Consent

[CabVet]

So what made scientists change their minds about filling dirigibles up with hydrogen?

I already answered this, but here you go again: airplanes.

And it wasn't scientists who decided that dirigibles should be filled with hydrogen, stop bearing false witness, please. I already asked this, never got an answer, do you know why were dirigibles filled with hydrogen?

 

[Michael]

Why is scientific consensus important? How do we ascribe a level of importance to consensus? The consensus can change when new facts become available, or when a majority decides to describe something in a different way, so, how important is it?

FYI, as far as the 'consensus' aspect is concerned, atheists must typically resort to ignoring the consensus when it suits them (as with the topic of God), and embracing it when it suits them too (typically science related topics). Often pure "empirical' standards go flying right at the window in the case of science.

 

[CabVet]

FYI, as far as the 'consensus' aspect is concerned, atheists must typically resort to ignoring the consensus when it suits them (as with the topic of God), and embracing it when it suits them too (typically science related topics). Often pure "empirical' standards go flying right at the window in the case of science.

And what exactly is the scientific consensus about god that atheists don't agree with?

 

[Michael]

And what exactly is the scientific consensus about god that atheists don't agree with?

You mean other than the fact that only about 3% of the planet labels themselves an "atheist", and the planet is *overwhelmingly* theistic?

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/mysticism/world_religions_populations.htm

 

[MikeCarra]

FYI, as far as the 'consensus' aspect is concerned, atheists must typically resort to ignoring the consensus when it suits them (as with the topic of God),

This is a good point. It shows the failure of relying on consensus rather than consensus developing around a scientific hypothesis.

The "consensus" you propose about God is anything but a consensus. If it were then the conceptions of God would all be relatively similar. Instead we literally have groups of people whose conception of "god" makes them feel it is APPROPRIATE to kill or harm people with a different conception of "god".

The fact that "god" has been experienced differently across human history (from MANY gods to multiple "Single" Gods, each with different and highly selective rules).

IF "GOD" had developed a consensus it would actually look quite impressive! The fact that we have SO MANY different conceptions of God that are often mutually exclusive is one of the ways I feel more likely to reject the idea that there is a God.

and embracing it when it suits them too (typically science related topics). Often pure "empirical' standards go flying right at the window in the case of science.

There are obviously no "empirical standards" for God. Otherwise we wouldn't need "faith" in order to first believe or we wouldn't need to implant it in little kids minds more like a mind-virus than an inherent truth.

Educate a child in what YOUR God is like and that child will definitely NOT be part of any broader consensus. It will be like you. What if the child were to be left alone to "find" God...do you think it would look like YOUR god? How about Osama Bin Laden's? Or a hindu?

 

[CabVet]

You mean other than the fact that only about 3% of the planet labels themselves an "atheist", and the planet is *overwhelmingly* theistic?

Major World Religions populations pie chart statistics list

And what exactly is the scientific consensus about god that atheists don't agree with?

If anything, your graph shows that there is no popular consensus about god. But that's not what I asked, was it?

 

[bhsmte]

You mean other than the fact that only about 3% of the planet labels themselves an "atheist", and the planet is *overwhelmingly* theistic?

Major World Religions populations pie chart statistics list

And what empirical evidence are these 3% going against?

 

[Split Rock]

It filters the wheat out to keep the chaff.

No, no... he asked about scientific consensus, not creationism.

 

[RickG]

It filters the wheat out to keep the chaff.

Just the opposite AV, but you know that. Just keep in mind that DENIAL is not a river in Egypt.

 

[bhsmte]

Just the opposite AV, but you know that. Just keep in mind that DENIAL is not a river in Egypt.

No it's not, but it is a really good defense mechanism.

 

[RickG]

I think most people misunderstand "scientific consensus". It is more than just the majority of scientists agreeing on something. It is the fact the the majority of published peer review literature supports a specific position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just the opposite AV, but you know that. Just keep in mind that DENIAL is not a river in Egypt.

Something Frances Kelsey knew well.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think most people misunderstand "scientific consensus". It is more than just the majority of scientists agreeing on something. It is the fact the the majority of published peer review literature supports a specific position.

In Pluto's case, they had to rig a vote to achieve "scientific consensus," didn't they?

 

[MikeCarra]

In Pluto's case, they had to rig a vote to achieve "scientific consensus," didn't they?

You never give up do you? No matter how many times this is explained to you. It never, ever changes your output.

Wow.

I mean, really. Wow.

I'm impressed. It must be hard to NOT learn something that has been told to you so MANY times. Apparently no one can make it simple enough for you.

 

[bhsmte]

You never give up do you? No matter how many times this is explained to you. It never, ever changes your output.

Wow.

I mean, really. Wow.

I'm impressed. It must be hard to NOT learn something that has been told to you so MANY times. Apparently no one can make it simple enough for you.

Denial is a powerful thing.

Just observe any biblical creationist on this site and you will see how handy it is.

 

[MikeCarra]

Denial is a powerful thing.

Just observe any biblical creationist on this site and you will see how handy it is.

It is definitely a defense I guess. I find it troubling that a relatively easy concept such as "creating a definition" appears to be so magical to someone like AV.

But then he is a KJV-onlyist so when a word is arbitrarily defined it becomes the holy written word of God himself.

So maybe AV thinks that the definition of "Planet" was somehow set by God and waiting to be discovered by the Astronomical Union.

Still, it boggles the mind than an adult can act this obdurate.

 

[RickG]

In Pluto's case, they had to rig a vote to achieve "scientific consensus," didn't they?

Wrong AV. Here it is one more time. Please try to understand this time and please do ask questions.

All scientific disciplines hold annual meetings where papers and new research is presented. The also hold business meetings where criteria such as what does or does not constitute a planet. The one specific to your Pluto issue is the "International Astronomical Union (IAU). On my side of the fence we have the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which includes all of the Earth Sciences.

The IAU is open to all professional scientists. This was not an ad hoc meeting, nor something ad hoc brought up. It would have been in the IAU meeting agenda well in advance of the meeting date for all concerned to be aware of. Thus all professional astronomers and those of related fields were certainly able to express their voice if they wished.

What triggered the issue of Pluto not being a planet is the fact there were at the time some 40 known celestial objects in our solar system that had just as much criteria to be called a planet as Pluto. Furthermore, Pluto does not even come close to meeting the criteria that is possessed by the other 8 planets. The line had to be drawn somewhere. When Pluto was discovered and for many decades later, it was not know that it did not possess what it needed to be a planet. This is why it was demoted. Calling it a planet in the beginning was an error. Science corrects errors as better and more accurate information becomes available.

Get over it. No one was excluded from the decision, except maybe you. Is that what it is really all about?

 

[[serious]]

For the second time:

Please explain why, then, hydrogen was discontinued.

You don't see gasoline discontinued when a car burns up.

So what made scientists change their minds about filling dirigibles up with hydrogen?

We figured out a better alternative, helium. Had helium not been available, they would probably still be hydrogen filled.

 

[AV1611VET]

Denial is a powerful thing.

Just observe any biblical creationist on this site and you will see how handy it is.

I doubt he will.

Selectivity is just as powerful.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it troubling that a relatively easy concept such as "creating a definition" appears to be so magical to someone like AV.

If it was so "relatively easy," why did they have to use subterfuge to do it?