-
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.
Changing beliefs
- Thread starter UnderstandForgive
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,187
- 52,654
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
My karma ran over your dogma.
... that was a joke.
In their particular case it was their own karma that ran over their own dogma.
Upvote
0
You do at least realize that we very intentionally used the term 'rigid', not solid, right? Let me guess? You're still peddling that falsified mainstream theory too, in *spite of* (in conflict with) the data?
Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2014
- 57
- 0
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Maybe dogma has a purpose, suppose someone believed that it was dogma to believe in the laws of thermodynamics and set out to make a perpetual motion machine for the rest of his life. So science does require at least a bit of faith, because if you question something, and refuse to believe it, and the principle really is fundamental and true, then you are wasting your time. What level of exhaustion is required before things are accepted as true? What are your standards for accepting something as true?
Basically Michael, what evidence would have to be presented to you to accept the theory that the universe is expanding in the way as generally accepted and taught in schools? What experiment could be performed?
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
No matter what context, this never gets old. Makes me laugh every time.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Like I said before, there's always a "scientific' aspects of the dogma that comes into direct conflict with the data. When that happens, there's really only one of two things that can occur. They can *accept* the data, and get rid of the bad dogma, or they can cling to the bad dogma, and try to deny the data. In almost all cases there is a strong emotional need to ignore the conflicting data at all costs, and repeat the erroneous dogma. It really doesn't matter what the topic might be, the behaviors are virtually identical.
Even bad or incorrect theories can pave the way for correct or better ones. Think of how much the concept of the atom has changed over time, starting out with a theory that was more incorrect than correct.
Upvote
0
They are essentially empirical standards. I would say that *faith* is necessary, both in terms of religion and science. We need to have faith in any idea, at least long enough to check it out. Dogma is useful in conveying group information, but there is *empirically demonstrated* dogma (like your thermodynamic example), and there is *non demonstrated* dogma (like string theory).
There's also a category of *bad dogma* that tends to directly conflict with the data. The bad dogma isn't useful at all. In fact it can be a detriment to further progress. When the dogma doesn't jive with the data set, it's time to let that falsified dogma go. Unfortunately humans are loathe to do that easily, and the topic is virtually irrelevant in my experience.
Well if they could demonstrate that 'space expansion' has a tangible effect on a photon in a lab, as I can demonstrate that moving objects have a tangible effect on photons, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Since they cant do that, and will never be able to do that, it will forever remain an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer (non demonstrable dogma). I hate that kind of dogma to start with because there is no evidence to support it, and no way to refute it on Earth. It borders on unfalsifiable dogma *by design*.
Likewise if they could tell me where 'dark energy' comes from, show me a way to control it in a lab, and demonstrate it has some effect on a photon, I'd accept that concept too. Alas however, I have to take 68 percent of their theory on *faith*, and that doesn't even include inflation or the base claim of "space expansion". Already I must perform three pure acts of *faith* in order to hold 'belief' in their theory. It's already smelling like a bad religion rather than 'good science'. The supernatural aspects have already gone off scale.
Now of course they *could have* found some hint of SUSY sparticles at LHC. That would have made me rethink my beliefs about their claims at least as it relates to exotic matter claims. I still would have been apprehensive as it relates to photon redshift claims, but at least they'd have *some* support of *some* element of their claim.
What they actually got however were three straight falsifications of their own theory, and their exotic matter predictions were shown to be wrong in three unique ways. At that point their *dogma* came into direct conflict with their *data*. Every so called important *prediction* they made with SUSY theory was falsified at either the electron roundness experiments, the LHC experiments, and the LUX experiments. Three straight strikes they took. They're out of there IMO.
Not only is there dogma 'supernatural' by design (expanding space), it's been *falsified* in the lab, and that is the *only* part of their theory that ever *could be* falsified in the lab.
Not only was it falsified in the lab, the revelation of them under counting stars by the hundreds (plural) of trillions pretty much explains why they were missing so much mass in 2006.
I'd say that faith is necessary in science, but only so long as to *test* the claim. If the claim is falsified, and the *faith* continues, it's just misplaced faith and bad dogma.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sure. I'd even go so far as to support the search for SUSY particles as an extension to the standard particle physics theory, but not if they intend to outright *ignore* the results of such tests.
It's not like I really care if exotic matter exists or doesn't exist when it comes right down to it. I simply see no logical reason to *assume* it must exist, particularly when such a claim flies in the face of several types of falsification processes that have already taken place.
LUX looked for high energy WIMPS and found exactly none. It's therefore irrational to point at the center of the galaxy and claim that high energy WIMPS did it. The dogma is bad dogma that goes *against* the lab tests.
If they don't intend to abide by the results of such tests, why conduct them at all?
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Because someone might later notice those tests and recognize the results that were ignored.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Hope springs eternal.
It's a part of being human.
You can survive 3 weeks without food
3 days without water
And 3 minutes without air,
But you won't survive 3 seconds without hope
(Rule of threes, a saying I can't remember the origins of)
Upvote
0
I frankly don't see any evidence at all of anything being "suppressed". It's more like the information simply goes in one ear and out the other.
It looks more like pure denial from the outside looking in. For instance, the LUX equipment peaks in sensitivity at about the 33Gev range. LUX saw absolutely nothing in that energy range, or in any of the other energy ranges that it's designed to explore.
Those inconvenient facts about LUX didn't change the fact that the first paper being promoted at that last 'dark matter conference' at UCLA was a theory about WIMPS in the 30Gev range.
Like I said, the LUX results certainly weren't suppressed in any way, but the information from those experiments apparently went in one ear and out the other.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
