Love of Truth and the criterion of scientific character

[lesliedellow]

It is not the practice in scientific community.

That is exactly the way science is practised.

 

[AirPo]

For a Christian the false atheism is a sin.

For an atheist a false sin is false.

 

[Gene2memE]

That is not an example, that is a fantasy that supports your view.

Well, to be fair to him, I think he's right (he just has a really poor way of expressing it).

When I went to write my masters, I was told to write from the basal assumption that my reviewers were going to work from the position that everything I'd written was wrong. It was my job to demonstrate my claims were correct, by providing supporting evidence.

Essentially, my work was 'guilty until proven innocent'.

It's a similar attitude in more formal scientific publishing as well. It's up to the author(s) to demonstrate that their claims are supported by the evidence, rather than the reviewers to demonstrate that their claims are not. THEN the paper goes out into the view of the scientific community, which can test the claims further, make counter claims about the evidence and try to replicate results.

The sciences work, to one degree or another, by attempting to disprove/break the claims/work of others, while trying to support claims/work of your own.

If there is no reason to believe a claim, then acceptance of that claim is withheld until there is sufficient evidence to accept (or reject) it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For a Christian the false atheism is a sin.

So real atheism is just fine.

It is a good thing that I am a "real" atheist.

 

[joinfree]

So real atheism is just fine.

It is a good thing that I am a "real" atheist.

The alternative to false atheism is called "Anti-idolatry". The falsity of atheism is addressed here:

The proof of omniscience:
Let us imagine the Being, who knows everything. So, He must know also, what He Himself exists. Therefore, among the treasure of knowledge we have following knowledge: omniscient Being must exist. The question of God's existence can not be answered negatively, therefore the Reason and God can not be separated. There are no presuppositions here. Can you pick some? I can't see any. The Reason comes with God, the false atheism is a wishful thinking. The adjective "false" comes from the fact, what God is proven: the proofs are part of Reason, the Reason comes with God, so the God must be proven. So, the sentence "No God" is false, therefore the atheism is false. Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

The false atheism becomes way too bigger club, than it was before. In Estonia 3/4 are false atheists. In Russia - 1/2. The numbers are about 10 years ago. When a thing becomes way too popular it looses attraction. It becomes messy. "The Gates are narrow", says our Lord.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The alternative to false atheism is called "Anti-idolatry". The falsity of atheism is addressed here:

Wrong again. I do not follow "false atheism" whatever that is. And who did you quote? The person appears to be not all there.

You really should try to learn what atheism is. I am pretty sure that you have no clue.

The false atheism becomes way too bigger club, than it was before. In Estonia 3/4 are false atheists. In Russia - 1/2. The numbers are about 10 years ago. When a thing becomes way too popular it looses attraction. It becomes messy. "The Gates are narrow", says our Lord.

Please, you really need to quit using that term. How would you like it if all Christians in the world were referred to as "False Christians". Worse yet it puts a huge burden of proof upon you that you cannot meet.

 

[joinfree]

Wrong again. I do not follow "false atheism" whatever that is. And who did you quote? The person appears to be not all there.

You really should try to learn what atheism is. I am pretty sure that you have no clue.

Please, you really need to quit using that term. How would you like it if all Christians in the world were referred to as "False Christians". Worse yet it puts a huge burden of proof upon you that you cannot meet.

The atheism is disproved already by Jesus Christ in 30 A.D. Then by holy martyrs, then by the Thomas A. These proofs are not destroyed, but mocked and trolled.
So, the atheism goes with adjective "false". You will thank me for expression "false atheism" in Heaven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The atheism is disproved already by Jesus Christ in 30 A.D. Then by holy martyrs, then by the Thomas A. These proofs are not destroyed, but mocked and trolled.
So, the atheism goes with adjective "false". You will thank me for expression "false atheism" in Heaven.

Nope, not even close.

Where do you get such baseless claims from?

 

[joinfree]

Well, to be fair to him, I think he's right (he just has a really poor way of expressing it).

When I went to write my masters, I was told to write from the basal assumption that my reviewers were going to work from the position that everything I'd written was wrong. It was my job to demonstrate my claims were correct, by providing supporting evidence.

Essentially, my work was 'guilty until proven innocent'.

It's a similar attitude in more formal scientific publishing as well. It's up to the author(s) to demonstrate that their claims are supported by the evidence, .....

I am recognized author of couple papers in Physical Review E. Then I tried another section: Physical Review D. Paper has demonstrated with rigid math, that not only a long rotating cylinder, but a natural object (rotating Black Hole's ergosphere) acts as time machine. The rejection letter contained something like this:

Thank you for considering our journal. Our reviewers have studied the manuscript and found no errors. However, our reviewer has a feeling, what a fatal mistake is there. Therefore, we, as your kind friends, strongly recommend you not to loose further time with us, but publish it elsewhere.

And I hate, when such unfriendly people write the signature: "Sincerely Yours, editor John."

 

[Vyrzaharak]

"There are many men now living who were in the habit of using the age-old expression: ‘It is as impossible as flying.’ The discoveries in physical science, the triumphs in invention, attest the value of the process of trial and error. In large measure, these advances have been due to experimentation." - Louis Brandeis

"Science is not about building a body of known ‘facts’. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - Terry Pratchett

It is possible for Einstein to be wrong, and he may one day be proven wrong. However, science is a series of observations, a world of men providing theories and proofs thereof to better understand the rules of the universe surrounding us. (Meanwhile, the only people proving Einstein wrong are those in the science community who are building upon his legacy.)

(That said, whether the current scientific institutions in the peer reviewing process help or hinder is its own subject.)

[snip]
When I went to write my masters, I was told to write from the basal assumption that my reviewers were going to work from the position that everything I'd written was wrong. It was my job to demonstrate my claims were correct, by providing supporting evidence.

Essentially, my work was 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[snip]

I'm going to postulate that it was not your work was 'guilty until proven innocent', but that you were asserting an idea in wake of the default hypothesis that was proven up until that point. After all, science is about observation, how things may exist. Otherwise, I couldn't agree more what you said (that I snipped out).

 

[joinfree]

Nope, not even close.

Where do you get such baseless claims from?

Can you address the origin of life?

 

[lesliedellow]

I am recognized author of couple papers in Physical Review E. Then I tried another section: Physical Review D. Paper has demonstrated with rigid math, that not only a long rotating cylinder, but a natural object (rotating Black Hole's ergosphere) acts as time machine. The rejection letter contained something like this:

Thank you for considering our journal. Our reviewers have studied the manuscript and found no errors. However, our reviewer has a feeling, what a fatal mistake is there. Therefore, we, as your kind friends, strongly recommend you not to loose further time with us, but publish it elsewhere.

And I hate, when such unfriendly people write the signature: "Sincerely Yours, editor John."

I hope that editor's physics (if he exists) is better than his English grammar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you address the origin of life?

Sure:


Hello origin of life!

How was that?

 

[Gene2memE]

I am recognized author of couple papers in Physical Review E. Then I tried another section: Physical Review D. Paper has demonstrated with rigid math, that not only a long rotating cylinder, but a natural object (rotating Black Hole's ergosphere) acts as time machine. The rejection letter contained something like this:
And I hate, when such unfriendly people write the signature: "Sincerely Yours, editor John."

I believe you got rejected, I don't believe the editors responded anything remotely like you say they did, nor that they found no errors, nor that an ergo sphere acts as a time machine (superluminal, possibly).

 

[joinfree]

Sure:


Hello origin of life!

How was that?

Do not mock me. Answer the question, your answer would be: "false atheist does not know how the life started." So, the false atheists' sentence "No God" is baseless. Therefore, the atheism can be called "false atheism".

 

[joinfree]

I hope that editor's physics (if he exists) is better than his English grammar.

Do not troll me, demonstrate a single mistake.

 

[joinfree]

I believe you got rejected, I don't believe the editors responded anything remotely like you say they did, nor that they found no errors, nor that an ergo sphere acts as a time machine (superluminal, possibly).

Here you have demonstrated the trolling and total nihilism and denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do not mock me. Answer the question, your answer would be: "false atheist does not know how the life started." So, the false atheists' sentence "No God" is baseless. Therefore, the atheism can be called "false atheism".

Ask your question properly. I don't call you a "false Christian", you should return the favor.

And, I probably have a much better idea of how life started than you do. I don't need magic.


By the way, do you know what a non-sequitur is? Your question was one and you drew a false conclusion based upon it. One does not need to know where life came from to be an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do not troll me, demonstrate a single mistake.

Complaining about being trolled while acting like one is hypocritical.

 

[joinfree]

.... One does not need to know where life came from to be an atheist.

More exactly: baseless atheist.