I don't think I'm EITHER (A-Theist NOR Theist) DARE I say I'm the "Dirty Third"....being:aa
Offline agnostic?!!??!!!??
The root of the word "agnostic" means simply "not knowing".
As in "DOES God exist??"...... "uh, I don't know!!"
At least that is my own pea-brained take on it.
Now, to ease the colic that has undoubtedly been created and created the need for a few diapers to be changed...... I am FAR from a "theist", as basically anyone that I have gotten into it with regarding a theological disagreement will ever-spitefully concede to.
But I find myself constitutionally UNABLE to say "there is NO Higher Power in ANY form WHATSOEVER".
So, I assumed that I was going to raise this question eventually anyway.
I simply had no clue it'd be THIS soon. Like, immediately after registering THIS SOON!!!
Yeah, I suppose there's something about a forum with "NO theists" and "your posts will be deleted" inside of the same title that makes me say:
"Uh......correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the type of mentality that we NON-theists (I can at least get onto THAT label bandwagon) constantly accuse "them" of having??"
-Make a move and plead the Fifth because you can't plead the First
-Never be haughty to the humble, never be humble to the haughty.
- Login to post comments
Why is an observation not a fact?
Ever see the 3 cups and 1 peanut trick. Where's the peanut when the cups are switched?
You say I observed what you did when you switched the cups!
The peanut is under cup #2, and THAT'S A FACT!
Wrong!
It's NOT A FACT!
Your observation was WRONG!
You did NOT establish a fact!
You proved what you are claiming IS FACTUAL is NOT FACTUAL.
That is EXACTLY why observations are NOT "facts".
The Scientific Method LEADS
you toward esrablishishing
a "fact."
You do NOT begin in the field of Science by claiming your observations are facts.
That is how you begin when you are a Theist!
I read the Bible. It is a fact! God exists! God spoke to md! I OBSERVED a miracle
PROOF that God is a FACT!
Soz, but even collected data
is NOT NECESSARILY FACT, it is a collection of unproven observations until the data is tested rigorously, and in Science, we are speaking of testing by by Many reputable scientists over years.
Again, THAT is exactly why Einstein's Theories are NOT accepted as FACTUAL at this time. They remain to continue
to be tested before they MIGHT be ACCEPTED AS factual
and therefore, as LAWS.
I've nothing further to say on the matter. Believe what you want... I've no vested interest and have amply made my point entirely clear.
4 points! That last post was worth 100,000.
Yes.
Not necessarily. That simply depends on whether the peanut is actually under the cup. Either way, I wouldn't have observed that it is, only that you switched a bunch of cups around.
Observations are not "wrong." Conclusions derived from observations are often wrong. After watching you move the cups around, I deduced that the peanut is now under a certain cup, but I didn't observe that the peanut is under the cup. I can't see the peanut.
Yes, but observations themselves are also facts. We combine observations and experiments to discover facts that wouldn't know about otherwise.
I don't think you understand what we're saying here. If Darwin observed that some finches have variation, then, the premise that finches have variation is a fact, regardless of whether evolution is a fact.
No, no, no, it's not a presupposition.
No, that's not an observation. The theist did not observe that the Bible is a fact.
No, the theists are just talking to themselves. They did not observe God.
No, they observed something they can't otherwise explain or, rather, something that they didn't seek a natural explanation for. It is not proof of God. However, it is a fact that they observed something they couldn't explain.
Collected data are facts by definition. Facts are just verifiable data.
What theories are you talking about?
I've already told you. Laws are not usually defined as somehow, "more proven," than theories. They're different.
Seriously, this is just semantics. It's not that big of a deal. Follow the links that BobSpence and I posted. Your interpretations of these terms don't jive with how they're usually employed in the scientific community.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
First, what Bob said.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I missed that bit about
That is pure nonsense. Einstein's e = mc2 is not saying anything about "a speed equal to the speed of light x the speed of light". It is about a quantity of energy being proportional to the square of the speed of light.
Your gross misreading of this equation means you have little or no comprehension of this topic.
Don't be surprised if I don't bother responding to any more of your ignorant spoutings.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Given the methods by which Laws are established, there is no doubt whatsoever that FIRST one must establish a Theory, and that Theory MAY progress to become UNDERSTOOD
as a Law.
I'm paraphrasing, however it is evident Scientific Method does not "begin with" "facts", nor are observations
established facts.
From the multitude of the repetitious posts in this thread, it is evident that an honest discussion was been abandoned long ago.
I leave you to your
ignorance.
This wasn't meant to be a discussion at all. I was merely trying to point out that there is not a necessary progression from a theory to a law in science and that neither is more true or accurate than the other. I was attempting to point out that they are not merely two stages of a method in science, but rather two distinct terms applied in specific ways.
I'd like for you to explain what you mean by theory, because you seem to be using it in a colloquial manner equivalent to 'idea'. If that's not the case, then I really can't see how there can be an argument, unless you want to show how it is that an explanation of a given set of data must first be established before a formula can be devised that predicts a given or hypothesised observation.
Actually, for the sake of leaving off this topic and since the OP has been adequetly addressed, just don't answer my questions or respond to my post. I won't be responding further myself, pending a change in topic.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I have reviewed my understanding and thanks go to Bob for this:
Insights such as this make these forums worthwhile.
I'd suggest you do the same Thomathy.
Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.
I thought a law was something that could be codified into a mathematical equation. Like there's a law of gravity that describes the relation between mass, distance and gravitational force but it doesn't explain what gravity actually is.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
"The Apothecary" appears to be either blogged to death or
totally uninterested in this
stuff.
On the other hand, "The Apothecary" may have decided to dip into his/her own stash after reading this thread.
Opps!
I think you meant to quote me Bob. I was referring to the part of the equation c2. My understanding is c = speed of light, c2 = speed of light x speed of light. How can the equation be unequivocally verified (equation being Energy = mass multiplied by the speed of light squared) if we cannot produce the speed of light squared?
Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.
1) Observations are not facts.
2) Observations are not facts for several rea ons,
but one of them is that what one perceives can easily be incorrect / wrong / non-factual (choose whatever word pleases you, they still mean the same thing in this context).
The Scientific Method was referred to by one of my earlier posts. Semantics or not, your words demonstrate
you do not clearly understand the procedure and the meaning of the words you are using, with respect to how these words are used in Scientific analysis. I'm specifically referring to the definitions and differences between "observations", "facts",
"Theory", and "Law" as used in Scientific analysis...meanining a fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method itself.
There are several good Science and Physics sites
and Forums you can
refer to and in which you can post questions. Any search engine is a good place to srart to acquire a collection of a variety of these web
sites.
Good luck!
Your interpretations of observations can be incorrect. The observation itself is a fact.
Your link did not help us define "observation," "facts," "theory," "laws," etc. Clearly, while I followed your link, you did not look at my links.
You haven't even commented yet on the two sources I posted on the previous page that unambiguously support my position instead of yours, and you haven't posted any evidence for your position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Maybe you don't like these? Okay, how about the ones that Bob posted, which also support my interpretation of these terms.
http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
Would dictionaries be sufficient? They can also be used to support my position.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/observation
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory
However, dictionaries contain multiple definitions, which might confuse the issue. So, what about...
Live Science http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/080521-llm-theory.html
PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
University of Wisconsin http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/WhatTheory.HTM
No, not good enough? How about:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0308/theo/
American Natural History Museum http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php
The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/science/20ques.html
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Agreed. However, Evolution could become a Law in the future, although ir's unlikely.
Evolution is not predictable.
Granted, you can make a frogs legs grow out of its head, within a lab, via "artificial" genetic manipulation of strands of DNA.
Yes, we're entirely agreed. Laws and Theories are uniquely different.
Theories may or may not become Laws, depending upon what is theorized becoming entirely understood to the degree that Evolution is predictable.
However, we already have enouhg empirical evidence to indicate that Evolution is not predictable in every way.
Theories (are unproven) as well. Laws are definitive, predictable, fully understood , and considered to be always
true.
However, it would be foolish to ignore that Newton's Laws
do not applky under all circumstances. Newton's Laws
are a misnomer, as they are not always true, as you know.
No examples are necessary a you already know them.
Theories are not Laws as they may not be factual. In the case of Theories we do not have enough evidence, and have not sufficiently tested them to the degree that we have currently established that what are now referred to as Theories are not yet proven to the extent that they are fully understood, and result in a predictable outcome.
Agreed... the random events that are involved in Evolution are (and predictably) will forever remain sufficiently random to
qualify Evolution as a Law.
Agreed, Theories may become Laws, but Laws do not become Theories. Such is the general proceedure and general process of the
Scientific Method.
However, observations and facts are also distinctly different unless and until our observations are proven to be factual, and not incorrectly collected, incorrectly perceived, incorrectly organiized, etc.
Just as Theories may "evolve"
through rigorous testing to be Laws. Initial observations
are not necessarily factual (i.e. facts). More accurately , we could describe observations as a collection of data that are assumptions
based on our methods of collection, or our perceptions, both of which may be entirely innacurate.
You know of GIGO?
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The input to the Scientific Method may be Garbage In, and produce Garbage Out.
That is one of the main reasons that the Scientific Method must be performed by independent scientists, and applied to test a wide variety of observations, and applied to test the data under a wide variety of circumstances.
Such is the well understood and accepted nature of the "elements" of the Scientific Method, and the variety of terms discussed.
The problem with the idea is that we think we are somehow able to have a valid discussion after prohibiting something like 80%+ of the world from participating. If the 80% don't participate of their own volition or because it simply is not feasible, that's ok. But direct prohibition is a sign of a characteristic mentality - we don't want this kind of stuff because we view it as completely invalid and not necessary for anything really.
So why is this a problem when the people we exclude are theistic crazies? Well, we are banning more than just crazy talk. Because with those 80%+ goes the experience, ability, tenacity and general human-first outlook that is #1 for some of the theistic crowd. This is also a sign of a mentality - those things are all well and good, but they take second place to "rational thought" in our forum. If you think this is a problem, then you think like me. I don't really care who questions us, I welcome them as long as they do.
To exemplify, I will include an excerpt from an interview with Peete Seeger a while back:
Even though he's mistaken about EMC2, we know what he is talking about. We need this, we need these people talking to us. All the time.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Seeger's father equates scientific discovery with rape. No wonder he thought he had made a powerful point. I must remember to cancel my subscription to the Charlie Seeger Philosophical Society Magazine.
But seriously, Zus, so fucking what if a forum encourages debate between people who do not suffer from one particularly endemic delusion? My own observation is that the majority of serious discussions on this particular forum regularly attain a standard of consistently intelligent contributions when they aren't hijacked by trollish or simply stupid contributors. They benefit, in other words, in not being sidetracked into circular theistic arguments with no relevance to the subject matter in hand and therefore run less risk of being sabotaged. They do not totally avoid such sabotage and derailment, as your contributions are repeatedly indicating, but every little bit helps.
What is it with you that you feel obliged to ignore that this site contains several forums which not only allow theist input but encourage it? Have you a serious problem with the fact that rational people might want a quiet corner to discuss whatever they wish without such interference? Great that you welcome being questioned by theists - but not all of us do all the time, and especially when their theism derails the discussion of interesting subjects into bullshit with such depressingly meaningless regularity.
Get a grip man. 80% of the world is not "excluded" from this little forum. At last reckoning it was attracting about fifteen to twenty regulars from a world population of 7,000,000,000,000.
Silly boy!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
UPDATE: Bob, could you please answer this in the Science 101 post? Thanks
Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.
Still looking for that forum
If we had Seeger commenting on the forum regularily, we might have millions discussing things here. Yea, his argument is nutty, but it's relevant. Broad public does see scientific discovery as problematic. Many thinkers have placed us into the so called "control-class", together with politicians and clergy and people tend to see as as such. Seeger has always been the voice of the people, worth listening to.
Ye, I think you are right with most of what you say here. I have no problem with people's posts being moved off the forum to somewhere else because of lack of relevance to the topic, or deleted because of downright sabotage. But that is different from removing anything coming from a theist, constructive or not. Usually even the best of them get a polite "didn't you read the rules about posting here, please do in the future". That is a sign of a particular mentality, which is what Bob asked about. We think we alone are sufficient to have meaningful discussion and views of a particular group of people would be damaging.
Bob should add "rational people" to his list of his favorite oxymorons.
If I have a serious problem, I don't know. But yes, I do get a rash from quiet places in which things that matter to the excluded people are discussed. Representative democracy is my favorite oxymoron.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Agreed. However, Evolution could become a Law in the future, although ir's unlikely.
Evolution is not predictable.
Granted, you can make a frogs legs grow out of its head, within a lab, via "artificial" genetic manipulation of strands of DNA.
Yes, we're entirely agreed. Laws and Theories are uniquely different.
Theories may or may not become Laws, depending upon what is theorized becoming entirely understood to the degree that Evolution is predictable.
However, we already have enouhg empirical evidence to indicate that Evolution is not predictable in every way.
Theories (are unproven) as well. Laws are definitive, predictable, fully understood , and considered to be always
true.
However, it would be foolish to ignore that Newton's Laws
do not applky under all circumstances. Newton's Laws
are a misnomer, as they are not always true, as you know.
No examples are necessary a you already know them.
Theories are not Laws as they may not be factual. In the case of Theories we do not have enough evidence, and have not sufficiently tested them to the degree that we have currently established that what are now referred to as Theories are not yet proven to the extent that they are fully understood, and result in a predictable outcome.
Agreed... the random events that are involved in Evolution are (and predictably) will forever remain sufficiently random to
qualify Evolution as a Law.
Agreed, Theories may become Laws, but Laws do not become Theories. Such is the general proceedure and general process of the
Scientific Method.
However, observations and facts are also distinctly different unless and until our observations are proven to be factual, and not incorrectly collected, incorrectly perceived, incorrectly organiized, etc.
Just as Theories may "evolve"
through rigorous testing to be Laws. Initial observations
are not necessarily factual (i.e. facts). More accurately , we could describe observations as a collection of data that are assumptions
based on our methods of collection, or our perceptions, both of which may be entirely innacurate.
You know of GIGO?
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The input to the Scientific Method may be Garbage In, and produce Garbage Out.
That is one of the main reasons that the Scientific Method must be performed by independent scientists, and applied to test a wide variety of observations, and applied to test the data under a wide variety of circumstances.
Such is the well understood and accepted nature of the "elements" of the Scientific Method, and the variety of terms discussed.
If by that you mean we hope to have a meaningful discussion without being sidetracked by a particular group of people who present nothing better than circular arguments and do so with depressing regularity, then yes - isn't it nice to have a place where such stupidity is excluded? It's not as if there aren't any other places, even on this website, where they can indulge themselves to their heart's content in their favourite pastime.
I notice you didn't quote my little stats figure from my previous post, though you managed to quote evrything else from it. Really, get a grip on yourself, Zus. (Judging by your avatar a concept not totally alien to you, maybe?)
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
As opposed to dependent scientists? What on earth are you on about now?
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I noticed the stats, but since it had nothing to do with my argument, I decided to leave it be.
That is just a side effect, pale indication of divine inspiration and demonic posession, baby
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.