Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Dawkins stopped from presenting one of his anti religion rants.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mountainmike" data-source="post: 71560308" data-attributes="member: 392252"><p>I should have separated the posts: the one regarding whether dawkins should be allowed a platform - and with reluctance I think he should - and otherwise my view on Dawkins as a scientist when he goes "off piste", and abuses science to fit his world view.</p><p></p><p>So I shall say nothing further on that - other than to say the example you give is some what facile comparing spaceships to cars which misses the point completely. So this is my last post on that aspect of the thread.</p><p></p><p>As an (ex) postgraduate professional physicist in areas involving quantum physics, I can say without fear of contradiction that a great deal of what you are obliged to believe in for conventional science is way past extraordinary, and for which there is no evidence at all, other than some of the equations derived from those assumptions seem to work.</p><p></p><p>A simple example.</p><p></p><p>Quantum phyiscs obliges me to believe - in simple terms - that particles do not exist till observed. It is not a question of indeterminacy in where they are, but they simply dont exist. Frustration with that concept led to Einsteins statement that he "refused to believe that the moon did not exist till he looked at it" in the context of the copenhagen interpretation. He lost the battle and was forced to concede Bohrs interpretation was correct and that the statement was true.</p><p></p><p>Far worse than that the fact of observation determining existence also means the universe is by that definition the world is only subjective. Yours different to mine.</p><p>So do you agree science world view is ridiculous, let alone extraordinary!</p><p>So Science obliges me to believe in many absurdities.</p><p></p><p>The philosophical failing is of course - to believe that science is more than a model,the failing is in believing science models underpin the real world rather than are just an observation model. Hawking has confirmed he believes the same in one of his books because it is the only logical consequence of his concept "model dependent reality"</p><p></p><p>So Sagans folly "extraordinary evidence" is ONLY used by those who try to defend their world view, raising the bar against things they don't like, and those who repeat suchs as Dawkins parrot fashion.. Like sagan. Like Dawkins. Who clearly do not have the support of the scientific method in making such a ridiculous statement. All evidence has to pass the same bar. Extraordinary is just a subjective word.</p><p></p><p>Dawkins doesnt "like" telepathy so uses all manner of logical fallacies to defend his dislike against the mountain of evidence, and has behaved shamefully (in the context of a scientist) in opposing it. He has classified it as "extraordinary", so no amount of evidence will ever pass his bar.</p><p>Yet there is far more evidence for telepathy than for much of what is presumed to be real science believes!</p><p></p><p>One step further.</p><p>In proper science abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and certainly not a fact. But you would not know that reading Dawkins.</p><p>Who states his belief in life as an evolved biochemical accident "as close to a fact as is true". He clearly doesnt even know what a hypothesis actually is then!</p><p>The phenomenon requires to be either repeated or repeatable so that the hypothesis as a minimum has to be testable experimentally. Abiogenesis does not qualify! It is a belief, nothing else.</p><p></p><p>The fact is there is a large amount of forensic evidence for (for example) eucharistic miracles, and specifically because of the white cells, Living matter spontaneously appearing. So in evidential terms as an origin of life, it is far superior.</p><p></p><p>As a scientist I go where the evidence leads. But accept what science is. A method and a model, and that is all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mountainmike, post: 71560308, member: 392252"] I should have separated the posts: the one regarding whether dawkins should be allowed a platform - and with reluctance I think he should - and otherwise my view on Dawkins as a scientist when he goes "off piste", and abuses science to fit his world view. So I shall say nothing further on that - other than to say the example you give is some what facile comparing spaceships to cars which misses the point completely. So this is my last post on that aspect of the thread. As an (ex) postgraduate professional physicist in areas involving quantum physics, I can say without fear of contradiction that a great deal of what you are obliged to believe in for conventional science is way past extraordinary, and for which there is no evidence at all, other than some of the equations derived from those assumptions seem to work. A simple example. Quantum phyiscs obliges me to believe - in simple terms - that particles do not exist till observed. It is not a question of indeterminacy in where they are, but they simply dont exist. Frustration with that concept led to Einsteins statement that he "refused to believe that the moon did not exist till he looked at it" in the context of the copenhagen interpretation. He lost the battle and was forced to concede Bohrs interpretation was correct and that the statement was true. Far worse than that the fact of observation determining existence also means the universe is by that definition the world is only subjective. Yours different to mine. So do you agree science world view is ridiculous, let alone extraordinary! So Science obliges me to believe in many absurdities. The philosophical failing is of course - to believe that science is more than a model,the failing is in believing science models underpin the real world rather than are just an observation model. Hawking has confirmed he believes the same in one of his books because it is the only logical consequence of his concept "model dependent reality" So Sagans folly "extraordinary evidence" is ONLY used by those who try to defend their world view, raising the bar against things they don't like, and those who repeat suchs as Dawkins parrot fashion.. Like sagan. Like Dawkins. Who clearly do not have the support of the scientific method in making such a ridiculous statement. All evidence has to pass the same bar. Extraordinary is just a subjective word. Dawkins doesnt "like" telepathy so uses all manner of logical fallacies to defend his dislike against the mountain of evidence, and has behaved shamefully (in the context of a scientist) in opposing it. He has classified it as "extraordinary", so no amount of evidence will ever pass his bar. Yet there is far more evidence for telepathy than for much of what is presumed to be real science believes! One step further. In proper science abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and certainly not a fact. But you would not know that reading Dawkins. Who states his belief in life as an evolved biochemical accident "as close to a fact as is true". He clearly doesnt even know what a hypothesis actually is then! The phenomenon requires to be either repeated or repeatable so that the hypothesis as a minimum has to be testable experimentally. Abiogenesis does not qualify! It is a belief, nothing else. The fact is there is a large amount of forensic evidence for (for example) eucharistic miracles, and specifically because of the white cells, Living matter spontaneously appearing. So in evidential terms as an origin of life, it is far superior. As a scientist I go where the evidence leads. But accept what science is. A method and a model, and that is all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Dawkins stopped from presenting one of his anti religion rants.
Top
Bottom