A Person Believes in Science by Faith if...

[KerimF]

What? I am not even sure where to begin. A suppose a couple of points. You claim that the knowledge obtained in science is necessary for the world to work by design. Apart from not making a lot of sense, there is nothing to support this claim. As I see it, it is saying that man designs the world by having scientific knowledge of the world.

I hope we can remember always that, even in these days, we understand each other as the people on Babylon Tower did after being cursed

I meant (by design) how the world is made by the Will behind the existence of our universe. Are you happy now

Biological fitness is not survival of the strongest.

You are totally right. But when it is applied by humans, 'the fittest' becomes 'the strongest'... actually 'the strongest deceiver'

It is true that religion and politics can be used to control people. That is not much of a revelation. They can also be used constructively and positively too.

Again, you are right. But I don't recall I wrote something that may contradicts this!

This sounds more like the beginnings of a manifesto about a tiny global elite that controls us all. And AIDS is a belief system that they put together to facilitate that control? This is a rather old baseless claim.

Understanding how our immune system works as we do now was made possible through observation and experiment using the scientific method. We do not know all there is to know about it yet. But the current level of knowledge and understanding did not kick the immune system into existence. That is what I am getting from your statements.

You may like reading my post #199.

 

[KerimF]

No.

Do I have the knowledge or understanding to write out and explain Einstein's relativity equations? Not even close.

Could I build a GPS satellite system? Wouldn't even know where to start.

Do I accept Einstein's theory of relativity? Yes.
Do I accept atomic theory? Yes.

Do I accept this on faith?
No........

2 obvious reasons:
1. nukes explode and GPS works. Clearly the theories (atoms and relativity) that underpin these technologies are rather accurate explanations of reality. Nukes wouldn't explode if it wasn't. GPS wouldn't be able to pinpoint my location. Nuclear power plants wouldn't successfully generate electricity.

2. I understand how science works. Meaning that I know that I can give a reasonable amount of trust to the conclusions that are derived from this scientific process, without actually having to get a phd in all those fields myself. It's comparable to how reasonable it is to accept a diagnose of some lump on your body by an oncologist as opposed to a car mechanic.

Appeal to expertise, is not a fallacy nor a problem.

There is nothing wrong in what you liked to tell me.

But if two different well-detailed articles, claimed they explain Einstein's theory of relativity methodically, are presented, how someone can know for sure which one is right (though they may be both wrong or even right but explained from two different angles) ?

Someone, like you and I, would say:
"Sorry, I can't know for sure because this is not my field of interest at work. But I do believe in the existence of what Einstein's theory of relativity refers to". That is much like theists believe in the existence of what the idea of God refers to.

I bet you liked it... right?!

 

[Polymath257]

There is nothing wrong in what you liked to tell me.

But if two different well-detailed articles, claimed they explain Einstein's theory of relativity methodically, are presented, how someone can know for sure which one is right (though they may be both wrong or even right but explained from two different angles) ?

Well, the *best* way would be to learn the math and physics yourself from recognized textbooks (I can suggest a few). That would give you the background for understanding enough to judge yourself.

The next best way would be to have a friend that knows this stuff and can tell you which is the correct version.

The next best way is to have pretty broadly recognized scientific organizations that let you know what the consensus is. This is typically what good journalists will use (although they misunderstand the science).

The *worst* way is to read popular articles, decide you know better than the professionals, and choose whichever article appeals to you.

Someone, like you and I, would say:
"Sorry, I can't know for sure because this is not my field of interest at work. But I do believe in the existence of what Einstein's theory of relativity refers to". That is much like theists believe in the existence of what the idea of God refers to.

And what do you think the Theory of Relativity refers to? It refers to a scientific theory, written in mathematical language, that has been extensively tested and verified.

Furthermore, you can, if you have the motivation, learn what the theory says and the evidence for it. It is freely available and accessible by anyone who wants to put in the time and energy.

What does the 'idea of God' refer to? Nobody can say. In fact, those that *do* say have such different opinions, it is clear they aren't even talking about the same thing.

 

[KerimF]

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

It happens I liked not to be a follower to anyone or any formal group (social, sportive, religious or political); this is why I am a powerless poor boss.

But, I also do understand that a faithful follower should trust, without questioning, whatever the members of his group (including himself) are supposed to believe and do. Such devoted faithful followers deserve, if their masters are real powerful and rich, the best food, the most beautiful shelters and all entertainments they like to live.
This is how the world is created and no one can change it. (There is nothing for free unless it is given with true love which is rare to happen in the world's jungle )

Have a nice day.

 

[KerimF]

And why can you not believe both?

I don't know what to say if it is hard to see how they contradict each other if we compare the difficulties of the two different missions. The later mission (putting a satellite on its orbit, in 1985) has to be much simpler than of the two-way journey between earth and moon (made possible more than once, about 15 years earlier).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It happens I liked not to be a follower to anyone or any formal group (social, sportive, religious or political); this is why I am a powerless poor boss.

But, I also do understand that a faithful follower should trust, without questioning, whatever the members of his group (including himself) are supposed to believe and do. Such devoted faithful followers deserve, if their masters are real powerful and rich, the best food, the most beautiful shelters and all entertainments they like to live.
This is how the world is created and no one can change it. (There is nothing for free unless it is given with true love which is rare to happen in the world's jungle )

Have a nice day.

That is a very religious and unscientific view you have.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know what to say if it is hard to see how they contradict each other if we compare the difficulties of the two different missions. The later mission (putting a satellite on its orbit, in 1985) has to be much simpler than of the two-way journey between earth and moon (made possible more than once, about 15 years earlier).

Simpler, yes. But we also allow for more failures because the missions are unmanned. But this means there are no humans there to fix things on the fly if they go bad. That means there is no course correction that can be done. Everything in a satellite mission has to be done automatically. Also, there are typically fewer technicians monitoring the satellite launches than were there for the moon missions.

Also, don't for get the number of issues the moon flights had. One was struck by lightning. Another had an oxygen tank blow out, making it so that it was just barely possible to get the men back to Earth. There were also a host of minor issues. The moon missions were *dangerous*. In many ways, we were lucky more people did not die (although, don't forget Apollo I).

 

[Polymath257]

It happens I liked not to be a follower to anyone or any formal group (social, sportive, religious or political); this is why I am a powerless poor boss.

But, I also do understand that a faithful follower should trust, without questioning, whatever the members of his group (including himself) are supposed to believe and do. Such devoted faithful followers deserve, if their masters are real powerful and rich, the best food, the most beautiful shelters and all entertainments they like to live.
This is how the world is created and no one can change it. (There is nothing for free unless it is given with true love which is rare to happen in the world's jungle )

Have a nice day.

I'm sorry you have chosen to view the world that way.

 

[KerimF]

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

What could I add if my tiny cell which had to replicate rather very quickly (in just 9 months, thanks to the DNA instructions, inherited from one generation to another) the evolution steps which took millions of years, has nothing to do with evolution

And if one regards Adam and Eve as a myth?

What could be the difference being a myth or a fairly tale made for adults and was taught to humans when they were not evolved enough yet (kids of humanity)? In both cases, it is not real... didn't happen,

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

I guess, we both look now as two believers of two different religions arguing about whose image of God is right

So, just for fun, I will give more insight concerning the miniature universe (that you don't like) that forms a piece of matter in our universe. It helped me understand what is usually called as Black Holes. One of its known characteristics is that they look as one-way exit doors with no possible return.

Looking again at the piece of matter, we see its miniature universe has boundaries (the outer surfaces of the piece). So if any particle crosses, for one reason or another (external or internal), one of these boundaries, it has almost no chance to return back into its original universe.

So I predict that the world will also hear someday of White Holes... from which something may enter our universe coming from nowhere. It is like crossing the boundary of the peace of matter from outside to inside.

Then both, the black and white holes, will be given one name much like 'Boundary Holes' which form the boundaries of our universe (of level 0) with the higher universe of level +1 (as if our huge universe is just a small piece of matter in the universe of level +1).

Where is your smile?!

 

[Polymath257]

What could I add if my tiny cell which had to replicate rather very quickly (in just 9 months, thanks to the DNA instructions, inherited from one generation to another) the evolution steps which took millions of years, has nothing to do with evolution

Again, a mistaken premise. The developing embryo does NOT replicate the evolutionary history.

What could be the difference being a myth or a fairly tale made for adults and was taught to humans when they were not evolved enough yet (kids of humanity)? In both cases, it is not real... didn't happen,

I guess, we both look now as two believers of two different religions arguing about whose image of God is right

So, just for fun, I will give more insight concerning the miniature universe (that you don't like) that forms a piece of matter in our universe. It helped me understand what is usually called as Black Holes. One of its known characteristics is that they look as one-way exit doors with no possible return.

Looking again at the piece of matter, we see its miniature universe has boundaries (the outer surfaces of the piece). So if any particle crosses, for one reason or another (external or internal), one of these boundaries, it has almost no chance to return back into its original universe.

So I predict that the world will also hear someday of White Holes... from which something may enter our universe coming from nowhere. It is like crossing the boundary of the peace of matter from outside to inside.

Then both, the black and white holes, will be given one name much like 'Boundary Holes' which form the boundaries of our universe (of level 0) with the higher universe of level +1 (as if our huge universe is just a small piece of matter in the universe of level +1).

Where is your smile?!

Have a good day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is nothing wrong in what you liked to tell me.

But if two different well-detailed articles, claimed they explain Einstein's theory of relativity methodically, are presented, how someone can know for sure which one is right (though they may be both wrong or even right but explained from two different angles) ?

Study up and test each one.
Nothing stops you.

I'm not a physicist. Not because I can't be one. Rather because I studied something else. While my life at the moment doesn't allow for it, in principle, nothing stops me from enrolling in a university and studying up to get the necessary qualifications to review it myself.

The possibility is absolutely there.
But I don't have to. Others already have done that. So I'll just go with whatever the scientific consensus is, while understanding what "scientific consensus" means (ie: not an authority, not 'absolute truth', but rather "the best we can do with the evidence and knowledge available at this time").

Someone, like you and I, would say:
"Sorry, I can't know for sure because this is not my field of interest at work. But I do believe in the existence of what Einstein's theory of relativity refers to". That is much like theists believe in the existence of what the idea of God refers to.

I bet you liked it... right?!

No. That is not at all the same thing.
Einstein's relativity is, again, demonstrable.

A working GPS, is a demonstration of relativity.

You have nothing remotely similar in religious beliefs.

 

[KerimF]

Huh? Immunosuppressive drugs and HIV have nothing to do with each other. No connection at all. The mechanisms are completely different. Not even close.
It isn't a matter of safety. It is a matter of knowing enough to know this is completely wrong.
I'm sorry, but your ignorance about this is showing. You have decided there is a connection between things that simply are not connected.

Sorry, do you really expect after hearing you saying... wrong... wrong... only, I have to conclude that you discovered personally certain right things which I don't.

After all, I believe that everyone here has a bright human brain as mine and is free to believe whatever he likes... for example, flu is now a pandemic like AIDS.

In reality, no one can deny that hearing of something, almost daily and for years, the same way and from all media sources... can let even an inert WALL speak and say I believe it.

In the near past and by using this tactic, billions of people were made to believe that Iraq was threatening the entire world (including the greatest America!) for having the most advanced Weapons of Mass destruction. But, soon later, these same people witnessed how the Iraqi army was defeated completely and all Iraqi lands were also occupied in less than a month.

Now, using the same tactic as usual, Iran is presented as threatening the entire world (including America!) though its ruling system didn't mind serving the American one and be in war with Iraq for 10 years (whose victims were the ordinary people only in both sides) before invading Iraq later. Oh wait, perhaps it was Saddam who was serving the American system in his war with Iran.

Similarly, Al-Qaeda, created by a country, attacked and killed thousands of civilians in that country (as the formal story says). Then, its terrorists changed their mind after 10 years (became no more jealous of America and its submitted colonies) and decided to terrorize millions of civilians in Middle East and North Africa (besides many other regions in Africa and Asia) while all intelligence agencies (of the East and West) claim running after them since year 2001. By the way, please notify me if anyone here knows even one ruling system (one country) which is not supposed running after these unbeatable terrorists.

Conclusion:
As a theist say to another theist: You have your God, I have Mine, I say to anyone here: "You have your trustworthy sources (supported by scientists or not), I have a human brain who is supposed to see the unseen and hear the unheard based on: 'the fruits reveal always what their hidden roots are' ".

 

[KerimF]

Well, the *best* way would be to learn the math and physics yourself from recognized textbooks (I can suggest a few). That would give you the background for understanding enough to judge yourself.

The next best way would be to have a friend that knows this stuff and can tell you which is the correct version.

The next best way is to have pretty broadly recognized scientific organizations that let you know what the consensus is. This is typically what good journalists will use (although they misunderstand the science).

The *worst* way is to read popular articles, decide you know better than the professionals, and choose whichever article appeals to you.



And what do you think the Theory of Relativity refers to? It refers to a scientific theory, written in mathematical language, that has been extensively tested and verified.

Furthermore, you can, if you have the motivation, learn what the theory says and the evidence for it. It is freely available and accessible by anyone who wants to put in the time and energy.

What does the 'idea of God' refer to? Nobody can say. In fact, those that *do* say have such different opinions, it is clear they aren't even talking about the same thing.

You are right since you are happy of what you know and believe. What else could be said?

 

[KerimF]

That is a very religious and unscientific view you have.

Well, what can we do? You have your standard which help you live better. And I have mine which also help me live better. The fact is that yours doesn't suit my life and mine doesn't have to suit yours. It is that simple.

 

[KerimF]

I'm sorry you have chosen to view the world that way.

I just know what I see in reality and not what I am supposed to believe.
And I am glad knowing that you are also fine with the way you have chosen to view the world.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, what can we do? You have your standard which help you live better. And I have mine which also help me live better. The fact is that yours doesn't suit my life and mine doesn't have to suit yours. It is that simple.

It isn't a question of suitable. It goes to claims you have made about your use of reason and logic and the contradictory religious view you hold about life that defies reason and logic.