Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are right that science is a method, just as sometimes "religion" has been a method used to describe reality. They both create "beliefs/hypotheses" on the topic of how humans got here.
Can you elaborate on this by explaining the religious method?
IMO religion was simply mankind's first "method" of trying to make sense of the universe and the observations we see in the universe. It was simply a primitive and less structured form of "science". The "explanations" it offers vary from the "supernatural" to the entirely "natural" in the case of panentheism.
Lambda-CDM simply represents a "scientific" attempt to explain how the universe got here, how it works, etc.
They ultimately seek to explain "reality", albeit in slightly different ways.
The moment we have FAITH in science is the day science will cease to be science. We ACCEPT science. Big difference!
I understand your point. Some things that we call science must be taken on "faith" which is to say that we don't have direct, casual evidence of it... But I feel like the way you are saying it is trying to make science seem like a religion.
Not always. The *core assumptions/claims* of BB theory have *never* been demonstrated and could never be demonstrated in controlled experimentation on Earth. Hubble himself wrote about *two* possible explanations for photon redshift, inelastic scattering (he called it tired light), and expansion.As methods of inquiry, they are VASTLY different. The religious method assuming a preferred conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it. The scientific method looks at the evidence first then forms conclusions.
Was it really just "chance" that caused the Catholic Priest to promote a creation event theory, or did he have a "bias" that came from religion, which he then applied to "science"?If the religious method ever gets it right, it's only by the blindest of chance.
I can easily demonstrate to you that they don't do any such thing, particularly as it relates to the photon redshift phenomenon.Science, on the other hand, systematically experiments and through process of elimination arrives at a conclusion with far better precision.
Well, when you been virtually executed for the sins of "lack of belief" for such claims, you start to see clear evidence of "blind faith" rather than honest scientific doubt/But you are acting like these physicists have some kind of blind faith or reverence for things like dark energy... This just isn't true.
Ya, apparently he's a giant fan of Gutheology which immediately discredits everything else he has to say. His militant attitude toward "religion" also demonstrates his irrational biases. You'll need a better role model in astronomy if you expect to impress me. Guth and Krauss won't cut it for me, starting with their irrational claims about a "zero net energy" universe.Ever heard Lawerance Krauss talk about dark energy?
I can tell you *exactly* what it *actually* is. It's supernatural ad hoc gap filler to save one otherwise *falsified* cosmology theory from instant empirical falsification. It serves no other purpose whatsoever.He will flat out tell you that we just call it dark energy but we really don't have the slightest clue about what is it.
Go read the rule system over at Cosmoquest, and tell me that again with a straight face.This is nothing like religion! Scientists don't walk around acting like they know everything.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I've been virtually lynched at astronomy websites for my "heresy". In fact the only forum that ever actually held a "witch hunt" was "Bad Astronomy" (apt name), now called "Cosmoquest". You can't even discuss "non standard" beliefs on their website for more than 90 days, and you cannot discuss any topic that has already be "dealt with" in the past.They will be the first to tell you how ignorant we are about reality... Whereas religious people think they know everything about EVERYTHING but they don't even have the observations to begin with.
In a meeting with french astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, Napoleon, after listening to him explain how he could calculate the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter with such mathematical precision, asked him where did God reveal himself in the design? To which Laplace responded:
"I had no need of that hypothesis."
That same statement also applies to dark energy, inflation, exotic matter claims, string theory, etc. Gravity is but one force of nature, EM fields being another. Lambda-CDM includes no calculations related to EM fields in spacetime, even though the universe is mostly in a plasma state. That should be your first clue that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
To say that the dark matter hypothesis is not needed is wildly inaccurate...
Dark energy is actually based upon supernova studies of signal broadening in plasma, which they utterly ignored in favor of "time dilation" assumptions. Originally they predicted that the universe was slowing down over time due to the pull of gravity. By misinterpreting the signal broadening event as "time dilation" they convinced themselves that the universe must be "speeding up" instead. They quite literally *invented* "dark energy" to fix that "problem" they had with their original "failed prediction".There is obviously some measurable force that we have not identified that is responsible for these predictions. We decided to call it "dark energy"
FYI, I saw a good History Channel show today called "Proving God". It was well worth watching and talked about "God genes". I thought the brain studies were fascinating and the scientist conducting them was extremely fair in the way he presented both sides of the debate. You might check it out sometime.You seem to be interested in science but you must still be under the influence of your "god genes"
In terms of what actually can be shown in the lab, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. What's the difference? Where does "dark energy" come from? What physical experiment shows that it has any effect on a photon?You just can't seem to shake it... You make the same bad analogies and misrepresentations as regular religious people. You fall victim to the temptations to slip into straw-men arguments and go after red herrings. Just like the fundamentalists.
You can't possibly believe the comparison you are making between a mysterious, undefined "god-force" and what we call "dark energy".
They are totally different.
The string theorists certainly do. Even calling it a "theory" however (M-Theory) is *outrageously misleading* since it makes no actually testable predictions and it requires faith in multiple extra dimensions.Also, you are beating a straw-man when you mention string theory... No physicist is seriously putting much credence into it.
Such as?Lastly, I don't know what you are going on about with Lambda-CDM but I'm sure you are over-exaggerating something...
Been there, done that already in the terms of the pure physics aspects.If your hypothesis has any merit you should probably publish an article about it so that people who actually know about the subject can review it cuz you use a lot of big words and I'm not a physicist.
WRONG! We have peer review in science for the simple reason that it checks for the validity and adherence to the rules of science. Faith has nothing to do with it. It seems that you judge everything according to your beliefs and since your beliefs are based on faith then I can assure you others do not abide by your reasoning!It all depends on how you "accept" scientific claims. If you accept *all* beliefs/claims that come from science, without ever "questioning" the claims, such "faith" can be exactly like religious faith. It can be just like someone who simply puts their faith in the leaders of their church, without really questioning the claims for themselves.
In fact, in my experience atheists tend to know very little about astronomy theory in general, yet the accept the claims being made, pretty much hook line and sinker, and will often start trying to justify the claims without even first *understanding or thinking* about them for themselves.
WRONG! We have peer review in science for the simple reason that it checks for the validity and adherence to the rules of science. Faith has nothing to do with it.
It seems that you judge everything according to your beliefs and since your beliefs are based on faith then I can assure you others do not abide by your reasoning!
Ok, Ill accept your claim about science being the same as religion if only one thing were true:
religious leaders must submit to peer review.
How about starting with some simple things like, monotheism, or "God is loving and merciful"? Would we find *no* agreement, or just some 'crackpot dissent" among a minority?Just think about that for a minute. They would NEVER reach any kind of agreement of any kind! You put 50 theologians in a room and you get 50 different opinions.
You really think you'll get 100 percent consensus on something like 'global warming'? How about the minority views?Now put 50 scientists in a room and you usually get a consensus because science only offers claims which can be VERIFIED.
Evidence at some point becomes subjective, particularly in things that are *not* empirical. If there isn't 100 percent consensus in science, why would you require that of religion?That is to say that a scientific theory only has merit to the extent to which it CAN be verified.... If it's not verifiable then it's probably better to call it a "hypothesis". At least until some evidence is uncovered.
Evidence at some point becomes subjective, particularly in things that are *not* empirical. If there isn't 100 percent consensus in science, why would you require that of religion?
I didn't say 100% consensus... Real life isn't that black and white. There will always be some small pieces of evidence that don't quite fit the current theory.
In cosmology theory they've all failed rather spectacularly over the past 5 years.But the beauty of science is that it makes predictions about the actual world.
Guth threw out GR theory when he claimed gravity is a "negative energy" and that we live in a net zero energy universe. Is that even a "majority" claim in "science"? Individuals make all sorts of goofy claims, scientists too.We don't completely throw out Newton's gravity even though we now know about relativity because his theory still WORKS even though it's not 100% correct.
Apparently you haven't tried playing the role of skeptic as it relates to inflation theory. The original individual that 'made up the claim' attributed his "deity" with supernatural capabilities *galore*, not just one. It then become "dogma". The dogma must be right now, even though all of it was actually falsified by the hemispheric variations in the Planck data set. The *fix* (a new supernatural construct) must show that the original inflation dogma was *right* (even though it was actually wrong), it was just 'incomplete'. The need to protect the dogma is financially and emotionally important to scientists too.Religion has nothing like this. it's true because the pope said it's true! The pope and other religious leaders can make something dogma just by saying so!
What kind of publication would you suggest we call our new "Religion Peer Review' publication anyway?That's NOT science. That's NOT peer review.
If global warming were a fragile enough theory that it could be taken down by a single doctor (not even a geological scientist, mind you, and one who makes absolutely no evidence-based claims in that article), it would hardly be a scientific consensus, would it? Certainly the comparison to eugenics in the article would indicate that the doctor, whatever his other talents, does not fully understand global warming. Global warming is not a theory of human behavior. It is a theory of climate change with excessive amounts of evidence and well-understood processes. There is no meaningful scientific controversy around it.
Ok, Ill accept your claim about science being the same as religion if only one thing were true:
religious leaders must submit to peer review.
Just think about that for a minute. They would NEVER reach any kind of agreement of any kind! You put 50 theologians in a room and you get 50 different opinions.
Now put 50 scientists in a room and you usually get a consensus because science only offers claims which can be VERIFIED. That is to say that a scientific theory only has merit to the extent to which it CAN be verified.... If it's not verifiable then it's probably better to call it a "hypothesis". At least until some evidence is uncovered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?