Quite aside from quote extractions, etc, how else do you propose that we ensure the long-term survival of the species?

I think what he means is that we should deal with nuclear proliferation, global warming, habitat destruction, pollution, war, disease, and financial ruin before we consider taking on the Sun's expansion.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

From my experience truth is stranger than fiction.
As a example the book [Moby Dick] a relaxing moral tale but based on a shocking events.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_55927023/

http://en.wikipedia.ophilosophical discussioheard of suck arg/wiki/Moby-Dick


I a interested the fascinating opinions of science vs. math as I assumed they were the same.

Maybe like plato fact finding lifesyle[science] into it fundamental greek style components.



Does when math finds the ultimate equation between newtonian and quantum physics will it just neutral/bleached into sexless,religionless/political
icon for a goal for the state for a standard to achieve for scientist and techs..

Theres only two ways for icons status to occur.
Pay for it or ride on the flavour on the national securitythe state favor, icons/idols with feet were wet clay forgotten get rapidly

Theres a biblical saying thats says don't cast your pearls before swine as they view it as a threat and turn around and attack.
icon
Being a icon would be worse. With any indication the idols feet were wet clay the media would take over.

So the iconic unicorns are Einstien and Oppenhiemer.

Which is still left in the iconic peacefull glade like peaceful deer in the forest of history books.

Actually there was no ad hominem in my post, that phrase gets misused an awful lot. But I intend no offense, and indeed the "anyone" I referred to was not necessarily you personally, but rather in regard to using someone's views on needing to leave the planet as a kind of litmus test of their rationality. You are more than welcome to have any opinion you like on that topic, but I would not accept it as unambiguous evidence that Dawkins or Weinberg are strictly rational thinkers, on the grounds that there is little actual evidence in favor of the concept as a key to our survival (unless you take an inappropriately long view, which begs the issue because such a distant future is highly unpredictable anyway).

I would be hard pressed to put it better (I might have added "sustainable energy").

But note it is not my intention to go off topic, I merely mean that one person's "visionary thinker" is another's "crackpot". The lines on the map are not so easily navigated as some would have us believe.

and overpopulation, and mass starvation, and desertification, and deforestation...

OK. Kill me now.

How are cryonics doing these days?

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

Dear Ken G.

Let's just agree to disagree agreeably....

No one's a "crackpot" unless proven to be as such (e.g. hearing voices, hallucinating, etc., ...)

The term does not necessarily belong in context of this forum ... to the best of my knowledge...


********************
Aside:

Let me ask you ---Would you like to be known as one--even if I knew that you were not one?

__________________
"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
---Carl Sagan

Be aware that I am not accusing anyone here of being a "crackpot", as that would be both ad hominem and exaggeration. My entire intent is to point out that the very process of judging who is being rational and who is not, in regard to any given question, is not itself an unambiguously rational process, as personal opinion can loom as large as it does in the "hot button" kinds of topics that the Dawkins and Weinbergs of the world have chosen as a kind of personal campaign. This is very much the problem faced when anyone attempts to divide opinions into those that should carry the blessing of rationality, and those that should not. Some cases are more clear-cut than others, but the idea that such questions are answerable in general via some dogmatic classification scheme is itself a cultish approach. A large tolerance for diversity of opinion, coupled with a solid helping of humility, on the other hand, is a much better indicator of a scientific approach. This doesn't mean that certain truth standards do not yield unambiguous answers in well-formulated situations, it means there often isn't enough attention to differentiating what the questions are-- the nuances are actually quite important, and a broad brush tends to obscure them.

You in a bad mood today?

__________________

Dear Ken G.

It is apparent to me that we agree on more issues than we do not---but what is different about us---is that: you seemingly are more pragmatic than I am. To me: that is neither good nor bad; it just is a fact.

Whether or not Drs. Dawkins and Weinberg should or should-not go on their personal campaigns is neither for me to judge nor accept (slavishly).

It is a fact--neither of these gentlemen has "physically" harmed a single person through their campaigns. However, if there is a benefit to their crusades, it is that they have caused individuals to talk openly about issues that would normally be ignored if the "average Joe" were to bring up such issues for discussion.


Best Wishes
jaksichj

__________________
"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
---Carl Sagan

I'll accept that characterization-- I do feel that pragmatism underlies rationality, whereas other rational thinkers might reverse that hierarchy (for example, consider Weinberg's quote "Maybe nature is fundamentally ugly, chaotic and complicated. But if it's like that, then I want out"). That's a very different debate indeed!
Nor I-- it is only the nature of the campaign that I seek to identify, and perhaps then judge.
Yet their own positions would not support such a standard of acceptability. They would judge not the harm by the individual, but the harm of the idea, in the hands of any individual.
To me, that's like saying the benefit of going to the Moon was we got various things like cordless power tools. It's true that we need a reason to invent, but if cordless power tools will make our lives better, we can get them by a more direct path than via an Earth satellite! But you raise a key point, which I believe echoes the OP-- is a polemic stance constructive because it pushes the debate, or is it counterproductive because it pushes the debate in the wrong direction?
Ditto.

You and I clearly have very different ideas of the meaning of the term "crackpot," as what you're describing doesn't fit into my definition at all. In my opinion, a crackpot is one who presents irrational ideas, though those ideas seldom stem from an actual mental illness. (There are exceptions!) Those presenting perpetual motion machines for investors are crackpots, for example, though I doubt most of them hear voices inside their heads. It would please Dawkins to know that I consider creationism a crackpot idea, though I think creationists are no more likely to be mentally ill than those holding scientifically based opinions on the subject.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Dear Gillianren,

To me--someone who attempts to invent a perpetual motion device and then attempts to attract investors is more of a socio-path and possibly bordering on criminal. Whether or not the present scientific establishment labels that person a "crackpot" or not -- is to me one of definition.


Labeling a con-man a "crank" -- will not prevent them from repeat offenses...(controversially?) there might be the need for some type of intervention...(do we continue to fill up our prisons?-- I don't know?)

Anyone can (I assume) imagine something that does have scientific merit--but where do you draw the line-- other than in empirical evidence?

I am somewhat certain that there are a few in the Medical Establishment who might view creationism as a form of "magical" thinking--- a possible form of neurosis... and even psychosis--depending upon their individual belief system and medical training.

However--we have an inalienable right in the U.S. to profess whatever religious denomination that we (?) deem fit? The scientific establishment is still waging a noble battle against creationism and seems to be winning a slow battle.

*********
Please note to moderators...this seems to be heading off-topic

*********

Peer--review serves a valid purpose here. But, to me, without a self-correcting mechanism --- we might be perpetuating more con-men...sadly so.

__________________
"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
---Carl Sagan

The label "magical thinking" certainly fits, but that is not viewed as psychotic or even neurotic, but rather, a normal human mode of thought. It is not entirely natural for humans to be rational all the time, whether it is a good thing or not.

It's still on-topic, because combatting magical thinking (on every front) is indeed part of the crusade of people like Dawkins, and it is also part of the question as to whether or not they really know what they are doing.

I may misunderstand this statement. If something has scientific merit it must have some sort of direct or indirect empircal evidence. Objective evidence is foundational to science; it's the bedrock upon which theories are built.

On the other hand, if you are saying that when the imagination is claiming erroneously that it has scientific merit, so it must then demonstrate it with empirical evidence, I would agree.

Many in the medical field are creationists, however, and less likely to claim self-neurosis. They could claim that those who do not extrapolate the elegance of what is observed to see a creator are the ones in need of some neurological attention.

Indeed, for the sake of crackpot definitions, I'm a creationist. Both cracks and pots come in various sizes. I may be a little fractured here and there, but not all that much seems to be leaking, at least in the view of most people. But my views are not counter to mainstream science. YEC, which is probably the "creationists" you are referring to (and not people like me), does present views that are counter to science.

So, your point [if I may expand a little upon it] of using objective evidence to grade the merit of a creationist view, or any subjective view for that matter, is valid. The Earth-centered universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy had their very large and reliable pot cracked by Galileo's observational evidence of Venus and Mercury. The Jesuit scholars dumped the deeply entrenched model surprisingly quickly. But they adopted the Tychonic model because it met all the observational evidence and it was consistent with what they believed is written in the Bible regarding an immovable Earth. [A modified version of this model (elliptical orbits, non-uniform motion, and a rotating Earth) is still accurate even today, right?]

The pot for every religious, or other subjective view, can be seen to crack once scientific evidence smacks it hard enough. But this can be seen in two parts:

(1) the pot must first get in the pathway of science. Claiming green to be the best color can not be refuted by science. Even unicorns are hard to strap down on the scientific pot-smacking table, but their believability becomes less and less as evolutionary models improve. It wouldn't surprise me too much, since their beginning, if one or two had a horn. Of course, if they scared off any mate, their lack of reproduction would make their evolutionary twig go dead.

(2) the size of a crack made by scientific smacking upon a pot belonging to a specific religious, or other subjetive view, is dependent upon the thickness and metalurgical properties of the pot, as well as, the impact strength science is able to bear upon it.

[Ken, how would you rate the efficacy of this metaphor? I still like those green rules. ]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

If you're a creationist of any stripe, you bet they are.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It depends on your definition of creationist. If you use a broad definition, where the meaning simply applies to one who believes a supernatural creator or creators is the explanation of our universe, then you must then study the claims of this creationist (ok me ) to see if they are indeed concordant with mainstream science.

It is easy to simply prejudge those who may be contradictory to your view, but I hope you see that is what you have done.

Nevertheless, I have grown to respect your opinions. I am curious to get your thoughts on my view of how science impacts religion (or other subjective view) by using the pot metaphor?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

As I have stated (much to my own chagrin) I regard no one in this forum to be a crackpot--

However let me illustrate what I am trying to get at with the use of imagination in one person who is fairly well documented ---

The late Dr. Feynman (as outlined in Feynman's Rainbow written by L Mlodinow--

Feynman had the uncanny ability to see beyond what (at first blush--I could only wish to fathom) the average "joe" could see.

When he looked upon a rainbow: he saw the constituent spectra in so-called wavelengths (not what the average aesthetic view is imagined to be).


Furthermore, in the book Euler's Fabulous Formula... ( by Paul Nahin) --we learn of a 15 year old Feynman exclaiming that Euler's Formula to be one of the most fundamental mathematical formulae of scientific significance that he has ever seen.

He seemingly saw ( I would word) the Universe as his playground for practicing science---I, personally, feel that if the Western society is to teach creationism ---do it at Sunday School and not in the public school setting. We stand the risk of diluting an evermore (currently weak?) school system.

If we are to have more of our students to stand on the shoulders of giants--it is to learn from our mistakes and not to persist in creating more of them.


I am fairly certain that there will be others who want to line up and challenge my assertions?

__________________
"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
---Carl Sagan

I think we all agree on this point. Creationism is a religious view and not a scientific one, thus it is not fair to teach it as such, especially in a science classroom. There are other places, even in education, that it can be mentioned, as in the social sciences. But we are getting far off topic.

Yes, and understanding the differences between religion, philosophy, and modern science and how they interact should grant us all taller shoulders to stand upon.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Dear George,

I regarded your post to be pandering to religion--

and

my own "personal" understanding of "God" --whoever or whatever this entity may be is probably far different than yours.

As far as I (try) to practice science-- I don't go out of my way to bash religion (under daily circumstances). nor am I attempting to bash you.

Granted, I am not an M.D. --nor do I want to be--

if you are asking for a personal apology--fine!--but aren't you going out your way to make the point who should be on top of the heap?

As far as I am concerned: life has a purpose (whether by design or some unexplained mechanism--I don't know) and---- when (upon happenstance) I peruse the DSM --for instance I can note that many of the past religious visions (of so-called Saints) were of possible neurological problem (some might regard, today)--

So what is the purpose of going any further in this post than to say: If I have insulted you or the Medical Establishment---I apologize.

__________________
"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
---Carl Sagan

I never sensed that you were.

I did not intend to state that your view of some doctors was wrong. I'm sorry if you got that impression. I wanted to contribute more to that view that shows a bigger picture. The more facets to these things the better.

I see no offense in any of your statements whatsoever. Did I miss something?

Things can get a little blunt at times in topics such as these, and we can often overreact to the person's true intent. Personally, I enjoy your views. Keep 'em coming, even if I disagree (not that I do).

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

That's a definition so broad as to be worthless. The term for which you are probably looking is "theistic evolution."

By definition, creationism is not science. It makes no testable hypotheses. My, or your, or anyone else's belief in the ultimate cause of the existence of the universe is no part of science.

Oh, boy. How to avoid certain lines . . . .

Broadly, I think that science is one pot and other subjective views ought to be another. Whether one pot or the other is cracked ought to be irrelevant. If, however, you choose to make the two one pot, it generally breaks both of them.

ETA--I could go on much longer, as I'm sure you're aware, but not here.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There are literalists that are concordant with science.

No one is arguing otherwise. But some religions and philosophies, unicorn beliefs included, are impacted by science. Many believe that science is contradictory to these certain claims.

True, but if both are reasonable models of the truth, then the pot of science should fit nicely within the pot of philosophy or religion.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

By whose definition? This is one of the problems with arguing about creation, opponents on both sides of the issue attempting to arbitrarily define what it means for everyone, even those not in the debate. This is why it's important to be mindful of what someone believes before attempting to counter it. There are people who believe that a creator can/did make the universe in such a way that it abides by the laws of science or is otherwise indistinguishable from it. You can try to redefine that as non-creation, but it's not really your call to make. "Theistic Evolution" might be a better neologism to make debating the idea of creation easier, but it's not binding or exclusionary just because you might want it to be.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

To bring it back to the views of someone like Dawkins, I would say there are really four possibilities that often get confused with only two:
1) creationism that trumps science-- i.e., belief in things that science contradicts, and rejecting that contradiction, or morphing it intentionally to create a false agreement.
2) creationism in the arenas that science does not enter-- i.e., if science has no concept of a causeless cause or an uncaused initial condition (which it doesn't), then there is an entry point for creationism there that does not run afoul of science (indeed many scientists see the laws of physics as a kind of hand of a creator).
3) a commitment to always looking for the natural cause, because the supernatural is not demonstrable-- i.e., the possibility of the supernatural is not ruled out, it is merely that the goal is to look for the natural explanation, with the recognition that this is a limited process and can never be all things to all people.
4) a belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural, so the supernatural is rejected not out of personal choice, but out of a belief that it cannot exist-- all has to be natural, ignoring all possible limitations in that concept.

I would rate both #1 and #4 as "polemic" stances, and #2 an #3 as "rational" stances. I expect YECs to be in group #1, and Dawkins and Weinberg in group #4, and no doubt that is the only group that they consider to be rational. George sounds like group #2, and many scientists, including myself, would probably be group #3, or perhaps 2.5.

I feel strangely drawn to parallaxicality, I think I like him a lot!

Indeed, it's a definition so broad as to be worthless, in theological terms. We have a god, and we have evolution. It only marginally narrows the field of religious thought.

This connects back to Dawkins, I believe, who seems to recurrently underestimate the complexity of religious thought. He argues with a cartoon religion that is essentially irrelevant to the theology of the last thousand years. In that sense, he resembles an ATM theorist who argues against Galilean relativity, and then assumes he's pretty much wrapped it up for Einsteinian relativity, too. Such errors make your opponents laugh, which is never good.

Grant Hutchison

That's a good point, and I'd add to it another aspect, which is that sometimes people like Dawkins take someone else's argument that is improperly applied in some situation, and instead of just pointing out how the argument is being misapplied, they capitalize on the opportunity to discount it in all situations. That might be like saying "I can argue that it is foolish to imagine that aspirin can cure dyslexia, therefore it can't be any good for a headache either."

I suggest that there are two more groups:

5) creationism that openly investigates the merits of science in the few areas where science has some influence upon certain claims within creationism. When any claim of science is deemed demonstrably correct, creationism must add this enlightenment to the scriptural context, which is foundational to creationism. [St. Augustine warned that not doing this would have consequences.]

In Galileo's day, it took the Church far too long to reconsider what was intended in scripture when it states that an Earth was seen not to move.
6) creationism that allegorizes anything it finds in conflict with mainstream science. This is the basis for theistic evolution, though there are many variations.

Your no. 2 meets the tenets of the faith because science has nothing it can say about these things, though some think they can. [Most creationists are believers because of areas of the faith that are unopposed by science. ]

I'm a 5er, because I recognize that until recently creationism had no tools to discover an observational alternative interpretation. The impurity of the Moon and Sun, orbital moons for Jupiter, and, more impressively, the phases of Mercury and Venus were all observational influences upon a limited interpretation. Today's more advanced observations are capable of adding even more enlightenment to the necessary context to any exegesis. We are only just now begining to get observational evidence for planetary formation structures, which may be applicable to Gen. 1.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

One-horned rhinoceri are still fairly common. They were more common all around the world 2,000 to 3,000 years ago.

There is no Biblical description of a one-horned “horse”. That was a fanciful fantasy character painted in some pictures of the middle-ages, much like elves, gnomes, fairies, etc.

Biblical descriptions of unicorns only involve them being “strong”. They are not said to be horses. Sounds like a rhinoceros to me.

Nothing in here about a unicorn being a "horse":

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...n&qs_version=9