Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

Kaon said:

By the same token, those foolish and discredited notions may be the axioms of the next century. Again, I don't actually think every rejected idea is right. However, a non-negligible number of alleged "woo" is actually progress in disguise. History continues to show this. That is why it is good to be humble enough to remember that even if some of our models work, unless we reproduce the results of our theory we are just philosophizing. And, even if we can reproduce the results in a tangible way (beyond equations), we need to continue to reproduce the results to make sure they stand up.

Click to expand...

In other words, keep collecting evidence and examining it to see whether it confirms or contradicts the current theory--which is how science goes about its business.

Speedwell said:

In other words, keep collecting evidence and examining it to see whether it confirms or contradicts the current theory--which is how science goes about its business.

Click to expand...

Except for theoretical science that goes on reputation of contributor, instead of a reproducible, transparent and tangible experimentation process. How many earths, black holes or humans have we created in the lab?

On the other hand, I would imagine people get tired of being told they are wrong, only to find out they were right the whole time, but dismissed because of circumstances. So, I understand the paradigm of "anti-science" even though I am anti-academia. Academia isn't as black, white or gray as the image portrays.

Kaon said:

Except for theoretical science that goes on reputation of contributor, instead of a reproducible, transparent and tangible experimentation process. How many earths, black holes or humans have we created in the lab?

Click to expand...

Not absolutely necessary for an epistemology based on inductive logic which intends to provide provisional explanations for those phenomena.

On the other hand, I would imagine people get tired of being told they are wrong, only to find out they were right the whole time, but dismissed because of circumstances. So, I understand the paradigm of "anti-science" even though I am anti-academia. Academia isn't as black, white or gray as the image portrays.

Click to expand...

Yes academicians are not perfect. But I am not sure that is quite your point. One gets the impression from reading your posts that you see academia as peddling the theory of evolution as absolute truth to the detriment of some different explanation of our biological origins which you favor.

Speedwell said:

It happens. One thinks of the work of Wegener with plate tectonics or Lynn Margulis with symbiogenesis. Both were widely ridiculed when they began, but stuck to it and now their work is accepted science.

Click to expand...

I think some clarification might be helpful.
1. Wegener did not propose a theory of plate tectonics, but one of continental drift. This may seem like a quibbling semantic detail, but there are practical, important distinctions. Continental drift had no clearly defined mechanism; plate tectonics does. Continental drift envisaged the movement of continents over oceanic crust; plate tectonics describes plates that may combine continental and oceanic crust. Plate tectonics incorporates sea floor spreading, absent from continental drift. Etc.
2. Wegener's proposals were well received in the Southern Hemisphere, especially South Africa and Australia. It would be more accurate to say that globally the hypothesis was rejected, rather than ridiculed. Ridicule was the technique applied to Velikovsky's "World in Collision"; Wegener's ideas received reasonable scrutiny and were rejected largely (but certainly not universally) because of the absence of a plausible mechanism.
3. Wegener did not "stick to it". Instead he made the career limiting move of perishing on the Greenland ice sheet. Plate tectonics emerged from studies that were largely independent of Wegener's hypothesis. (With the honourable exception of Arthur Holmes who pretty well nailed plate tectonic in outline in 1928, while most of his colleagues were looking elsewhere).

These points do not detract from your central thesis that if there is sound evidence for a hypothesis it will be accepted, even if the time to acceptance is sometimes disappointing. And that acceptance arrives precisely because of the scientific method and the academics that Kaon decries.

Speedwell said:

Not absolutely necessary for an epistemology based on inductive logic which intends to provide provisional explanations for those phenomena.

Yes academicians are not perfect. But I am not sure that is quite your point. One gets the impression from reading your posts that you see academia as peddling the theory of evolution as absolute truth to the detriment of some different explanation of our biological origins which you favor.

Click to expand...

I know that is the impression people get, which is why I end those conversations before they actually began.

As for the first part, I suppose we all have a level of comfort we can accept in terms of error. I can't just accept something told to me without exhibition, because I know people are wrong, arrogant, make mistakes, misunderstand information, lie and deceive, cheat, and kill their own kind. In other words, I don't have faith in humanity. But I have faith in other entities on an individual level - to some measure. But, why would I trust to a lot like that when I am in the position to do the same thing (w.r.t. physics and math) minus the revolving door of grants - and I have a Father?

I don't, because I have been on the NAIVE side of academia for very long. Logic is what handicaps minds and keeps us degenerate when we believe we are progressing. This is why so many are surprised by the illogical - the lack of imagination to seriously entertain it is the weakness. I don't play that socio-academic game anymore.

I also think we should just stop; I keep having to explain myself despite being very wordy, trying to choosing the right syntax, and highlighting the right context to prevent the prejudice and assumptions that would come from reading my posts. It seems it never helps, since there is always a kernel assumption most can't see beyond (pet offense).

Good luck, and thanks for not proving most of my points in the process of exchange.

Kylie said:

Please show me how you determined that this is the sense that was intended by the people who wrote the Bible.

Click to expand...

What other sense would you expect?

Radagast said:

What other sense would you expect?

Click to expand...

Do you think that the people back then knew what photons were?

In any case, your claim that the word "light" means that photons come off the surface is not supportable. Photons are coming off the surface of my skin at the moment - is my skin a light?

Kylie said:

Do you think that the people back then knew what photons were?

Click to expand...

So? People could walk around at night under the illumination of the photons coming off the Moon.

The Bible, of course, has nothing to say about the exact mechanism by which those photons are produced.

Radagast said:

So? People could walk around at night under the illumination of the photons coming off the Moon.

The Bible, of course, has nothing to say about the exact mechanism by which those photons are produced.

Click to expand...

But the fact remains that the moon does not produce light of its own, so classifying it as a light the same sort as the sun is a fundamental error. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why would it contain such mistakes? However, it is exactly what we'd expect if the Bible was written by a bunch of people who were trying to explain things they didn't understand. This supports the idea that the Bible is a work of fiction written by men.

Kylie said:

classifying it as a light the same sort as the sun is a fundamental error.

Click to expand...

Says you.

Radagast said:

Says you.

Click to expand...

Sun: emits photons created within the sun by nuclear reactions.

Moon: nothing more than a big reflector, creates no actual light of its own.

A basic grasp of science shows that the moon and sun are two fundamentally different objects.

Kylie said:

Sun: emits photons created within the sun by nuclear reactions.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to be picky...

The photons created within the sun by nuclear reactions are gamma rays. They are not actually emitted.

The photons emitted by the sun are blackbody radiation resulting from heat in the sun's photosphere.

Radagast said:

Well, if you're going to be picky...

The photons created within the sun by nuclear reactions are gamma rays. They are not actually emitted.

The photons emitted by the sun are blackbody radiation resulting from heat in the sun's photosphere.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that doesn't help your case. The sun and moon are very different things.

Radagast said:

So? People could walk around at night under the illumination of the photons coming off the Moon.

The Bible, of course, has nothing to say about the exact mechanism by which those photons are produced.

Click to expand...

Not if you take it as phenomenological language usage. That's the point.

Speedwell said:

Not if you take it as phenomenological language usage. That's the point.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Radagast said:

Exactly.

Click to expand...

And if you admit to phenomenological language in Genesis, you pull the rug right out from under creationism.

Kylie said:

The sun and moon are very different things.

Click to expand...

ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων (the sun has one kind of splendour, and the moon another, and the stars another) -- 1 Corinthians 15:41.

Radagast said:

ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων (the sun has one kind of splendour, and the moon another, and the stars another) -- 1 Corinthians 15:41.

Click to expand...

Define splendour in this context?

Kylie said:

photons are coming off the surface of my skin at the moment - is my skin a light?

Click to expand...

It would be if it was the only source of light, or at least the source of a lot more light than anything else around.

lesliedellow said:

It would be if it was the only source of light, or at least the source of a lot more light than anything else around.

Click to expand...

But the photons bouncing off my skin could NEVER be the only source of light, since those photons would have to originate somewhere else.