Role of Authoritarianism in Science

[Viker]

Okay.

 

[stvdv]

Is it, care to demonstrate any objective evidence for that claim?

Not needed here

As I did not phrase it as a claim, but a question. With a bit, very unusual for me, of naughtiness (a soft form of irony) in it (if you read it within the context), right?

I did write "God" (quoted)
IF I write "God" (quoted), I mean my personal definition of God

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

"The world is mad." (Voltaire) Logic and logical reasoning is not the king of science at all. The authority (of God's or satan's) is the king of science. After all, the absolutely logical and technically flawless 1905 AD articles of Prof. Albert Einstein for five years and more did not have the slightest meaning for all the scientists of the world (except for Einstein's Editor and Friend - most famous Prof. Niels Bohr), from their impure and arrogant lips it sounded "he does not even work as a physicist", "he is just a patent clerk", "how dare he argue with Sir Newton?", "This is Jewish science."

What's your point?

 

[viole]

"The world is mad." (Voltaire) Logic and logical reasoning is not the king of science at all. The authority (of God's or satan's) is the king of science. After all, the absolutely logical and technically flawless 1905 AD articles of Prof. Albert Einstein for five years and more did not have the slightest meaning for all the scientists of the world (except for Einstein's Editor and Friend - most famous Prof. Niels Bohr), from their impure and arrogant lips it sounded "he does not even work as a physicist", "he is just a patent clerk", "how dare he argue with Sir Newton?", "This is Jewish science."

We cannot exclude that irrational bias is present in science. for a while, at least, For the simple reason that scientists are humans with all their prejudices at all.

However, science focuses on accordance with experiments. Something which is independent from human prejudices. And it is expected to vanish when those big shot scientists with those prejudices will ultimately bite the dust and vanish. So, we should expect that this independence from bias will ultimately win, as it did in case of Einstein.

i mean, de-throning Newton is not something you can achieve so easily unless the evidence is overwhelming.

So, all of this teaches us that, ultimately, evidence is all that counts between accepting a theory, or rejecting it. If godlike Newton is declared wrong, then there are no ultimate holy cows, nor authorities. in science. Only evidence is what ultimately determine the validity of a theory .

and that is where all those ID initiatives fail. By invoking a conspiracy in science against their theories, they just admit that they cannot survive the long run, anyway. Which is obvious, since they are based on nothing. And still based on nothing, after all these years.

therefore, the obvious fact that Newton lost, and Einstein won, is sufficient to infer that authority in science has no ultimate value. And that scientific truths are ultimately embraced only if they match with observation. And that fact alone should make it obvious why science is the most valuable epistemology available to humans.

ciao

- viole

 

[GardenLady]

Einstein was miraculously lucky with journal editor - Bohr.

He would not have been so "lucky" if his work were not brilliant. The content of the work--logical, testable, useful, explanatory, innovative--is very important.

 

[Ella S.]

Universe is four dimensional, hence, there cannot be Universe without humans. TRUST ME, I KNOW.

Okay. Now I understand why you kept just repeating that you were Christian and why you feel that it's logical to conclude that the universe cannot exist from man just because the two currently exist together.

I'm actually sorry for you. It sounds like you had a really bright future ahead of you before your genes finally triggered this. I hope that you at least feel blessed by God and don't take us arguing with you too personally.

You're a good person and exceedingly bright. The stress of having these insights must be wearing on you. I recommend that you lean on somebody that can help you deal with all of this. I'd hire a licensed counselor, because they are often equipped to support those with struggles as great as yours.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many people attempting to make sound arguments make loud ones instead (but loudness is a property of sound). My sister is magna cum loudest in debates.

This feels like a rebuke of my posting style. Sorry you don't like it.

Isn't it possible that a deity made conditions for life?

Yes.

It is also possible that no such thing exists, and that the conditions for life and then life and mind arose naturalistically. Science has demonstrated that the universe assembled itself from seeds and runs itself without intelligent oversight. That came as a surprise, but it's now the dominant paradigm. Nature doesn't need an intelligent designer, builder, or ruler. Even if a god is ever discovered, it may well be the product of a larger nature as well. It seems necessarily true that consciousness is not the creation of an intelligent designer, since such a concept presupposes consciousness.

Some believe that it is a fluke of nature that earth has all three phases of water (vapor, liquid/steam, and ice). These are responsible for life as we know it.

Earth enjoys many benefits that make life including human life possible. Yes, liquid water is one.

Is your comment a reaction to my comment that oxygen and water are scarce in most of the universe? That was an observation that most of space is relatively empty and not conducive to life forming or surviving. The surface of earth is a place where water oceans have formed, but how far in any direction does one need to go to find another location suitable for life to arise? Some of the moons in the solar system might support simple life, but that doesn't refute the point that the number of places where this could have occurred is very, very small compared to the volume of space where there is too little of what is needed for life to arise accumulated.

It appears that the conditions for life to form and evolve over long periods of time are sparse and widely separated, but that where they obtain, life would be expected to form spontaneously every time, not as a fluke occurrence. The argument is thermodynamic, and is related to way that complex, organized systems of matter will arise and spontaneously self-organize the way a tornado or hurricane does. Combine the necessary conditions and ingredients, and large systems of low entropy, coordinated air movement arise to dissipate heat. The warmer the ocean and atmosphere, the the larger the the storm and the longer it remains organized as a storm. It is thought that life itself is such far-from-equilibrium, self-organized, energy channeling systems that arise spontaneously where the necessary ingredients and conditions for life to arise come together.

If you're interested in such matters, you might like this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

Assuming that planets were made by accretion of matter in rings of matter in a disk around the sun (much like the rings of Saturn), we could assume that such acccretion began as chunks of frozen matter. That is, the earth might have been formed by water freezing, forming chunks that stuck to each other, and as more and more mass stuck, the earth was formed. Similarly, Jupiter might have been formed by methane freezing into chunks. All of the planets may be at the point where some gas freezes and forms chunks. If this frozen chunk idea (not theory) is correct, then there might be water planets around most stars. This would make it much more likely that life, as we know it, exists somewhere in the vast universe.

Yes, it seems very likely that the universe is seeded with life.

If you're interested in how the oceans formed, this might be useful to you: What do we know about the origin of the earth's oceans? Is it more likely that they derive from icy comets that struck the young earth or from material released from the earth's interior during volcanic activity? (origin of the earth's oceans?)

 

[Sheldon]

And human is "God" his Creation, right?

Is it, care to demonstrate any objective evidence for that claim?

Not needed here

As I did not phrase it as a claim, but a question.

My apologies, so you did, I missed it, mea culpa.

 

[questfortruth]

So, all of this teaches us that, ultimately, evidence is all that counts between accepting a theory, or rejecting it. If godlike Newton is declared wrong, then there are no ultimate holy cows

The World is a complicated compromise between Mr. Madness and Mr. Reason.
This principle explains the presence of both Theory of Evolution and General Relativity.
And explains both sanctions against Holy Russian Church and North Korea.
And explains difference in treatment of bi-sexuals and zoophiles.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps emotions are what the Divine God wanted us to experience (love, etc).

Perceptive. Our emotions (in fact, the totality of what we as organisms do) are the algorithms that move life forward.

And those emotions, all of our feelings, really, can be quite finely tuned. Think of the birds seeking food in the city in winter: too brazen to get out of the way of an oncoming car, and they're squashed, but too shy, and they lose out to other, less-shy rivals. These tunings are selected for by evolution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But not Eastern Orthodox Christians. There is difference from Eastern Orthodox Christians and all other types of Christians.

Prettier dresses?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Isn't it supposed to be the atheists on this forum whose understanding of science is really bad?

Actually, on the whole, atheists typically do better at understanding science than religious believers.

What many atheist scientists (and atheists who just get science) share with believers is a very real capacity for awe and wonder. Where they then differ is that the believer is likely to stop there, while the scientist or interested atheist is more apt to continue to ask questions, and to seek further understanding.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Universe is a box with borders: ranging from 1905 AD upto 2030 AD. Hence if you were alive at 1906AD, then you belong to Universe forever and ever.

Wow! Just wow! No wonder some of us have some difficulty accepting your claims to special genius.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Universe is a box with borders: ranging from 1905 AD upto 2030 AD. Hence if you were alive at 1906AD, then you belong to Universe forever and ever.

I dont fit in to that box so I don't belong in this Universe

I create my own universe i will call it "THE FURRYVERSE"
everything is possible, right?

 

[questfortruth]

Where they then differ is that the believer is likely to stop there

If "stop" is inevitable, only then we are "stopping".

The godless one objected that the atheist-scientist continues to study when the believer stops. But the fact is that the atheist continues to move forward when it is impossible to move forward: we have come up against a miracle, not unknown laws of matter.

 

[viole]

The World is a complicated compromise between Mr. Madness and Mr. Reason.
This principle explains the presence of both Theory of Evolution and General Relativity.
And explains both sanctions against Holy Russian Church and North Korea.
And explains difference in treatment of bi-sexuals and zoophiles.

I have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I am out.

ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

Universe is a box with borders: ranging from 1905 AD upto 2030 AD. Hence if you were alive at 1906AD, then you belong to Universe forever and ever.

The materials which constitute your body and make possible your biochemistry and bioelectricity indeed belong to the universe for as long as there's a universe.

The conscious 'you' that's the result of that biochemistry and bioelectricity didn't exist until after you were conceived, and will cease to exist when the life support systems of your body irreversibly fail.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If "stop" is inevitable, only then we are "stopping".

The godless one objected that the atheist-scientist continues to study when the believer stops. But the fact is that the atheist continues to move forward when it is impossible to move forward: we have come up against a miracle, not unknown laws of matter.

I presume by "the Godless one" you are referring to me (since you are citing what I wrote). Therefore, I urge you to look at what you yourself just wrote, and check it against your own claims to superior intelligence.

You might, if you were honest, surprise yourself. I do not see it happening, however.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"The world is mad." (Voltaire) Logic and logical reasoning is not the king of science at all. The authority (of God's or satan's) is the king of science. After all, the absolutely logical and technically flawless 1905 AD articles of Prof. Albert Einstein for five years and more did not have the slightest meaning for all the scientists of the world (except for Einstein's Editor and Friend - most famous Prof. Niels Bohr), from their impure and arrogant lips it sounded "he does not even work as a physicist", "he is just a patent clerk", "how dare he argue with Sir Newton?", "This is Jewish science."

So we are just going to ignore that once it was clear to all that the evidence supported einstein's ideas and that they all also understood his ideas, that the scientific consensus shifted and adopted the new reality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Universe is there,
2. Humans are there.
Hence, there cannot be Universe without humans.

1. My grandfather is there
2. I am there.

Hence, there can not be my grandfather without me.




Great logic you got there