Anti Science

[Jim]

It doesn’t look to me like you know, or have any interest in knowing, what my reasons are for what I’m doing.

I’ve browsed through your most recent posts to me, and I still see some good possibilities for discussion between us. I’ll come back to that later.

I can only hold the lantern, I cannot make people see.

Wow. Oh wow.

Just to be sure ... Is it true that you have no interest in knowing what my reasons are for what I’m doing? You think that it’s okay to say that you recognize the nobility of my intent without knowing, or caring, what my intentions actually are? Worse than that, you falsify my intentions, and then you claim to recognize their nobility?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow. Oh wow.

Just to be sure ... It’s true that you have no interest in knowing what my reasons are for what I’m doing? You think it’s okay to say that you recognize the nobility of my intent without knowing, or caring, what my intentions actually are? Worse than that, you falsify my intentions, and then you claim to recognize their nobility?

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Have you asked me this and have I demurred? I do not recall it. I do not think you mean falsify. I think you mean that I do see them the same as you see them.

If you wish to fill us all in, then please do so. I am going to leave it up to you. From where I am sitting you seem to be attacking people who are defending scientific positions. You are claiming these pro-science posters are just saying what they are saying to seem like good people and get group recognition. Or worse, attacking religion. Maybe I was mistaken in my original assessment about the nobility of your efforts. Perhaps I am mistaken now. I will leave it up to you to explain yourself or not.

 

[Jim]

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Have you asked me this and have I demurred? I do not recall it. I do not think you mean falsify. I think you mean that I do see them the same as you see them.

If you wish to fill us all in, then please do so. I am going to leave it up to you. From where I am sitting you seem to be attacking people who are defending scientific positions. You are claiming these pro-science posters are just saying what they are saying to seem like good people and get group recognition. Or worse, attacking religion. Maybe I was mistaken in my original assessment about the nobility of your efforts. Perhaps I am mistaken now. I will leave it up to you to explain yourself or not.

I’m talking about what I think my intentions are, and my reasons for what I’m doing. You might have theories about my unconscious motives, just like I have theories about other people’s unconscious motives including yours. We may or may not want to discuss all that some time. Maybe you’re saying that you see some nobility in what you think are my unconscious motives. What I’m talking about now is what I think my reasons are for what I’m doing. It looks to me like it doesn’t matter to you at all what I think my reasons are for what I’m doing. I thought that you were being insincere about that, but now I see that maybe you weren’t.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m talking about what I think my intentions are, and my reasons for what I’m doing. You might have theories about my unconscious motives, just like I have theories about other people’s unconscious motives including yours. We may or may not want to discuss all that some time. Maybe you’re saying that you see some nobility in what you think are my unconscious motives. What I’m talking about now is what I think my reasons are for what I’m doing. It looks to me like it doesn’t matter to you at all what I think my reasons are for what I’m doing. I thought that you were being insincere about that, but now I see that maybe you weren’t.

You seem to have drawn conclusions for me without benefit of asking me.

I recognize that you have some agenda for doing what you are doing. It is unclear to me. At times it is confusing. You have drawn conclusions about the motivations of others that I do not agree with. Your position on the scientific consensus seems poorly formed and based on your perception of polls and not on whether the polls have merit. As well as your conclusions that statements by scientific associations are merely political statements.

I have been an am curious, but your efforts so far, have been confusing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m talking about what I think my intentions are, and my reasons for what I’m doing. You might have theories about my unconscious motives, just like I have theories about other people’s unconscious motives including yours. We may or may not want to discuss all that some time. Maybe you’re saying that you see some nobility in what you think are my unconscious motives. What I’m talking about now is what I think my reasons are for what I’m doing. It looks to me like it doesn’t matter to you at all what I think my reasons are for what I’m doing. I thought that you were being insincere about that, but now I see that maybe you weren’t.

What I have described as noble is the effort to try and understand and establish dialogues with the different sides. At least I thought the intent was to find some sort of common ground as a less invested third party. Perhaps I have been wrong about that.

 

[Jim]

What I have described as noble is the effort to try and understand and establish dialogues with the different sides. At least I thought the intent was to find some sort of common ground as a less invested third party. Perhaps I have been wrong about that.

Exactly. That’s what people have always thought, but that has never been any part of what I thought my reasons were. I’m opposed to trying to to find common ground. I don’t object to people thinking that they know something about my motives and intentions that I’m not aware of, myself. That’s quite possible. I just want to point out that it is not what I think my reasons are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly. That’s what people have always thought, but that has never been any part of what I thought my reasons were. I’m opposed to trying to to find common ground. I don’t object to people thinking that they know something about my motives and intentions that I’m not aware of, myself. That’s quite possible. I just want to point out that it is not what I think my reasons are.

Then I am at a loss. What are you doing and why?

 

[Jim]

Then I am at a loss. What are you doing and why?

I won’t discuss that in this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I won’t discuss that in this thread.

Then why do you keep asking me if I want to know what you are up to or putting words in my mouth about how I have claimed I do not want to know? This is just getting silly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly. That’s what people have always thought, but that has never been any part of what I thought my reasons were. I’m opposed to trying to to find common ground. I don’t object to people thinking that they know something about my motives and intentions that I’m not aware of, myself. That’s quite possible. I just want to point out that it is not what I think my reasons are.

Perhaps it is too complex for me to understand. You may be wasting your time trying to explain it to someone as ignorant as I am. I mean that. This sounds far too complex for me to follow.

 

[Jim]

Then why do you keep asking me if I want to know what you are up to ...

I’m not saying that I won’t discuss it. I’m saying that I won’t discuss it in this thread.

 

[Jim]

Exactly. That’s what people have always thought, but that has never been any part of what I thought my reasons were. I’m opposed to trying to to find common ground. I don’t object to people thinking that they know something about my motives and intentions that I’m not aware of, myself. That’s quite possible. I just want to point out that it is not what I think my reasons are.

Perhaps it is too complex for me to understand. You may be wasting your time trying to explain it to someone as ignorant as I am. I mean that. This sounds far too complex for me to follow.

I’ll back up and start over. I’ve decided that when I disagree with what someone is saying about my motives and intentions, sometimes I will point that out. That’s what I did with you. I’m not saying that I won’t discuss with you what I think I’m doing and why. I will if you would like me to. I’m just saying that I won’t do that in this thread.

 

[Jim]

Perhaps it is too complex for me to understand. You may be wasting your time trying to explain it to someone as ignorant as I am. I mean that. This sounds far too complex for me to follow.

I don’t think that it’s too complex for you to understand. I don’t think that you’re too ignorant to understand it. I don’t think that it would be a waste of my time. I am not saying that I won’t discuss it. All I’m saying is that I won’t discuss it in this thread.

 

[wellwisher]

I have a unique way of looking at science and religion. I believe that both science and religion are right, in their own ways and they can exist side by side. I was educated as a scientist and worked as a development engineer. This job in science places one at the cutting edge of science. I can think outside the box ,because I was educated inside the box. The trick is to use science and religion to build a bridge between them.

I assume both are right in their own ways, but need to translate to a common language, to build the bridge. Since this bridge does not exist, one needs to develop it outside the box; development 1.0. I was good at science Karaoke; A-student. I can repeat the status quo. I wanted to write new science songs and not just sing other people's songs. Development is the music studio of new science songs.

One of the main areas of debate, between science and religion is connected to Genesis in the Bible. The question is how do you build a bridge, so both sides can be correct in the own way? One way is with an analogy. For example, the Planet Pluto, which used to be planet, is no longer a planet. How can a planet suddenly change into not being a planet? Was this magic or a magic trick? It had to do with humans changing a convention, that exists apart from the actual celestial body. Pluto did not change when humans changed their minds. Social convention changed and the new convention subjectively redefined how we would teach, that which has its own existence, apart from the human mind.

Science believes that humans descended from apes and that the earliest human did not initially walk upright. Does that mean that the original humans had four legs, instead of two arms and two legs? Again it comes down to convention and cataloging standards which are subjective and arbitrary, even for science. The praying mantis appears to have four legs and two arms but is cataloged with six legs. Cataloging is not a universal truth but a human convention for sorting data.

Genesis was among the first published theories for cosmology and evolution. Just as science is a process of discovery and convention, this first published theory and convention has lingered, so we can see where science began; religion.

The invention of written language occurred, based on archeology and carbon dating, in the same time scale as the formation of the universe within Genesis; 6 thousand years ago. The invention of writing changed human thought by making the things of the mind, such as theory, more tangible and persistent. Genesis represents the first social science convention, made tangible, by the invention of writing.

Before the invention of writing there was spoken language. The brain could create new ideas, but passing these ideas by word of mouth, alone, would result in the brain forgetting and the original idea and context changing with time. After a short period of time, there was no way to verify the original ideas and thinking. With science theory in flux, the universe was also in flux, is terms of human perception and convention. Writing changed all that and made the universe; theory and convention, tangible and able to persist through time, in an exact form, even if the mind started to create a flux of change. To the ancients, this persistent of perception is when the universe began for them; tangible theory.

Science still uses this convention. A theory is not official until published. We can go back and read Darwin's thesis, in his now original words, making this theory linger for all time. Once published it becomes a repeatable convention. This does not mean it is the final truth, or it perfectly reflects reality. However, it is considered the state of the art in its day, and its persistence allows us to rebuild from scratch if need be. Genesis goes back to the first scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not saying that I won’t discuss it. I’m saying that I won’t discuss it in this thread.

OK.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ll back up and start over. I’ve decided that when I disagree with what someone is saying about my motives and intentions, sometimes I will point that out. That’s what I did with you. I’m not saying that I won’t discuss with you what I think I’m doing and why. I will if you would like me to. I’m just saying that I won’t do that in this thread.

OK. I am still a bit confused what you will be discussing. Not to say I am not interested. Just confused.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t think that it’s too complex for you to understand. I don’t think that you’re too ignorant to understand it. I don’t think that it would be a waste of my time. I am not saying that I won’t discuss it. All I’m saying is that I won’t discuss it in this thread.

Check.

 

[Jim]

OK. I am still a bit confused what you will be discussing. Not to say I am not interested. Just confused.

You asked me what I’m doing and why. I’ll discuss that if you want to, but not in this thread. Actually, I could just give you some links to where I’ve already explained it.

 

[Jim]

OK. I am still a bit confused what you will be discussing. Not to say I am not interested. Just confused.

I think that we’ve already resolved your concerns about what I was doing. If so, there might not be anything to discuss. Only, if you say things about what I’m doing that look wrong to me, I might tell you. I’ll try to remember not to overreact next time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that we’ve already resolved your concerns about what I was doing. If so, there might not be anything to discuss. Only, if you say things about what I’m doing that look wrong to me, I might tell you. I’ll try to remember not to overreact next time.

OK. That sounds fine. I'll keep an open mind and try to understand what it is that you are doing if I see you doing it.