The Glade 4.0

It doesn't work in science, but it does work in engineering. Engineers know that "nothing is incontrovertibly true", but they have to proceed as if it is true in order to make things work.

I forget where I heard this joke, but it goes like this:

A Mathematician and and Engineer agree to participate in a psychology experiment. They are ushered into a room, at the opposite end of which is a bed with a beautiful naked woman on it. The instructor tells them that they may move half the remaining distance to the woman once every minute, and when they finally reach her, they can have their way with her.

The Engineer walks halfway to the bed, then watches the clock for the minute to tick by. The Mathematician looks at him as if he's a fool. "Why bother? You'll never actually get there."

The Engineer looks back and replies "No, but shortly I'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Zeno strikes again.

"pure" scientists understand the 'close enough for jazz' approach just fine. And just because something isn't taken as 100% granted, does not mean we don't rely on it for our approximations. That's what uncertainty is for.

I agree entirely but the practical ramifications of that size subset of the population believing humans versus existence were created instantly 10,000 years ago by a creator diety that is essentially an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, immortal person are both equally offensive in the face of simple science.



http://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/fir ... t-20056649

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I think you know his intention is engineering is principally the application of approximate physical law whereas science is the pursuit of replacing approximate physical law with more accurate approximate physical law.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Not to get into any arguments (because they are really a waste of time for all of us imo) over religion, but haven't most the modern religions that still exist evolved in some way to keep up with modern society and science matters?

I understand they've a long way to go before giving up all their archaic beliefs, but in some ways they have changed, no? At least in the more civilized parts of the world.

Well, we've stopped burning witches in this part of the world, I suppose.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not really. There are quite a few people (such as, for example, the catholic Church) that don't think it was "10,000 years ago" at all, but rather at the point of the beginning of the universe as we observe it, which should not be the least bit "offensive to science" to anyone without a massive agenda or chip on their shoulder. In fact, whether something is "offensive to science" or not is really not the issue.

If the issue is Young Earth Creationism (or anything else that's basically similar) versus science, one can't frame the issue as YES needing to conform to the assumptions or principles of science. Rather, the merits of the scientific approach have to stand on their own (which they do), but the argument "Creationism is an inferior approach because it doesn't conform to the results we obtain by the scientific method" is no more than question-begging, from a standpoint of a reasoning exercise. On the side of the YEC's, they're usually too unsophisticated and too afraid to address the question abstractly for fear it will call their own faith into question to recognize this. On the atheist/science/whatever side it's more a matter of simply being unable to bear the thought of seriously addressing the question of why science is a superior approach to Creationism rather than simply scoffing - after all, actually convincing people would leave no one to scoff at and feel superior to.

Rather the issue is one of two different sets of evidence - one being Biblical (or other accounts, if we want to use other religions) of Creation versus observation of the development of the universe.

What makes the scientific approach superior is (in addition to having significantly more complete evidence than just a few pages of testimony) that it simply looks at the evidence and draws conclusions, whereas the Creationists look at their evidence and then run it through a process of interpretation (biblical literalism) and then draw their conclusions.

In point of fact, the process of interpretation means that Creationism is problematic from a theological standpoint without even considering science, for this reason. Most YECs/literalists will claim they are "not interpreting" the Bible by taking it literally, but "taking it literally" is actually impossible simply because of translation issues and other related problems of dealing with documents 2000+ years old. YECs have essentially created their own caricature of themselves through this intransigence.

The other side of that is people like Xeq for whom acting scandalized about how supposedly stupid 50% of the people out there are, without fully considering the question.



There are a great many people out there who imagine that simply being fascinated with science makes them scientists.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because clearly it was not just an excuse to tell a joke involving naked women.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

since when do any of us need an excuse for that?

It's not a matter of having "archaic beliefs" that anyone has a "long way to go" before giving up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

For instance: due to relativistic influences, it's known that Newton's laws of motion were not correct without applying time dilation calculations. However, relativistic calculations are both overly complicated and unnecessary for figuring out most problems related to motion. We still used Newton's laws on their own to get to the moon, because most of the time they work, and the time dilation effect is so insignificant in most engineering projects that it's not worth calculating - the effect is less than the margins of error on the measuring equipment used.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I thought you'd be more interested in getting to the naked woman on the bed than to the moon. I'm disappointed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I regularly get to a naked woman on my bed. I have never been to the moon.

Well, except in the Sinatra sense, I guess.

Fly me to the moon
Let me play among the stars
Let me see what spring is like
On Jupiter and Mars

In other words, hold my hand
In other words, baby , kiss me

Fill my heart with song
and let me sing forever more
You are all I long for
All I worship and adore

In other words, please be true
In other words, I love you

Fill my heart with song
Let me sing forever more
You are all I long for
All I worship and adore

In other words, please be true
In other words, I love you

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I agree, perhaps offensive was a poor word choice as it implies an absolute measure of value. My point wasn't that either belief is offensive in some inferred objective sense of the word. Rather, I think if one does imply offense is to be taken by science, as Xequcal does, then Khross's lamenting of the difference between the literal wording of survey question and what Xequcal understood the surveyees to have read it as, is immaterial. There is no difference, in a scientific sense, between the assumed meaning and the literal meaning.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Word salad opinion comment that really does nothing to promote discussion from me. But thanks for playing!

Well, assuming for the sake of argument that the literal meaning is discernable and unquestionable once determined, we could point out that different people will have different assumptions about the meaning.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

For someone who claims not to want to argue, you certainly are adept at trying to start them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you honestly believe that the Pope expressing his opinion on the subject puts the debate to rest, especially when somewhere around half of Christians aren't even Catholic, and other religions believe similar theories as well, then there's really no hope for you.

You know as well as I do that putting an end to the debate has little to do with science.

I would say it has nothing to do with science. The science is already as solid as any other science. The fact that there is any controversy over it is entirely about people unwilling or unable to give up old superstitions. This is not new. Despite the field of geology and our understanding of tectonics, people still attribute quakes to an angry deity. Superstition exists in spite of knowledge, not because of it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Geology and earthquakes happening because of an angry deity aren't even mutually exclusive. The accuracy of one does not make the other a superstition.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, the other is a superstition because they are attempting to attribute causality to something to which an event has no natural link.

Superstition is about causality - Science looks for natural causality, because that's all we're equipped to find. Any attempt claim one event is caused by another event without any natural connections between them, is, by definition, superstition. The thing is, in ancient times, we did not understand why earthquakes occurred, or lightning, or storms. We had no natural explanations. There is only one major difference between the human brain and our more primitive cousins on this planet - our ability to see patterns. That is central to our "great intelligence." We're so attuned to seeing patterns, that in the absense of real patterns, we'll create them. This is how superstition is born. "A tornado hit that hamlet. They must have been lawless and degenerate people, and God smote them!" Science -- knowledge -- it eliminated the psychological need for superstition. We already have causality for these events. Attributing them to god is superfluous. We know they would have happened even without an angry god, so the "possibility" that an angry god arranged the events is irrelevant, and once again, without a natural causal link, it is always superstition.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

A tornado hit that hamlet. They were a lawless and degenerate people, therefore God arranged for a warm air stream to collide with a cold air stream, creating a low pressure system. Because God works in mysterious ways.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Except for the fact that it isn't when one also accepts the natural explanation at the same time. Like I said, not mutually exclusive. Your example is inapplicable as it relates to people who are attributing the tornado directly to God and only to God, and for specific reasons ("they must have been lawless degenerate people") for which there is no evidence other than personal suspicion. This is not the same thing as understanding that God is ultimately in control of the laws of the universe being what they are and that He could create or prevent a tornado or any other natural event and for any reason He chose, and that such reason is not necessarily (and not even likely) to be discernible by us.



Nothing like conflating two different viewpoints into a nice little strawman to lighten up the afternoon.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That just means you're accepting science and superstition. Belief in a supernatural cause for anything IS superstition. That's what the word means - supernatural causality. If you believe in a divine being, you are, at least in part, superstitious. (That doesn't mean you're not right. This is not a value judgement. It's a label.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Well duh, that's what I said in the first place.

Also, that isn't what superstition means. Superstition specifically refers to ominous or fearful aspects of such beliefs - both by denotation and connotation. I realize you really like that word for some reason, but it isn't a generic term for "any belief in any cause other than the scientific."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."