Expert prognosis for the planet

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

No where in this process is faith, unless you have a different version of faith.

Having faith in something is not necessarily tied to religion. It's believing something to be true, but not being able to 100% prove it through whatever method.

Scientists have theories that based on their observations seem to be true, but cannot be proven 100%. There is a level of "faith" in that. The Big Bang Theory is an example of what I would consider "faith" to some extent. You can use other words for it, but there is a belief this happened based on observable, recorded facts.

Many scientific "facts" based on assumptions, have been proven wrong.

Perhaps "faith" isn't the word scientists would prefer, but to me it is the same. Others will see if differently I'm sure.

To me, its like the word "creationist". Something or someone set the universe on the path to it's present state. Regardless of how it got there, there was a creation. So, in essence, every explanation of the universe is indeed "creationism".

Also, @NoHHaveMSG, not trying to defend @Unplugem but while he is a conspiracy theory "enthusiast" I'm not sure I see where he is a creationist in the definition you intended, unless I missed his references to a supreme being.

[NoHaveMSG]

@Dadhawk it’s just a hunch based on all his other posts. He brings up a lot of religious themed points. I could be totally wrong.


I also understand your point about faith in science. IE We don’t know what dark matter is yet, but we can observe the affects and hypothesize and predict t’s supposed properties in a number of scenarios.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Pretty sure he is a creationist that uses conspiracy theories to justify his world view.

I don't really care what other people's worldview is and am not bothered by it, they can put it out there all they want and I try to leave it up to myself but the lack of basic scientific understanding that is proveable is laughable in his case. I actually really like listening to things that counter my own world view, you usually learn a good amount. Either new factual information or another example of one of the extreme ends of human condition and how it affects another individuals worldview. IE' "why TF do they think that way?" Unplugem has lost my interest pretty quick though in the way he glosses over responses and tries the "baffle em with bs" approach providing valid argument.

Yes, this is my thoughts too. Probably a young earth creationist. But I was more referring to your Princess Bride quote; I don’t think he understands the law or what it is observing. He is taking a superficial literalist interpretation of the law (no surprise there given his theological beliefs), which is why he is messing this up.

I too like to hear from the other side. I watch debates, listen to conservative media (at the annoyance of my wife sometimes), etc, so I can understand both perspectives and come to my own conclusions. It is helpful in arguing a point if you fully understand the opposition and can explain things from their perspective.

You hit the nail on the head that he is just glossing over explanations and not acknowledging when he is wrong, which is disingenuous. He just ignores it and moves on, but then comes back to his old statements that have been addressed and shown to be wrong. It is all very circular with no ending, which is also losing my interest, except that it is hard for me to let people say these things and not be called out on the BS.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I too like to hear from the other side. I watch debates, listen to conservative media (at the annoyance of my wife sometimes), etc, so I can understand both perspectives and come to my own conclusions. It is helpful in arguing a point if you fully understand the opposition and can explain things from their perspective.

That basically describes why I like to listen to certain podcasts.

except that it is hard for me to let people say these things and not be called out on the BS.

Pretty much why I am leaving my current job lol.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Having faith in something is not necessarily tied to religion. It's believing something to be true, but not being able to 100% prove it through whatever method.

Scientists have theories that based on their observations seem to be true, but cannot be proven 100%. There is a level of "faith" in that. The Big Bang Theory is an example of what I would consider "faith" to some extent. You can use other words for it, but there is a belief this happened based on observable, recorded facts.

Many scientific "facts" based on assumptions, have been proven wrong.

Perhaps "faith" isn't the word scientists would prefer, but to me it is the same. Others will see if differently I'm sure.

To me, its like the word "creationist". Something or someone set the universe on the path to it's present state. Regardless of how it got there, there was a creation. So, in essence, every explanation of the universe is indeed "creationism".

Also, @NoHHaveMSG, not trying to defend @Unplugem but while he is a conspiracy theory "enthusiast" I'm not sure I see where he is a creationist in the definition you intended, unless I missed his references to a supreme being.

You use the word belief, but scientists don't use this word. They have ideas about things. The things they have ideas about are objective and subject to change based on new evidence. People with religious beliefs don't modify their beliefs or base their beliefs on things that are objective.

The type of faith you are describing can be attributed vaguely to anything where someone says they have a confidence of, idea of, probability of, etc, but while being related, it is a stark contrast to how religious people use the word. Religious people value the strength of someone's conviction in their beliefs--the strength of their faith. Many religious people will associate their salvation based on the strength of their faith. If a scientist claimed something was more true or was given more credibility or recognition for the strength of his convictions that his theory is true, despite a proportional probability and propriety of evidence, this not only wouldn't be celebrated, it would be ridiculed in the community.

You said science depends on faith, but it doesn't. Testing an idea is not testing someone's beliefs. Faith isn't the same as a theory. And scientists definitely don't have "complete trust in someone or something", which is a soft definition unrelated to religion. In fact, as a body (not individual exceptions), they have the opposite where they try to hold as much humility and impartiality and maintain an open mind. Big Theories, not hypothesis/theories, are well established with mountains of evidence. While it is possible things could get modified, as Newton's Theory gave way to Einstein's, building on Newton, big Theories don't require faith either.

The Big Bang Theory is observable. You can watch these two short videos and call this belief and faith, but what is going on here is far removed from what religious people do or how they would describe their beliefs and faith. What is disingenuous (often) about people who draw a comparison and say they are the same, "both require faith", is that these people are often suggesting that science requires a leap of faith, and given the choice, they will keep leaping in their faith like how they stick to their faith over other religions. Trying to put things on the same level, so people will ignore science like they also ignore other faiths and denominations.

Creationism is well defined, so I don't know why you are performing mental gymnastics to make it fit everything, as if that is necessary to be inclusive. It is the belief that the universe has a divine origin and not a natural origin. A young earth creationist, which is what I believe Unplugem to be, is someone who is a biblical literalist who believes the earth is 6k-10k years old. These people are often flat earthers because of the Bible's passages and because biblical apologists and historians have sequenced the events to coincide with a 6k-10k creation window of time. If he is not a young, earth creationist, I'll be shocked.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You use the word belief, but scientists don't use this word. They have ideas about things. The things they have ideas about are objective and subject to change based on new evidence. People with religious beliefs don't modify their beliefs or base their beliefs on things that are objective.

Just because scientists don't use the word belief doesn't mean that some of their ideas are not based on something not entirely provable. Based on their observations they sometimes assume things, call it what you want, that is a belief.

As far as religious beliefs, you are wrong that they do not change over time. Most churches of today do not "believe" many of the things they believed 200 years ago, or say during the crusades. There may be a portion that does, sure but it has evolved over time for most.

There are a lot of fringe scientists just as there are fringe creationist/religion. Every human endeavor has extremists.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You said science depends on faith, but it doesn't. Testing an idea is not testing someone's beliefs. Faith isn't the same as a theory.

To test an idea you have to see if it is true, even based on scientific observation, shows belief (thus faith in a "trust but verify way") in all the work that preceded it.

Personnally I'm a stuck in the middle guy. I have full faith and confidence in the scientific method. I also believe things don't just "happen" by accident. There is some sort of grand plan. In your own statement "It is the belief that the universe has a divine origin and not a natural origin." the two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Just because scientists don't use the word belief doesn't mean that some of their ideas are not based on something not entirely provable. Based on their observations they sometimes assume things, call it what you want, that is a belief.

As far as religious beliefs, you are wrong that they do not change over time. Most churches of today do not "believe" many of the things they believed 200 years ago, or say during the crusades. There may be a portion that does, sure but it has evolved over time for most.

There are a lot of fringe scientists just as there are fringe creationist/religion. Every human endeavor has extremists.



To test an idea you have to see if it is true, even based on scientific observation, shows belief (thus faith in a "trust but verify way") in all the work that preceded it.

Personnally I'm a stuck in the middle guy. I have full faith and confidence in the scientific method. I also believe things don't just "happen" by accident. There is some sort of grand plan. In your own statement "It is the belief that the universe has a divine origin and not a natural origin." the two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.

Jumping into the middle when I probably shouldn't but...


Scientists believe something when a preponderance of evidents suggests something music probably true. That thing consistently meets repeatably measurable observations.



Religious beliefs are not upheld by any repeatable or measurable observations. Often there are no observations whatsoever, but they're never repeatable. It depends entirely on wild speculation (e.g. miracles) and a programmed lens to view things through or simply someone else telling you so.


That last is why it feels to us like they're similar... we aren't all going and repeating most experiments, making these observations. So we depend on someone telling us it's true. They are not the same "belief" though. Science we could verify if we took the time, had the inclination. Scientists do indeed verify "things that came before.

[NoHaveMSG]

The problem I see with that point is the theories we use to explain and predict everything don’t work at certain scales. That’s why they have crazy stuff like string theory which only works if there are 10 dimensions, you put your shoes on backwards, and hold your tongue to the left.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Just because scientists don't use the word belief doesn't mean that some of their ideas are not based on something not entirely provable. Based on their observations they sometimes assume things, call it what you want, that is a belief.

As far as religious beliefs, you are wrong that they do not change over time. Most churches of today do not "believe" many of the things they believed 200 years ago, or say during the crusades. There may be a portion that does, sure but it has evolved over time for most.

There are a lot of fringe scientists just as there are fringe creationist/religion. Every human endeavor has extremists.

To test an idea you have to see if it is true, even based on scientific observation, shows belief (thus faith in a "trust but verify way") in all the work that preceded it.

Personnally I'm a stuck in the middle guy. I have full faith and confidence in the scientific method. I also believe things don't just "happen" by accident. There is some sort of grand plan. In your own statement "It is the belief that the universe has a divine origin and not a natural origin." the two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.

Again, you can call it faith and use whatever language you want, and it may be confusing to some people, especially to scientists, so you if you are trying to convey a point then you risk being unclear. If you choose to compare science and religion and use the word faith to describe both then you are making a gross error in how religious people use faith. I may be atheist, but I was raised Catholic, was an alter boy, went to CCD, and transitioned with a high school girlfriend to an evangelical Christian church, so while I can't speak for all religious people, I would say I have a good grasp of how people in church speak of their faith, which is a stark contrast to how you are applying it to religion.

And again, they don't believe in dark matter; they have an idea about dark matter. They don't believe dark matter to be true. They speculate that it could exist and run experiments to determine if the concept of dark matter is true. Walk into any religious building and ask its members if they speculate on the existence of their god/gods or if they carry a belief.

While we know the writings of the Bible have been modified over time, as there are notations of this fact on the inner sleeve and historical examples of side notes by clergy getting moved into the body of text, the Bible doesn't really change over time. Genesis isn't updated with evolution. The practitioners of the religion can change. The Pope can say things like purgatory no longer exists or that the Catholic church's position on evolution is that it is true, but the writings of the religion haven't changed. A huge swath of people are fundamentalists or literalists. 40% of the US is a creationist, for instance, 33% believe "god" had a hand in evolution and 22% believe (Source). These aren't trivial numbers or isolated extremists. Unplugem's ideas aren't the majority, but they aren't rare either (Source).

If a scientist asked you why you believe there is a grand plan or that things don't just happen by chance/accident/randomness, and if that scientist asked you what evidence and tests have you observed and/or conducted to test your theory to end up at this belief that you have, what would be your answer?

Young earth creationists believe in a divine origin for everything. Other religious people believe in a modification of creationism where a god/gods set into motion nature processes, whether that was the Big Bang only or the Big Bang and abiogenesis and tweaked the environment to guide evolution to humans or whatever. All of that is still creationism. Someone could qualify their beliefs as being an old earth creationist if they want. Naturalism is the null hypothesis, that we only accept what we can tell to be true, which is that things have arisen from natural processes because that is all we observe and can test for. Because there is no evidence of a divine arbitrator of natural processes, and because any gaps in knowledge aren't temporarily filled with gods as place holders (eg: like how zeus was the source of lightening), science is devoid of supernatural explanations, so creationism and naturalism are mutually exclusive, even if some creationists believe in aspects of natural processes. If you want to muddle the definition then it would be just as acceptable to say that a person is a Christian and Muslim and Jewish at the same time because they share the same Abrahamic origins. No, the religions (by definition) are mutually exclusive just as creationism and naturalism are mutually exclusive.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

The problem I see with that point is the theories we use to explain and predict everything don’t work at certain scales. That’s why they have crazy stuff like string theory which only works if there are 10 dimensions, you put your shoes on backwards, and hold your tongue to the left.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to address here, so I don't know what you mean when you say something doesn't work at a certain scale, but there are differences between theories and Theories in science. While string theory has been around for a long time, and while it can be used to explore mathematical concepts (often requiring extra dimensions of 10-26 levels), so that scientists can design experiments, it isn't a Theory; it isn't a theory that has been demonstrated to be valid, repeatable, predictable, etc like Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Evolutionary Theory, etc. In fact, most scientists consider it to be a failed theory.

This is where science can be confusing for the scientifically illiterate or for those who aren't up to date on science. Unlike laws and postulates, people get confused about hypothesis vs theories vs Theories for obvious reasons. A hypothesis is a prediction. A theory is a model for explaining observations. A Theory is a well supported model that is valid, repeatable, predictable, robust, etc. It is true that Newtonian physics doesn't work well at the scale of the solar system and beyond, but that doesn't make Newtonian physics wrong. That model just can't be applied to explain everything just like Newtonian physics can't be applied well to explain Germ Theory either, which is why we have Germ Theory.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to address here, so I don't know what you mean when you say something doesn't work at a certain scale, but there are differences between theories and Theories in science. While string theory has been around for a long time, and while it can be used to explore mathematical concepts (often requiring extra dimensions of 10-26 levels), so that scientists can design experiments, it isn't a Theory; it isn't a theory that has been demonstrated to be valid, repeatable, predictable, etc like Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Evolutionary Theory, etc. In fact, most scientists consider it to be a failed theory.

This is where science can be confusing for the scientifically illiterate or for those who aren't up to date on science. Unlike laws and postulates, people get confused about hypothesis vs theories vs Theories for obvious reasons. A hypothesis is a prediction. A theory is a model for explaining observations. A Theory is a well supported model that is valid, repeatable, predictable, robust, etc. It is true that Newtonian physics doesn't work well at the scale of the solar system and beyond, but that doesn't make Newtonian physics wrong. That model just can't be applied to explain everything just like Newtonian physics can't be applied well to explain Germ Theory either, which is why we have Germ Theory.

Bear with me here, it has been awhile since I've read up on this kind of stuff and my train of thought is a little jumbled today.

Quantum physics breaks down when you apply gravity. We can predict a lot of things very accurately with it otherwise.

Same with general relativity, it works very well at a local level, but on a macro scale it stop giving us correct predictions. We can predict orbits, mass, ect of planets and stars huge distances away. But when you take the orbit of a local region of a galaxy and look at it's mass, distance from galactic center, and orbital speed. The equation stops working unless you add an X factor to the equation, which right now is dark matter. And they are able to estimate that X factor and get reasonable predictions again, but we have no idea what it is or it's exact value. Same with the expansion rate of the universe. Without adding another X factor, dark energy, it doesn't accurately account for the rate.

We still trust these theories but we can't explain everything with them. That was all I meant.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Bear with me here, it has been awhile since I've read up on this kind of stuff and my train of thought is a little jumbled today.

Quantum physics breaks down when you apply gravity. We can predict a lot of things very accurately with it otherwise.

Same with general relativity, it works very well at a local level, but on a macro scale it stop giving us correct predictions. We can predict orbits, mass, ect of planets and stars huge distances away. But when you take the orbit of a local region of a galaxy and look at it's mass, distance from galactic center, and orbital speed. The equation stops working unless you add an X factor to the equation, which right now is dark matter. And they are able to estimate that X factor and get reasonable predictions again, but we have no idea what it is or it's exact value. Same with the expansion rate of the universe. Without adding another X factor, dark energy, it doesn't accurately account for the rate.

We still trust these theories but we can't explain everything with them. That was all I meant.

I'm still having trouble connecting the dots with your last sentence and how that connects with what others have said, who you were responding to and if it was in agreement or disagreement. Sorry.

Trust isn't the word I would use. We use the theoretical models we have like we use technology that we have because these models have predictive powers and lead to applications. We wouldn't say we trust theories anymore than we would say we trust a hammer. I posted a video above where he shows the cosmic microwave background in progressive satellite images as technology improved. The accuracy of technology not only improved the image, but it allowed for a deeper analysis and comprehension of the universe, which is like seeing a fuzzy picture of a big dog, then telling it must be a mastiff bread, and then seeing it was a French Mastiff, and then telling the dog looked grumpy, and then seeing why because the dog is infested with fleas. Similarly, theoretical models can be superseded by better models that have better explanatory power, that are more accurate and that draw on greater relationships. Such might be the case for a future Grand Theory of Everything. If such a model existed, it wouldn't mean that other models don't work. It means the other models can only see a mastiff, but not the dog's expressions or skin condition. Just like a telescope makes a terrible microscope. Some models might be ideal for certain applications, but just because the microscope isn't good at visualizing planets, doesn't mean the microscope is bad at what we know it does well--seeing microbes.

Evolution is a Theory, for example, that does a great job at explaining a lot, but it doesn't explain the origins of the universe, the origins of life on this planet, abiogenesis (if that happened here or not), and many more aspects of our beginnings, so it could be superseded by a grander Theory (a multitool, if you will), but that wouldn't mean it was wrong or bad about what it does explain well (it might not be a multitool, but it might be a perfect hammer, to use the same analogy).

[Irace86.2.0]

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm still having trouble connecting the dots with your last sentence and how that connects with what others have said, who you were responding to and if it was in agreement or disagreement. Sorry.

It's semantics at this point, but I agree with Dadhawk's usage of the word "faith" in science.