Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View They are lying to us.
3 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2012 - 10:53AM #1
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

 On another thread I stated that since we cannot check the experimental and philosophical reasoning used by our scientists to arrive at their conclusions, we have to accept them at face value on faith.  For this I was lambasted by my scientific type friends.  Two other threads on this forum, however, illustrate what I mean.


In the matter named the EPR Paradox, scientists tell us that under some conditions two particles can communicate with each other instantaneously regardless of the distance that separates them.  This would be inconsistent with the accepted laws of physics.  However, by treating them mathematically as one particle set rather than two distinct particles, scientists rendered  the question of distance moot.


In a recent unnamed experiment a scientist discovered that in order to survive, some genomes are capable of mutating at rates that far exceed what is theoretically acceptable.  The experiment was successfully duplicated 24 out of 92 times.  The proposed explanation was that some genomes developed in the past (and kept hidden until needed) the capability to predict future environments and direct their mutation accordingly.


How supernatural can their arguments become?


When I was young we were told that "the exception proves the rule."  As explained, it seemed that every rule had to have an exception.  The truth, of course, is that  any exception invalidates the rule.  So yes, I will repeat myself: We are forced to accept scientific pronouncements on faith, but we should not do it; there are indications that what they are telling us is not the truth, or,  at least, the whole truth.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2012 - 2:08PM #2
amcolph
Posts: 17,178

Jan 30, 2012 -- 10:53AM, JimRigas wrote:


 On another thread I stated that since we cannot check the experimental and philosophical reasoning used by our scientists to arrive at their conclusions, we have to accept them at face value on faith.  For this I was lambasted by my scientific type friends.  Two other threads on this forum, however, illustrate what I mean.


In the matter named the EPR Paradox, scientists tell us that under some conditions two particles can communicate with each other instantaneously regardless of the distance that separates them.  This would be inconsistent with the accepted laws of physics.  However, by treating them mathematically as one particle set rather than two distinct particles, scientists rendered  the question of distance moot.


In a recent unnamed experiment a scientist discovered that in order to survive, some genomes are capable of mutating at rates that far exceed what is theoretically acceptable.  The experiment was successfully duplicated 24 out of 92 times.  The proposed explanation was that some genomes developed in the past (and kept hidden until needed) the capability to predict future environments and direct their mutation accordingly.


How supernatural can their arguments become?


When I was young we were told that "the exception proves the rule."  As explained, it seemed that every rule had to have an exception.  The truth, of course, is that  any exception invalidates the rule.  So yes, I will repeat myself: We are forced to accept scientific pronouncements on faith, but we should not do it; there are indications that what they are telling us is not the truth, or,  at least, the whole truth.   




They are tellings us as much as they know (which can be checked up on if you are willing to go to the effort) and some of it, especially if you are talking about the cutting edge as in your examples, will be inadequate or incomplete.


Yes, most of us will have to take these scientific discoveries "on faith" but they are in prionciple verifiable by anyone and there is an army of scientists seeking advantage by checking for flaws in each others work.


Mostly you got lambasted because we don't see what you're on about.  Do you really think scientists are trying to hide something from the rest of us?  Why would they do that?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2012 - 10:04AM #3
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

 I don't really believe that scientists are purposefully trying to deceive us.  I am not paranoid.  I think it is more akin to the situation where the wife wakes up her husband in the middle of the night to tell him that she heard a noise downstairs.  He raises himself up on his elbow, peers groggily in the darkness around him and reassures her: "Go back to sleep; I don't see anything."


 What concerns me is that the entire scientific edifice is built upon the basic principle that only what can be tested and reproduced exists.  Those things are called natural; everything else is called supernatural and, by definition, has no place in nature.  But then we are defining nature as being only what our instruments can sense and measure.  And I ask myself, "Is that really all there is?  Is the observable nature identical to the real nature?"


The Religionists talk about some superhuman entity or entities that are somehow involved in the universe; but their most detailed example of it is "the god of the bible" who can be easily rejected as unreal, neglecting, of course, the millions who swear that their prayers to him have been answered.   The Universalists talk about some intelligent essence spread throughout the entire cosmos, but they are unsure how exactly this essence interacts with us or with anything else about it.  The Paranormalists talk about unknown mental powers possessed by human beings, (telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc.) which they have tried to investigated in a couple of well known programs with somewhat inconsistent results.  The Supernormalists talk about ghosts, life after death, mental communications with imaginary entities, having access to the memories of dead, and other such things; although some of these have been occasionally attested by apparently reliable witnesses they cannot be reproduced upon demand and so they are often classified together with UFOs, another group with occasional reliable witnesses but irreconcilable with our understanding of the "real" universe.


The main argument, however, for ignoring all the above things is not the absence of proof of their occurrence, but the absence of any understandable physical mechanism that would allow their occurrence.  They are just completely inconsistent with our physical universe the way our scientists describe it.  And the question then becomes, "Can our scientists be wrong?"  David Bohm maintained that they indeed were wrong, with their concept of nature needing to be supported by an increasingly larger number of "basic" particles.  Instead of the scientist's particle-based, cause-and-effect universe he promoted some kind of field-based universe where the apparent reality depended on the mind of the observer.  I can't understand it so I cannot argue its merits.  But I can recognize and identify some incongruities in our currently accepted system.  So I ask myself, "Is it valid to reject any of the other possibilities listed above solely on the say-so of our scientists.  Do these merit our complete faith to the point of outright rejection of all other 'far out' possibilities?"     

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2012 - 11:06AM #4
amcolph
Posts: 17,178

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:04AM, JimRigas wrote:


  Do these merit our complete faith to the point of outright rejection of all other 'far out' possibilities?"     




I don't think "outright rejection" is on the cards for any careful scientist.


David Bohm was an interesting character with some provocative ideas about the philosophy of science, but he was hardly a scientific outsider.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2012 - 8:12PM #5
ozero
Posts: 1,411

Jim: "What concerns me is that the entire scientific edifice is built upon the basic principle that only what can be tested and reproduced exists."


Dark matter and dark energy.  Many, maybe most, scientists think they exist.  They have as yet not been tested sucessfully.  There is no direct evidence that they do exist.  They are the best explanation for what has been observed, but they might not exist.   Come up with something better that fits all the observation and you win. 


Your principle fails.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2012 - 8:27PM #6
koala972
Posts: 865

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:04AM, JimRigas wrote:


 I don't really believe that scientists are purposefully trying to deceive us.  I am not paranoid.  I think it is more akin to the situation where the wife wakes up her husband in the middle of the night to tell him that she heard a noise downstairs.  He raises himself up on his elbow, peers groggily in the darkness around him and reassures her: "Go back to sleep; I don't see anything."




the bible talks of men being strongly deluded to believe in a lie...  personally I think it is a matter of efficiency, for example it is not as correct as people like to think to say the sun doesn't resolve around the earth but even so it is more CONVENIENT to say that within the specific mathematical system we've built around orbits we should think in terms of the earth circling the sun.  That however doesn't make one proposition TRUE and imply then that the other is FALSE it is just a matter of what you think is convenient.



 What concerns me is that the entire scientific edifice is built upon the basic principle that only what can be tested and reproduced exists.  Those things are called natural; everything else is called supernatural and, by definition, has no place in nature.  But then we are defining nature as being only what our instruments can sense and measure.  And I ask myself, "Is that really all there is?  Is the observable nature identical to the real nature?"




testing isn't the problem.  Not being able to test something implies not being able to sense it, and if that is the case is it even relevant unless you are just into mental exercises?  But the problem I see with accepting the whole thing at face value is that people AS A GROUP pick and choose what they are allowed to sense, as well as how to interpret what they do sense.  And the group smooths it out...  kinda like how water smooths out eventually after being interrupted with a pebble.  A direction is chosen PRIOR to having the information necessary to choose the best possible direction, then the weight of all the energy that is subsequently put into it makes it hard to deviate from that direction AS A GROUP.



The Religionists talk about some superhuman entity or entities that are somehow involved in the universe; but their most detailed example of it is "the god of the bible" who can be easily rejected as unreal, neglecting, of course, the millions who swear that their prayers to him have been answered.   The Universalists talk about some intelligent essence spread throughout the entire cosmos, but they are unsure how exactly this essence interacts with us or with anything else about it.  The Paranormalists talk about unknown mental powers possessed by human beings, (telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc.) which they have tried to investigated in a couple of well known programs with somewhat inconsistent results.  The Supernormalists talk about ghosts, life after death, mental communications with imaginary entities, having access to the memories of dead, and other such things; although some of these have been occasionally attested by apparently reliable witnesses they cannot be reproduced upon demand and so they are often classified together with UFOs, another group with occasional reliable witnesses but irreconcilable with our understanding of the "real" universe.




personally i liked to study why it was so important that certain things not be reproducible, an endeavor which you understand I could not have undertaken if I had agreed in presuming that unreproducibility ON MY TERMS implies absence of a phenomena altogether.



The main argument, however, for ignoring all the above things is not the absence of proof of their occurrence, but the absence of any understandable physical mechanism that would allow their occurrence.  They are just completely inconsistent with our physical universe the way our scientists describe it.  And the question then becomes, "Can our scientists be wrong?"  David Bohm maintained that they indeed were wrong, with their concept of nature needing to be supported by an increasingly larger number of "basic" particles.  Instead of the scientist's particle-based, cause-and-effect universe he promoted some kind of field-based universe where the apparent reality depended on the mind of the observer.  I can't understand it so I cannot argue its merits.  But I can recognize and identify some incongruities in our currently accepted system.  So I ask myself, "Is it valid to reject any of the other possibilities listed above solely on the say-so of our scientists.  Do these merit our complete faith to the point of outright rejection of all other 'far out' possibilities?"     




what i came into this wanting to say is that while science seems coherent, there is absolutely no way it is practical for me to explore the entire world, and verify even everything that has been created along with the mechanisms I am told have been used to create them.  I am sure as heck not even able to go into one manufacturing plant and verify that the equipment is creating something as advertised, let alone verify the design and implementation of each bit of equipment used to do that {which themselves have entire factories devoted to creating THEM} to PROVE to myself that what the scientists and techonologists are telling me is in fact the truth.  From the most basic standpoint as far as I know things like cell phones were made by magic, and people just like telling me mundane stuff about it to keep me occupied so I won't make trouble. 


Now I should say I don't actually believe that, I actually take science at face value it is what they say...  but still I realize I AM taking it at face value {on faith} and it isn't much different than my believing in god from a practical standpoint.


But at the same time from my earlier comments you might get that even when I buy the whole think hook line and sinker, that still leaves me the freedom to question whether what they are espousing as 'THE' way things work is a) the only way it can be described and b) the most efficient way it can be described.  Don't even get me started on truth...  for example are the descriptions cartesian coordinates allow so 'true' that I'm not allowed to switch to using polar coordinates if I want to describe a circle the easy way?  how can a description EVER be 'true' when compared to the thing it is meant to describe?


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 02, 2012 - 1:57AM #7
Blü
Posts: 24,687

Jim


The proposed explanation was that some genomes developed in the past (and kept hidden until needed) the capability to predict future environments and direct their mutation accordingly.


I don't recall that it said any such thing.


Instead one hypothesis is that the critter evolved certain capacities for certain mutations in the past and retained the relevant genes even after the original environment was removed.  Perhaps such capacities were reinforced by being useful on one or more futher occasions too. 


But nothing in the hypothesis requires the critter or its genes to make any predictions.  How could it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 1:33AM #8
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,405

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:04AM, JimRigas wrote:



JimRigas: I don't really believe that scientists are purposefully trying to deceive us.  I am not paranoid.  I think it is more akin to the situation where the wife wakes up her husband in the middle of the night to tell him that she heard a noise downstairs.  He raises himself up on his elbow, peers groggily in the darkness around him and reassures her: "Go back to sleep; I don't see anything."



iama: I DO believe that some scientists are purposefully trying to deceive us.  I don't believe that the "operational scientists" are as guilty as are the "historical scientists." All humans are volitional beings, each having chosen a world view, and every world view carries with it a set of presuppositions.  The "historical scientists" CANNOT experimentally observe what they are SPECULATING regarding the historical life-science life-forms.  BECAUSE "historical scientists" espouse their private / individual world views, they interpret what they do observe, in their present reality, and assume that what is taking place, today, was, also, taking place throughout life-form history.  That is NOT necessarily so.


IF "operational scientists" are producing products for human use and consumption, they, also, can be and do purposefully try to deceive their customers. 


JimRigas: What concerns me is that the entire scientific edifice is built upon the basic principle that only what can be tested and reproduced exists.  Those things are called natural; everything else is called supernatural and, by definition, has no place in nature.  But then we are defining nature as being only what our instruments can sense and measure.  And I ask myself, "Is that really all there is?  Is the observable nature identical to the real nature?"



iama: Human beings are physical body, societal soul and eternal spirit beings.  We do exist in two realms: the physical / material and the eternal / spiritual.  Scientists dealing with the material realm ONLY deal with the material realm scientifically.  Spiritual scientists / believers in the eternal realm, are, also, able to deal with the spiritual / eternal realm.  Becoming a Believer / a Christian is a scientific-spiritual activity.


JimRigas: The Religionists talk about some superhuman entity or entities that are somehow involved in the universe; but their most detailed example of it is "the god of the bible" who can be easily rejected as unreal, neglecting, of course, the millions who swear that their prayers to him have been answered.   The Universalists talk about some intelligent essence spread throughout the entire cosmos, but they are unsure how exactly this essence interacts with us or with anything else about it.  The Paranormalists talk about unknown mental powers possessed by human beings, (telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc.) which they have tried to investigated in a couple of well known programs with somewhat inconsistent results.  The Supernormalists talk about ghosts, life after death, mental communications with imaginary entities, having access to the memories of dead, and other such things; although some of these have been occasionally attested by apparently reliable witnesses they cannot be reproduced upon demand and so they are often classified together with UFOs, another group with occasional reliable witnesses but irreconcilable with our understanding of the "real" universe.



iama: Yes, human beings are created volitional beings, as well as intellectual and emotive beings, so, yes, human beings are capable of volitionally rejecting their Creator-God and are, also, intellectually capable of rationalizing their choices.


JimRigas: The main argument, however, for ignoring all the above things is not the absence of proof of their occurrence, but the absence of any understandable physical mechanism that would allow their occurrence.  They are just completely inconsistent with our physical universe the way our scientists describe it.  And the question then becomes, "Can our scientists be wrong?"  David Bohm maintained that they indeed were wrong, with their concept of nature needing to be supported by an increasingly larger number of "basic" particles.  Instead of the scientist's particle-based, cause-and-effect universe he promoted some kind of field-based universe where the apparent reality depended on the mind of the observer.  I can't understand it so I cannot argue its merits.  But I can recognize and identify some incongruities in our currently accepted system.  So I ask myself, "Is it valid to reject any of the other possibilities listed above solely on the say-so of our scientists.  Do these merit our complete faith to the point of outright rejection of all other 'far out' possibilities?"



iama: You can't test the spiritual via the material / physical entities by which human beings were endowed.  The body's senses interact with the physical / material realm, and our spiritual senses interact with the spiritual / eternal realm.  Scientists are human beings and scientists do what every other human being is capable of doing.  Money talks; prestige talks; pride talks; reputation talks; volition talks; etc.  A good scientist will be proved by his science data, evidences, and conclusions, by his results.


Speculations, like the evolution speculation has deceived the world, because those scientists espousing the evolution speculation volitionally have chosen to reject The Creation / The Bible's Truths.


Evolution + Unified Religion + One World = where the human population is headed.



.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 9:28AM #9
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 6, 2012 -- 1:33AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

I DO believe that some scientists are purposefully trying to deceive us.  .



But that's just the perennial paranoia of the Christian Right. They like to imagine evil conspiracies all over the place. That they routinely slander honest, hardworking, highly trained scientists just as Hitler routinely slandered Jews is a sign of their own moral corruption.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 4:45PM #10
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,405

Feb 6, 2012 -- 9:28AM, Ken wrote:



iama: I DO believe that some scientists are purposefully trying to deceive us.  .


Ken: But that's just the perennial paranoia of the Christian Right. They like to imagine evil conspiracies all over the place. That they routinely slander honest, hardworking, highly trained scientists just as Hitler routinely slandered Jews is a sign of their own moral corruption.



iama: Notice in the following CBC, Canada, NEWS report, the foundational support which was given to the asbestos industry in Quebec, Canada, by the SCIENTISTS at McGill university. These SCIENTISTS conducted their scientific investigations on the effects of the asbestos dust on human workers in the asbestos plant, found that the workers were being adversely affected by the asbestos dust. Evidence exists that McGill University's SCIENTISTS were paid monies by the asbestos factory owners to falsify their results, and, so, the asbestos factories continued to mine and export the asbestos.


"payments from the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association to McDonald and other researchers at the McGill School of Occupational Health totaling almost a million dollars from 1966 to 1972"


Don't tell me that there aren't scientists who can be bought!


Scientists viewing these forums, can ALL attest to the corrupt practices of some scientists!



McGill asbestos study flawed, epidemiologist says



Canada's Ugly Secret



.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook