TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
I don't see much evidence that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone else
lol, owkay then.
Not really much left to say, in that case.
I can only express how bizar it is to say such a thing.
Upvote
0
I don't see much evidence that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone else
lol, owkay then.
Not really much left to say, in that case.
I can only express how bizar it is to say such a thing.
"physics"?
I think you misspelled "creationism" - and a rather strange and weird version of it.
I'm talking about the ideas/concepts, not the accuracy thereof.
I would have thought that I made that very clear already, with my star wars example.
I didn't claim I had.
Maybe you should respond to what I actually say, instead of what you would like me to so just so you can object to it.
I don't think I used the word "professional", which actually just means you get paid to do it...
Nevertheless, he certainly was a well-credentialed one.
Which, by the way, doesn't mean that someone without credentials can't contribute or discover things. It is, obviously, perfectly possible for someone to be self-taught and never take any exams and thus not get credentialed, while actually being more knowledgeable then certain other people with credentials.
But, as always, the proof will be in the pudding.
Ideas fall and stand on their own merrit - not on the merrit of who proposes them.
The point about experts however, is that for outsiders -laymen-, it is quite impossible to evaluate the ideas.
We simply lack the required knowledge to do so properly. So it is perfectly fine to rely on experts to provide us with answers.
And since we aren't able to evaluate the ideas, the best thing we can do is go by the credentials. And perhaps also the overall reputation the expert in question has within his field of expertise.
Why is it at all relevant what Einstein did to earn money?
\You certainly were implying something like that. Why else would you bring it up?
Astrologers know about astrology, just like homeopaths know about homeopathy.
In and in neither case does it mean that astrology and homeopathy are true / correct / accurate.
I couldn for the life of me list all the horoscope signs and what they supposedly mean 'in astrology', for example. An astrologist would be able to. ie: (s)he would know more about astrology then me.
Just like a so-called "trekkie" will now more about Star Trek, then I do.
How can you not get this?
Of course it doesn´t, and noone said it did. Familiarity with "physics" (hypotheses, methods, ideas and concepts applied in physics) directly translates to "knowledge of physics". That´s what the Tagliatelle meant, and I´m not going to further feed your attempts at equating "having knowledge about an idea, approach, concept..." with "believing it to be accurate" or it "being accurate".
You are burning your own strawman here.
Like, I will readily concede that - if only for knowing terms like EU, lambda-whatnot, LCMD-plasma that you keep throwing around - you are more knowledgeable in physics than I am (I don´t even know the terms, lest the concepts). Doesn´t mean I think you have it right.
I don´t know. That wasn´t the question. The question was who knows more about ideas, hypotheses, theories in physics.Then technically how could you even know who actually "knows" more about the universe?
It's a god that is providing its worshipers the answers to their problems and questions. It does not require faith, it instead gives physical evidence visible to all. This pretty much explains why some people treat science like a religion.
What do you think of the statement, "Science is all-knowing and all-powerful"?
It's called curiosity.... If we consider the spirit of "hypothesis" and "predictions" in the experiments carried out, it appears there is a distinct hope in the unseen and unknown when science is practiced.
What do you think of the statement, "Science is all-knowing and all-powerful"?
Also, by sharing this Knowledge with everybody Science would limit our Free Will.Well, science is indeed all-powerful. It just choses not to exercise this power, but indeed to stay within certain limits that are defined by its "nature".
And science is also all-knowing. It just choses not to share this knowledge with anyone else, except for some limited and open-to-interpretation "revelations"
See? Science is indeed like God!
Well, science is indeed all-powerful. It just choses not to exercise this power, but indeed to stay within certain limits that are defined by its "nature".
And science is also all-knowing. It just choses not to share this knowledge with anyone else, except for some limited and open-to-interpretation "revelations"
See? Science is indeed like God!
/sarcasm, for anyone who didn't get it.