|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1732
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
    |
|
The scientist understand that their formulas are flawed they don't try and deny that. They don't only find what they expect to find. For example on a show on Nova I saw a while back about neutrinos they think that they discovered that neutrinos have mass, and that they oscillate between four different states. whereas their mathematics expect neutrinos to have no mass and thought neutrinos came in four varieties.
Unless some particular theory is observable or can be proven in some other way it is useless as science and so they don't spend much time contemplating God. (even though they may personally believe in God or not)
While subjects like the Aether are interesting to speculate on they have no real contribution to our understanding of the universe.
I still want to hear where God came from.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArchiMotion wrote: | I have answers yes, but I believe around these forums it is somewhat "politically incorrect" to discuss these issues, and provide the answers, as these answers delve into areas of philosophy and religion and are quite complex and require somewhat of an open mind-set, not also seen very much around here.
Now, with relation to modern science - it is in itself based on models developed by scientists which in essence deny religion or philosophy an opportunity to provide the answer. Rather, if relies only on what can be tested by the scientific methodology. Thus, it excludes many areas of human knowledge and experience, including miracles, unexplained phenomena, and many mysteries which have existed for centuries.
It's application thus is limited to only what can be experimentally detected in some way.
According to the article I have been expounding upon, the very theories that Einstein elaborated have their foundation based on mathematics and other theories that at times were not fully based on observational fact, and omitted even elements such as gravity in the theories, replacing these with fudge factors or ideas such as the "ether" of space. Not that I entirely dis-agree with this concept, and there is an entire area of study devoted to this topic.
See this site --->>
http://ether.sciences.free.fr/bases.htm
Certainly there are other proponents of this, including Nikola Tesla, and I am not entirely against the idea. But the key to the article is the fact that many of the theories, based on mathematical models, omit important elements in the equations, and also were designed in such a way that they could be experimentally observed. Thus, when we have Nasa spending billions of dollars to prove the equations and theories, they are in essence observationally proving what was designed to be observational, but which may not reflect all the complete aspects of reality, since the formulas, theories and equations are limited models. Thus, it is possible to confirm ideas and models which may not reflect the full spectrum of reality, simply because there is a tendency to confirm ideas and theories we already believe and have pre-established. Especially when those models are designed in such a way that they can be observationally proved. But, as the article demonstrates, they are flawed models and omit key elements of physics in the equations, such as gravity, for example. |
I tried unsuccessfully to post this hours ago, hence the out-of-sequence reply:
Well I agree entirely with that last post you've made ArchiMotion. I've previously made more-or-less the same point myself.
There have been a variety of threads on this forum which have attempted to derive definitive ideas about a number of issues, like 'is architecture an art?' etc. so my first response in this thread was using the experience of these previous threads, realising that agreement between forum contributors was, at best, a very, very, very difiicult thing to do (I've never seen it happen) but that that didn't prevent the hashing around on the ostensible route there being both diverting and informative.
I'm sure I've yabbered on 'till I'm blue in the face about 'Form and Function' earlier, hence my reticence to repeat myself.
But for what it's worth my own understanding of the axiom is as follows:
1. Although it’s perfectly possible to approach such a figure of speech ‘form follows function’ as entirely abstract and thus allowing it, like a good song lyric, to mould itself around all manner of subjective constructions in a meaningful way, because the axiom is in the form of a conceptual equation and because it rose to prominence in an age where science and technology were fore-fronted as the liberators of a progressive humanity, the abstraction is imbued with a positivist hue. In other words, the ‘function’ is a technical one that might be scientifically defined. It is thus limited in scope to that which can be so defined. Similarly, ‘form’ is limited to that which can be measured; the floor area required to assemble a motor car using such and such manufacturing techniques; the doorway into a circus tent of such and such a size to suit the largest elephant in the show and so on.
2. We are no longer living in such an age or, arguably, the peak of excitement about the possibilities for bettering the human condition via science alone has passed. In the interim, we have seen the rise of psycho-analytic examination of the individual; the Existentialist movement in philosophy; Feminism questioning inherently masculine perspectives on linguistic constructs, imperatives, politics, emotional sensibility, and all which follow from that. Thus, the implications of the words ‘form’ and ‘function’ are now different to what they were and how we order their cause and effect relationship are apt to shift. In short, this undermines the axiom because it’s not of the sort ‘x follows y’.
3. In working our way through what everyone here holds to be true or false about ‘form follows function’ it encourages everyone to be clear about what they think. This, to my mind, is a more valuable pursuit than the pursuit of a revised definition or of the upholding of the original one, in its original sense.
Chris, individual scientists understand the limitations of their endeavours. Sir Isaac Newton, a religious man, famously said this. The problem is, this isn't true of all scientists. And it's not true of the general concepts of reality formed by large numbers of the population living in a world in which science and technology play such a prominent part. The further problem is that all such absolutist value/answer conditions of thought and practice are hazardous. Arguably, individually constructed, accurate-in-the-specifics-of-lived-experience, world views are even more hazardous, being largely unavailable to scrutiny, in practical terms and in methodological terms.
Life, as we know it, is hazardous  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1732
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think another way FFF could be interpreted is as simple hierarchy of values.
In other words form is less important than function.
You agree with this statement solidred?
Now, with relation to modern science - it is in itself based on models developed by scientists which in essence deny religion or philosophy an opportunity to provide the answer.
I don't see how. Science has never denied any method of finding answers. The only thing it requires is proof otherwise anything is just a theory and theories are not science they are ideas.
Well I like alternate thinking, (I found and read the Einstein hoax paper). However I don't believe there is a "hoax" involved and I don't believe common sense has any chance of making the inner workings of the universe known to us. And in fact that paper relied on mathematics and uncommon knowledge to prove some of it's points.
We can't say much even about the nature of light through common sense observation.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project
Last edited by csintexas on Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
". . . arguably, the peak of excitement about the possibilities for bettering the human condition via science alone has passed."
So, science and what -- fantasy ? -- together will be the successful formula for future development ?
I hope that I've misunderstood the above statement -- or that it isn't really true. Have we as a civilization developed "buyer's remorse" about the knowledge so far gained -- or maybe about the practical application(s) of that knowledge ? And if so, are we (or some of us at least) prepared to play ostrich with the truth, retreating to an earlier state of ignorance or denial, a "prettier picture" of the universe and our place in it ?
Five hundred years ago the Church of Rome was prepared to censure -- by death if necessary -- the thoughts and teachings of those early scientists who were seeking real answers to the questions of our place in the Solar System. Are we to return to those times, now, when in fact we need our scientific seekers and their technicians more than ever to carve a reliable path to man's future on this planet, and/or elsewhere. . .?
Hard truth or pretty fantasy -- is there really any doubt as to which serves us better ? The present growing efforts of some to present these as equally valid alternatives -- Intelligent Design, indeed ! -- is very disturbing.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1732
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't believe it (but he did qualify it as science alone).
Certainly we do and have always felt that science isn't "everything" or the "end all" but otherwise science is alive and well. Perhaps in the 50s-60s there was more optimism about the ability of science to solve all of our problems among the general public.
On the other hand many people who believe oil is running out also believe science will step in a the last moment and solve this problem.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can agree with that.
If there has been some disillusionment, as we discover the downside of certain materials and chemicals, then let us work to correct and improve the way we use technology -- not turn our back and run into the woods like animals. The biggest shock was perhaps the atomic bomb. . .but we survived that embarrassment, and in fact still have a world armed with them, which is another thing on the to-do list.
It needs to be said that industry, in its least attractive mode and abetted by government protections, has contributed to a bad image as despoiler. More and not less regulation -- just the opposite of what present-day political "conservatives" argue for -- is the necessary corrective.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's this notion that some wane in the omni-popularity of science means that the alternative is surely some neo-dark age of hobbldegobbledy?
I'm not at all suggesting we 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.
All I'm suggesting is that science, as Chris said, demands proof. But scientific proof is a harsh taskmaster. Some things are easier to prove than others. This shouldn't lead to a prefered mode of reality in which only the currently proveable exists. We must also allow for that which we haven't currently proved. How, for example, do you prove that an orange is, well, orange? How do you prove that you're feeling 'slightly down' one day? How do you prove what your favourite music is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right, of course. No one (not I, at least) suggests that everything is capable of proof -- or ought to be. There is plenty of room for the unknown, and even the unknowable, in my universe. Indeed, it seems that for some, every aspect of that universe must have an explanation, every inner and outer experience must have a source and a "meaning," and it is this which gives rise to the myths, legends and universal "explanations" found in our religious texts -- it seems to me.
Those looking for miracles need look no further than the fact of our existence, and our unique place on our own planet, despite all the odds of this happening. Our art, our poetry and our myths have their place in the world, and so does our science and technology. A system of thought which must exclude any of that in order to function, is not capable of Truth, I believe.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
["The present growing efforts of some to present these as equally valid alternatives -- Intelligent Design, indeed ! -- is very disturbing."]
Well, not everyone would agree that scientific creationism or intelligent design is not scientific. It can be just as scientific as any other science. So this is another popular myth, spread by user sites such as Wikipedia, which many are fond of quoting, but which contains errors on these definitions of terms. Of course, a discussion on this evidence is somewhat beyond the scope of this little reply, but certainly it exists, and one only needs an open and and to do a little research to start to uncover the evidence both for Scientific Creationism and for Intelligent Design. This is another myth that some have contrived and thrown upon us, that anything which refers to the possibility of a god creating the universe cannot be scientific. Another myth in which many error, to their own folly.
And now some have made some good points, irrespective of their feelings on this subject of religious ideas gaining scientific support.
For example -->>
["What's this notion that some wane in the omni-popularity of science means that the alternative is surely some neo-dark age of hobbldegobbledy?
I'm not at all suggesting we 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.
All I'm suggesting is that science, as Chris said, demands proof. But scientific proof is a harsh taskmaster. Some things are easier to prove than others. This shouldn't lead to a prefered mode of reality in which only the currently proveable exists. We must also allow for that which we haven't currently proved. How, for example, do you prove that an orange is, well, orange? How do you prove that you're feeling 'slightly down' one day? How do you prove what your favourite music is?"]
See, this is my point. Some are suggesting that the only alternative to modern day liberal ideas of science is some "neo-dark age of hobbldegobbledy". Good point. Some people still don't get it. And as stated :
["This shouldn't lead to a preffered mode of reality in which only the currently provable exists. We must also allow for that which we haven't currently proved."]
This in essence, is what I am getting to, irrespective of member bias towards a particular liberal scientific camp, which excludes the possibility of a more conservative view of science, also based on empirical evidence in the same way they believe there liberal ideas are based. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is characteristic of human nature that emotion trumps intellect. This explains why otherwise intelligent persons are sometimes found to hold the most surprising beliefs: those beliefs satisfy something deeper and more important than reason. The man who (anonymously) claims that Einstein and his astrophysical colleagues have pulled a stunt or hoax is clearly suffering some sort of inferiority feelings because of a (perfectly understandable) inability to grasp the fine points of a difficult mathematical proof. This is plain to anyone except the unfortunate author himself. Any psychologist would know in a minute what the problem was. . .
Those wishing to promote a particular view are able to call on our emotions, just as the masters of salesmanship in Madison Avenue do. And the basic emotions -- fears and desires -- make all of us prone, to one degree or another, to the messages being delivered.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1732
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We must also allow for that which we haven't currently proved
We do, it's called religion, philosophy, theory, etc..
Why anything exists at all will always be the one indisputable miracle. Just like with biblical creationism ID was struck down by the courts as having no credibility as a theory at this time. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist only that the current ID theory is whack.
I still want to hear where God came from Archimotion
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Struck down by courts - under that definition, would like to see more info on what you are referring to. And are courts of men infallible? Many a men have been condemned for crimes they have no committed, there are glitches in the system. Any particularly when a bias pre-disposes a court to rule in favor of a particular point of view. There is no way a court can make an un-biased decision on these subjects, since it inherently touches the very core of our belief systems. So how could a court make a decision on the validity of science? Has any court made any decision on the validity of Einstein's equations?
Further, why do you ask where a god came from, if you don't even believe in the existence of any god. You are contradicting yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1732
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never said I didn't believe in God. I just want to see your answer.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179256,00.html
| Quote: |
Federal Judge Strikes Down Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania Schools
Teaching "intelligent design" to high school biology students violates laws prohibiting the endorsement of religion in public schools, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. The ruling in Pennsylvania is a major defeat for proponents of the controversial alternative theory about the origins of life. |
Agreed courts are not perfect. It could be at some point some new science will come along and prove this theory or at least make it plausible. Investigating it is not prohibited just teaching it in schools as if it is science.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Organized Religion and Big Business share a couple of characteristics: they have something to sell, and they seek to propagate themselves. Each is capable of great good, and each, if not constrained, is capable of pushing aside competition and becoming a cancer. The business of business is unlimited expansion and domination of a market. The purpose of organized religion is "saving souls" -- the more the better. In both cases, as in natural processes of all kinds, these goals are perfectly natural and expected.
Unlike the birds and the bees -- natural entities, that is -- man has devised levers to his power that make unfettered growth and domination far too easy, and therefore potentially lethal to "the competition" (whether that be customers of goods or of ideas) and to the planet in ways unlike those found in nature. Lawyers and lobbyists can multiply the wealth and influence of the entity in the halls of power, manufacturing consent and wiping away constraints to unlimited expansion like so many pesky gnats.
Thus it is necessary to establish constraints, so that neither entity, big business or organized religion, can take over the market of goods and ideas and take away the rights and freedoms of the people. "All things in moderation" makes as much sense in the world at large as it does in an individual life. When manufacturers are allowed to pollute the land in their unfettered zeal for profit, and when churches can push aside the balanced education of the young in their drive to "save souls," the society at large can be expected to intervene for its own protection.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the striking down of civil rights in this country is nothing new, given the diminishing rights citizens have been facing in recent times, due to society bias towards liberal views and it's bias towards Evolutionary views. Not that I am against evolution. I do believe in evolution, don't get me wrong. But not in the sense that it is being taught in schools - this is a distorted view that modern science is shoving down our throats. Of course, one could not expect a secular society which has turned it's back on the possibility of the existence of God to endorse teaching anything but atheism in it's schools. It is a natural consequence of the moral, spiritual, religious decline of America. So nothing new. It has not disproved intelligent design and scientific creationism. It is only turning it's back on the same and refusing the right of teaching alternate science in schools, other then that as accepted by the status quo of atheists who run the educational system and courts in this country.
So in other words, you do believe God exists? I need to know if you believe God exists first. I do know you don't accept modern Christian views, so therefore I can see your question is no more then a trick and an attempt to trap me in my words. Now why should then I answer your questions.....certainly not....unless there were others in these camps that subscribed to my points of views...which seems to be rare in these niches of the cybersphere universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
