovery of a new economical method to scroll down an old tower, unless the WTC ones were unique, instead of the old processes which are complex and costly; requiring professional companies to do it).

After all, who have time to wait the fruits of any event to show up then analyze them attentively and without being biased to discover if there are any hidden truth or not?

Conclusion:
Let us keep seeing all happenings in the world as each of us used doing.

Happy End. (as in movies )

I kinda got the feeling that this is where you were heading. You have a good day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was simply describing my world. I have no sure idea of yours. So, me too, I am not exactly sure what you mean, as if we were on the Babylon Tower

You have a great day!

 

[KerimF]

But they *did* directly oppose the USA on numerous occasions. That is what simply doesn't work in your conspiracy theory. The Soviets were quite happy to point out flaws and inconsistencies in the US system (and vice versa). At the time of the moon landings, the Soviets were very much involved in the space race and had even been ahead of the US until quite recently. So to say they would have been afraid to point out that the signals didn't come from the moon, which was easily verified by anyone with a modicum of technology, is just strange.

I'm not sure why you think your view is the 'truth'. Maybe it is comfortable for you to believe it for some reason.

But the US did go to the moon. Nobody has been back for half a century. Even our enemies don't dispute that.

I guess you know that I will gain nothing if you believe or not anything I said.

I will just repeat what I wrote to 'It Aint Necessarily':

Should I trust what I saw on TV concerning the moon landing or what I read on the British magazine 'Wireless World.. 1985." that the insurance campaniles of space projects complained that 4 out of 5 missions to put just a satellite on its orbit fail?
Obviously, I can't believe both claims. And if I choose one of them as being true, I have to do it based on a blind faith.

You simply chose the former

 

[Polymath257]

I guess you know that I will gain nothing if you believe or not anything I said.

I will just repeat what I wrote to 'It Aint Necessarily':

Should I trust what I saw on TV concerning the moon landing or what I read on the British magazine 'Wireless World.. 1985." that the insurance campaniles of space projects complained that 4 out of 5 missions to put just a satellite on its orbit fail?
Obviously, I can't believe both claims. And if I choose one of them as being true, I have to do it based on a blind faith.

You simply chose the former

And why can you not believe both?

 

[Polymath257]

It seems you used seeing the world as if it is ONE world, just because we are all born and live on the same planet, called Earth.
I mean I was simply describing my world. Now you are describing yours.

For example I had once a so-called professor in electrical engineering who couldn't solve any new problem in electricity (say related to motors) if it is not already solved on his book (likely translated from English to Arabic). At that time, I never imagined such a teacher, called professor, can exist. At his exam, I was surprised that the 4 problems I should solve (using a scientific slide rule) were rather long in comparison to the allowed time for them. The result was I failed while almost all my colleagues passed it. They (unlike I) knew that this teacher gives always in his exams problems which are already solved on his book. Naturally, they memorized them and didn't need using their rulers during the exam. I hope this example, since there are many others, could be enough to give you what I meant by 'we live in two different worlds on the same planet'.

One of the dangers of some 'educational' systems.

 

[KerimF]

That isn't evolution. No genetic changes are involved, only social changes.

I see.
You helped me realize now why all believers in holy books see their past ancestors (say 5000 years ago) having the same active human brain as theirs now.

So let me remind you about MY evolution
My beginning was just a tiny living cell. It had to be EVOLVED rather quickly during 9 months to become the human baby I was at birth. At birth, the evolution of my body reached what we may call the saturation stage in which it slows down gradually till its death.

But if one believes that the story of Adam and Eve is real and not just a symbolic one that introduces the idea of Creation, it would be real hard for him to see even the evolution that his own body lived.

I'm not sure what you are even talking about here. Atomic space??
I can make no sense of any of this. Could you give more detail? What is 'atomic space'? Why would it be at level -1?

You are right. The expression 'atomic space' is not in any dictionary. Sorry.

Let me try to explain it.
I guess you know what an atom is.
A piece of matter is usually formed by zillion of atoms
These atoms exist in a sort of miniature universe.
I thought that ‘atomic space’ could refer to this miniature universe.

If you get its meaning now, you may kindly suggest better words to express it (instead of ‘atomic space’).
Thank you.

 

[KerimF]

Give one example.

Sorry, I guess we start knowing each other. Yes, we may see life and the world differently but we are friends now (sorry if I am wrong). And the least I can do is not to disturb your inner peace, even temporarily, about things that we both can't do anything about.

 

[KerimF]

We presently think there's a "smallest" that things can be before they cease to have meaning as physical objects, the Planck length, a miserly 1.616×10^-35 meters or so. By contrast, a quark is a bloated 0.4x10^-16 meters or so. But if you go back into the history of science fiction, you'll find tales in the '40s or '50s where humans manage to shrink themselves and ─ get this ─ their atomic and subatomic bits in proportion, and visit earth-like worlds which you and I would ignorantly think were electrons.

So it's all out there, waiting for pioneers like yourself.

By the way, it seems you got what I mean by 'atomic space' though it is not defined in dictionaries. I thought it was good to refer to the miniature universe in which zillion of atoms are and by which a piece of matter is formed. I wonder which words could replace the two words 'atomic space'. Let us make it 'atomic universe' for the time being.

For instance, there is a purpose to imagine the existence of what I called atomic universes of level -2, -3, -4... etc. where each one of them form the matter of the higher one.
In other words:
The matter of our universe (level 0) is formed by the atomic universe of level -1.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -1 is formed by the atomic universe of level -2.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -2 is formed by the atomic universe of level -3.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -3 is formed by the atomic universe of level -4.
And so on...

The purpose is to prove that an absolute vacuum is almost impossible to exist, in our universe in the least.
So even we can't detect the presence of any matter (atoms of level -1 ) in a space, the tiny tiny atoms of the atomic universe of level -2, -3... etc. can easily exist in it and form the necessary medium thru which waves of ultra high frequencies can propagate (I was also thinking of the gravity waves as well). I said 'I was' because I thought of this image of cascaded universes when I was at the university about 40 years ago. After graduation, I started my small private business and forgot all about it

 

[Bird123]

Yes, it is very clear and right.
I guess I couldn't be clear enough because my point was about something very different.

For example, I think you heard of AIDS. And you know that its various stories, spread worldwide by all ruling systems and for too many years, were all presented as being scientific.

Now ([please fasten your seat belt ) do you really think that you can believe that controlling the function of our body's immunity system was made possible, since a few decades ago, by great medical discoveries which were real necessary for the operations of transplanting live organs to succeed?

Sorry, but I know you can't believe it, even if you want you, for many reasons:

[1] It is always safer to believe whatever is approved as being true by all powerful ruling systems, religious and political, in the world (starting from the local one).

[2] If someone thinks it may be true, almost all those who live with him will ridicule his updated belief.

[3] No one dares revealing this in public (mainly via international TV channels) without risking his life, if not worse, because... sorry this will lead to politics.

And this is just one example of many beliefs, made in the name of science, to serve certain economical/political agendas.

Truth, in time, always seems to rise to the top. I'll be patient with my eyes open.

In a multilevel classroom, there are many many lessons. There are many many levels and variables of interaction that, in the long run will change things for the better.

Sometimes the roughest roads will end up with the best view. Something bad can lead to something good with the Discovery of so many different things resulting in many lessons learned along the way.

Science consists of people so even great science truth must be questioned. Since people with the great diversity of lessons they are learning, are involved, there will be many sides to consider. One must be open for Discovery on all sides with multiple views.

Yes, there is a lot to consider.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[blü 2]

By the way, it seems you got what I mean by 'atomic space' though it is not defined in dictionaries. I thought it was good to refer to the miniature universe in which zillion of atoms are and by which a piece of matter is formed. I wonder which words could replace the two words 'atomic space'. Let us make it 'atomic universe' for the time being.

For instance, there is a purpose to imagine the existence of what I called atomic universes of level -2, -3, -4... etc. where each one of them form the matter of the higher one.
In other words:
The matter of our universe (level 0) is formed by the atomic universe of level -1.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -1 is formed by the atomic universe of level -2.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -2 is formed by the atomic universe of level -3.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -3 is formed by the atomic universe of level -4.
And so on...

I forgot to mention an earlier work of fiction going the other way, H.G. Wells' Under the Knife, where the hero, under anesthetic, finds his OOB view drawing further and further back from earth into space until at last he can see that the stars are atoms forming an überbeing ...

The purpose is to prove that an absolute vacuum is almost impossible to exist, in our universe in the least.

The relationship ─ I suspect there is one ─ between the spatial dimensions and energy, not least the energy of the vacuum, would mean that to exist, space must have a content of that kind.

An absolute nothing is total non-existence, total absence of matter, energy, location in space or location in time. This is what prompts me to think that the dimensions including time exist as qualities or effects of matter-energy, not vice versa.

 

[KerimF]

You mean *politicians* here, not scientists.

But whenever politicians like proving some parts in their stories, their best fellows who are always ready to help are certain so-called scientists. Yes, we believe it or not, the magic word 'Scientists' is more than enough to let most people around the world believe something new without questioning.

??? Immortal scientists?
You don't know many scientists, do you?

This is in response to those who used believing that a scientist cannot be controlled to serve certain agenda. If this is true, only immortal scientists cannot be controlled
Oh sorry, I forgot that even if they are immortal they can be controlled if they have families and friends to take care of and protect (unless all of them are immortal ).

I'm more worried about you because what you say seems so disconnected with reality. I really wonder what your motivation is for believing this stuff. It must be powerful to make you go so far out on that limb.

I have no motivation. I used discovering the hidden truths about the world's important happenings/events (by applying the hint: You know them from their fruits) just for my own knowledge so that I don't see a naive confused person anytime I look at a mirror

 

[Polymath257]

I see.
You helped me realize now why all believers in holy books see their past ancestors (say 5000 years ago) having the same active human brain as theirs now.

So let me remind you about MY evolution
My beginning was just a tiny living cell. It had to be EVOLVED rather quickly during 9 months to become the human baby I was at birth. At birth, the evolution of my body reached what we may call the saturation stage in which it slows down gradually till its death.

Again, that isn't evolution. It is development. The two are *very* different, both in mechanisms and in effects.

But if one believes that the story of Adam and Eve is real and not just a symbolic one that introduces the idea of Creation, it would be real hard for him to see even the evolution that his own body lived.

And if one regards Adam and Eve as a myth?

You are right. The expression 'atomic space' is not in any dictionary. Sorry.

Let me try to explain it.
I guess you know what an atom is.
A piece of matter is usually formed by zillion of atoms
These atoms exist in a sort of miniature universe.
I thought that ‘atomic space’ could refer to this miniature universe.

No, atoms do NOT exist in a sort of miniature universe. They exist in *this* universe. There isn't even a good analogy with planets (which is where many who don't understand what is happening in atoms tend to default to).

If you get its meaning now, you may kindly suggest better words to express it (instead of ‘atomic space’).
Thank you.

The problem is that the basic idea is confused and wrong. Atoms are NOT miniature universes.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, I guess we start knowing each other. Yes, we may see life and the world differently but we are friends now (sorry if I am wrong). And the least I can do is not to disturb your inner peace, even temporarily, about things that we both can't do anything about.

Don't worry. That isn't a danger. I can handle alternative explanations, but I need *evidence* instead of the ramblings of Q believers.

 

[Polymath257]

By the way, it seems you got what I mean by 'atomic space' though it is not defined in dictionaries. I thought it was good to refer to the miniature universe in which zillion of atoms are and by which a piece of matter is formed. I wonder which words could replace the two words 'atomic space'. Let us make it 'atomic universe' for the time being.

For instance, there is a purpose to imagine the existence of what I called atomic universes of level -2, -3, -4... etc. where each one of them form the matter of the higher one.
In other words:
The matter of our universe (level 0) is formed by the atomic universe of level -1.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -1 is formed by the atomic universe of level -2.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -2 is formed by the atomic universe of level -3.
The matter of the atomic universe of level -3 is formed by the atomic universe of level -4.
And so on...

The purpose is to prove that an absolute vacuum is almost impossible to exist, in our universe in the least.
So even we can't detect the presence of any matter (atoms of level -1 ) in a space, the tiny tiny atoms of the atomic universe of level -2, -3... etc. can easily exist in it and form the necessary medium thru which waves of ultra high frequencies can propagate (I was also thinking of the gravity waves as well). I said 'I was' because I thought of this image of cascaded universes when I was at the university about 40 years ago. After graduation, I started my small private business and forgot all about it

I think that most people who look at atoms think about this at some point. Then the evidence shows them they were wrong.
Atoms are not little universes and nuclei are not like atoms, etc.

 

[KerimF]

You believe HIV is man made or something?

What I know is that the professional surgeon does ‘something’ that lets his patient (whom he will get a donor live organ), lose his immune system (paralyze its functions) temporarily. Then, after the operation, the doctor applies another process to re-activate gradually the patient's immunity while he (the patient) is in an isolated intensive-care room/unit. The re-activated immunity sees/treats the new planted organ as if it were original and won't reject it while it attacks any external intruder, as it used doing.

Note:
Before this medical discovery (that is in the 70's and before), the patient's immunity system sees the donor organ as a strange intruder and starts rejecting/destroying it after the operation.

Now, the crucial question is: "Why such a great medical discovery was hidden and millions of $$$ were invested to spread worldwide, for many years and almost daily, the HIV/AIDS stories that we all heard of?"

In brief, this discovery have been also used, taking advantage of the world’s ignorance, in threatening many rich VIPs around the world who were willing to pay big amounts in order to save both their life and honor (since HIV was cleverly connected to sex directly from the beginning). Also, it was an advanced clean tool in committing ‘perfect’ crimes by killing millions of people, mainly in Africa, in order to better control some natural resources there. But, for your safety (and sanity), please don't believe what I said here, mainly if you live in what is known as free world.

By chance, I heard, in one of the first interviews about AIDS, a French doctor who tried pointing out what I said but he was interrupted, by changing cleverly the topic, by the interviewer. It was the first and the last time I heard a doctor trying to talk about this discovery. After all, any professional doctor (or else) around the world is not naive not to know that, in vain, one fights the giant windmills, besides losing his career, if not his life too, and, most of all, his honor to the point his own family will have to reject him.

 

[Polymath257]

What I know is that the professional surgeon does ‘something’ that lets his patient (whom he will get a donor live organ), lose his immune system (paralyze its functions) temporarily. Then, after the operation, the doctor applies another process to re-activate gradually the patient's immunity while he (the patient) is in an isolated intensive-care room/unit. The re-activated immunity sees/treats the new planted organ as if it were original and won't reject it while it attacks any external intruder, as it used doing.

Note:
Before this medical discovery (that is in the 70's and before), the patient's immunity system sees the donor organ as a strange intruder and starts rejecting/destroying it after the operation.

Now, the crucial question is: "Why such a great medical discovery was hidden and millions of $$$ were invested to spread worldwide, for many years and almost daily, the HIV/AIDS stories that we all heard of?"

Huh? Immunosuppressive drugs and HIV have nothing to do with each other. No connection at all. The mechanisms are completely different. Not even close.

In brief, this discovery have been also used, taking advantage of the world’s ignorance, in threatening many rich VIPs around the world who were willing to pay big amounts in order to save both their life and honor (since HIV was cleverly connected to sex directly from the beginning). Also, it was an advanced clean tool in committing ‘perfect’ crimes by killing millions of people, mainly in Africa in order to better control some natural resources there. But, for your safety (and sanity), don't believe what I said here, mainly if you live in what is known as free world.

It isn't a matter of safety. It is a matter of knowing enough to know this is completely wrong.

By chance, I heard, in one of the first interviews about AIDS, a French doctor who tried pointing out what I said but he was interrupted, by changing cleverly the topic, by the interviewer. It was the first and the last time I heard a doctor trying to talk about this discovery. After all, any professional doctor (or else) around the world is not naive not to know that, in vain, one fights the giant windmills, besides losing his career, if not his life too, and, most of all, his honor to the point his own family will have to reject him.

I'm sorry, but your ignorance about this is showing. You have decided there is a connection between things that simply are not connected.