Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

1. If God does exist
a.many believe that there is positive evidence for God, things like the beauty of life, the complexity, history, spiritual renewal. I even resently read about an experiment done in which a person was weighed before death and then again at the moment of death in order to see how much the soul weighs. Interestingly, there was a weight difference.

This study was done about 90 years ago, so a red flag should immediately go up right there. Here's the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Attempted_demonstrations_of_the_soul_as_distinct_from_the_mind

The researcher's methodology was flawed, the results were inconsistent, and though he promised to do follow up work, the follow up never came. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the work was anything but utterly false.

We could go on, but we don't have all day.

It'd be nice if you would try, because so far you're 0 for 1.

The very world around us, boasts of a force or being beyond the chance and it is this very evidence that seems to be at the core of the creationists belief.

Except that modern science has provided explanations for the existence and nature of our world. There is, quite simple, no need for any god to exist to explain one single thing about our universe. Though you're welcome to try pointing something out.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What I am saying is that if there is a God, chaos isn't chaos at all. What we deem disorderly, is really order. What we see as chaos is'nt chaos at all, it provides a different mindset, a different set of options to the world and our understanding of the world.

even from an orthodox Christian POV is this true?
is quantum indeterminism determinant for God?
are non linear dynamical systems nonchaotic to God?
or is this just another modern rephrasing of the free will v. foreordination of God discussion?

justify your answer.

 

[VinceBlaze]

How does this explain the not insignificant number of creationists-turned-evolutionists?

People change. As they change, they see new angles.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I work among scientists

How does this make one a scientist?

and have been published in peer-reviewed literature?

For example?

This isn't about being qualified, but about research.

It's about unqualified research then?

Scientists do research. Not everybody else does.

How do you know? It's sounds like you're talking more about researchers than scientists now. Are they the same to you?

You don't have to be a scientist to be qualified or knowledgeable.

I don't?

You have to be adding to the total body of knowledge to be a scientist, though.

The total body of what knowledge?

 

[Tomk80]

How does this make one a scientist?

For example?

It's about unqualified research then?

How do you know? It's sounds like you're talking more about researchers than scientists now. Are they the same to you?

Scientists do research. That is their job. When they stop doing research, they stop being scientists and start being something else. Being a 'scientist' is a job position, in which there are more and less qualified people, just as with any other job. A job position which explicitly contains doing research amongst it's tasks. What do you think a 'scientists' is?

I don't?

No. Some of my friends will make excellent doctors. They will be [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] scientists though.

The total body of what knowledge?

Empirical knowledge.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Politics is not science. That doesn't mean it doesn't have merit, but it definitely isn't science.

What are politics if not otherwise science? And what non-scientific merit would politics have?

 

[Chalnoth]

How does this make one a scientist?

Is not being a scientist a profession? Do we not define professions by the work people do?

For example?

So far these two papers:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603247 (I did the primary work on this paper)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606088 (I corroborated the parameter estimation results with Hans for the results found in this paper)
I have also given professional talks at two cosmology conferences this year. Currently I've just started working with the South Pole Telescope team. Lloyd Knox and I are getting started on developing the analysis part of the pipeline (though we are sure to add more members to performing the analysis soon...it's a big job).

I have only just started, though. I'm still working on my Ph.D. (I'm "all but dissertation" now, and have a year or two to go).

How do you know? It's sounds like you're talking more about researchers than scientists now. Are they the same to you?

All scientists are researchers. The reverse may not be true.

The total body of what knowledge?

Human knowledge, as it relates to a specific field. Edit: Tomk80 is right, empirical knowledge is a better definition.

 

[Tomk80]

What are politics if not otherwise science?

Euh, politics? What else would they be. Politics is politics, it is not science. Two different things.

And what non-scientific merit would politics have?

Politics are used to resolve matters that cannot be resolved scientifically, hopefully with scientific advice in mind (although this is often ignored). Science can give advice on which points need money or which kind of legislation would be necessary or not, and maybe some advice on which projects or policies are better then others. But to make a final decision in this, non-scientific matters like the opinion of the politicians (which we hope reflects the opinions of the people in a democracy). Many of these opinions are not and cannot be based on science, but are a result of a certain worldview.

 

[VinceBlaze]

On the basis of whether or not I am doing research perhaps?

A scientist is a researcher then in your perspective?

Treating psychologists do not train to do research, they train to see patients. There is a difference there. The same with doctors, pastors etc etc.

Please define 'research' then. For example, does reading comic books qualify as 'research'?

Even 'scientists' is too broad a term, as science covers many facets and a good scientist in one discipline is not necessarily a good scientist in a different discipline then his own.

Okay. What term should we be using then, if 'scientist' is too broad?. 'Researcher' perhaps?

 

[VinceBlaze]

What would be the official ruling if Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review to substantiate Creation?

Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review during Old Testament canonization.

 

[Tomk80]

A scientist is a researcher then in your perspective?

Yes, again, what else would a scientists be?

Please define 'research' then. For example, does reading comic books qualify as 'research'?

It could, but not as scientific research.

Okay. What term should we be using then, if 'scientist' is too broad?. 'Researcher' perhaps?

Terms are already defined. A scientists doing research in astronomy is an astronomer. A scientist doing research in physics a physicist. Etc etc.

 

[Chalnoth]

Please define 'research' then. For example, does reading comic books qualify as 'research'?

The research must add to the total body of human knowledge for it to be considered science, and must conform to the scientific method. I have a hard time imagining how one might apply the scientific method to the research of comic books.

Okay. What term should we be using then, if 'scientist' is too broad?. 'Researcher' perhaps?

I think that researcher is more broad than scientist. An historian, for example, performs research, but I don't know that you could call an historian a scientist. Now, history has lots of merit and is a very useful field, but I don't think it necessariliy conforms to the scientific method.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

What are politics if not otherwise science? And what non-scientific merit would politics have?

What are rocks? What is the atmosphere?

Please define how science and ploitics are similar so that we may rationally discuss?

Thankyou.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review during Old Testament canonization.

which canon?
which council?

 

[VinceBlaze]

I can't believe as an act of will because my beliefs are not a conscious choice for me the way it is for people of faith.

I suggest that faith-based beliefs are not commonly by conscious choice either. Such is merely an illusion among those who pride themselves in having a sense of free will. People are typically swayed into their religious beliefs according to the life experiences which have shaped them, coupled with their personality type propensities. People see what evidences they wish to see in any given situation, and they are unable to see otherwise clear counter-evidences which are set right before their eyes.

But faith permits one to select any weird notion one likes and become stoicly convinced of that with complete certainty even if its something that person made up in his own mind, and even if that idea is both impossible and already disproved because it stands counter to everything anyone knows about anything.

And you believe that this is a conscious operation of the will?

PS Happy Birthday.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Has anyone ever suggested to you that the scientific method be used to conduct interpersonal relationships?

Such would be fine for distant psycho-analytical observation (as perhaps performed by a clinician), but I suggest that it sort of stunts emotional response sensitivity while engaging in the relationships themselves.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I suddenly feel like we are hijacking this thread,

That's okay. I commonly hijack my own threads anyway after I start them, lolol.

 

[milkyway]

Such would be fine for distant psycho-analytical observation (as perhaps performed by a clinician), but I suggest that it sort of stunts emotional response sensitivity while engaging in the relationships themselves.

Err, quite!! So giving "interpersonal relationships" as an example of where science doesn't always work was a little pointless of you...

 

[VinceBlaze]

Scientists do research. That is their job. When they stop doing research, they stop being scientists and start being something else.

If all scientists are researchers, yet not all researchers are scientists, then what sets apart scientists from the greater body of researchers?

Being a 'scientist' is a job position, in which there are more and less qualified people, just as with any other job. A job position which explicitly contains doing research amongst it's tasks. What do you think a 'scientists' is?

I guess that I view not only the research, but also the implementation of methods as science.

For example, I am a corporate manager highly skilled in work ergonomics. I've trained hundreds of employee laborers in the corporate realm, many of whom became super-performers through the implementation of ergonomic principles. I can walk onto virtually any work crew and increase it's overall productivity levels by 10%, and have commonly done so when running other people's crews for them. I consider work ergonomics to be a science, and anyone who works ergonomically to be a scientist. This is perhaps not the strictest definition of science, but it is nonetheless one that I generally hold.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Is not being a scientist a profession? Do we not define professions by the work people do?

Which professions are we referring to? Certainly not all professions.

So far these two papers:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603247 (I did the primary work on this paper)

What is dark energy, and is it empirically perceived? Sounds slightly metaphysical.