Squid Tempest
|
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 16:17
|
|
handofdave wrote: "but an open-minded scientist would say that perhaps there is something going on, but until we see some evidence we have no idea what it actually is."
And any open minded person should also recognize that there perhaps is something going on (beyond the scope of our science) and so a definitive 'no' is just as refutable by logic as a definitive 'yes'.
The politics of this debate are probably so overwhelming as to make an unheated discussion of it all but impossible.
I enjoy a good heated discussion though, don't you?! Provided, of course, that no-one is too dogmatic in their views, in which case it becomes an argument.
It is the leap from "something going on" to "there must be a god" that a scientist wouldn't make without evidence. Science cannot take things on faith alone, otherwise we'd risk describing Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle as being caused by quantum pixies!
|
stray
|
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 16:20
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote:
It is the leap from "something going on" to "there must be a god" that a scientist wouldn't make without evidence.
I don't think you 'get' string theory.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 16:22
|
|
stray wrote: Squid Tempest wrote:
It is the leap from "something going on" to "there must be a god" that a scientist wouldn't make without evidence.
I don't think you 'get' string theory.
I don't think I do either.
|
stray
|
Edited Oct 09, 2009, 16:28
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 16:26
|
Sorry, that was cheap. God, I hate this thread (Irony intentional).
What I'm saying is no, you see, scientists are actually quite happy on occasion to accept and support ideas without evidence if they seem logical/rational. String theory is a great example cos there will never be evidence to support it because it will always be impossible to create an experiment that will prove it. As a result string theory comes in many flavours most of which are wholly incompatible with each other. Its almost like a faith with many denominations. hth.
Edit : Yes, this is a shitpost, but this thread is full of them so I feel entitled to make one.
|
neighbourofthedrude
|
Handofdad
Oct 09, 2009, 16:36
|
That should be your new name !
:o)
In reply to:
Re: (handofdave) |
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 16:49
|
It's a good question about "Odinism" (or Asatru as that's supposed to be the real name for it.) I mean there's some stuff I don't like about it, the fact that the majority of so-called "Odinists" are nazi boneheads for one...
I get more mileage out of a more Africanized belief like Santeria if you ask me.
|
stray
|
Edited Oct 09, 2009, 16:55
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 16:53
|
I find Post-Structuralist metaphysics a great salve for my own spirituality. "There's no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons."
Edit : You're right about odinist types, they naturally get sucked into a nationalist mindset cos it were those invading foreigners that destroyed their religion. Just a few steps from full on nazism.
|
machineryelf
|
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 17:08
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote: . Why is "Odinism" or whatever it is better than any other religious belief?
Because odin is a sexy MF and he has a nice horsey
http://schneesmom.org/World_Lit_Stuff/odin_sleipnir2_op.jpg
In reply to:
Re: Re: (Squid Tempest) |
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 17:13
|
|
So, is that similar to the various interpretation/theories of quantum mechanics i.e. Copenhagen Interpretation, Bohr, the collapse of the wave function and all that? If so (and if I understand it correctly), that is a case where there are various interpretations of the results, all resulting in internally consistant theories, but the theories contradict one another. That doesn't involve the unscientific practice of jumping to a conclusion, it is more a case of it illustrating that no-one has the full picture. Or have I got that wrong too?! My brain hurts.
|
stray
|
Edited Oct 09, 2009, 17:20
Re: Re:
Oct 09, 2009, 17:20
|
Nope you've got it right, its kind of the next step onwards from that. It is however not fundamentally different to any kind of philosophical analysis based on a limited semiotic (the semiotic system in this case being mathematics). However, the way its being used is not limited enough, hence the massive differences in possible theoretical outcomes. Soooo... its no different, and no more scientific in a proper sense than say.. comparative theology in method. It is *gasp* subjective, but an awfully clever mathematically obfuscated subjectivity.
What I'm trying to say is, no fucker knows, but a lot of people are trying to know, don't hate the players, hate the game.
|
