Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

Nicholas wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > Shane wrote:
> >
> >>On 17 Jan 2006 18:59:43 -0800, Jim Spaza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Shane wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 10 Jan 2006 22:03:02 -0800, Jim Spaza wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Shane wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 10 Jan 2006 19:25:24 -0800, Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> >>>I don't know if everyone should get the same input.  I suppose people
> >>>can decide for themselves if they agree with how some versions of
> >>>science is performed.  You don't have to have only one kind or
> >>>methodology of science.
> >>
> >>What other methodology do you propose?
> >
> > The kind where you don't have to subject everything to objective peer
> > review before declaring something as fact.  Subjective experience can
> > be just as illuminating as objective science.
>
> Subjective experience is not reproducable. It may provide some insight
> to your personality but as a scientific method it is unusuable. When it
> can be shown that eyewitness testimony under controlled conditions is
> inaccurate, how do you expect such testimony from any random person
> about apparent one events without independent cooberation as a serious
> methodology for advancement? And how would you discern the real reports
> from the crackpot or plain dishonest?

I don't expect anything that anyone says happened to them to be
uncritically seen as evidence.  However, what someone says may indeed
be trustworthy to some extent if the person is deemed to be sane,
honest, and intelligent.

You would discern the accurate reports from the crackpot and dishonest
by investigating their claims for yourself.

>
> >>>And, no, I wouldn't trust an illiterate person with the responsibility
> >>>of how to effect science.
> >>
> >>What about a scientifically illiterate person? Some would argue that a
> >>creationist has shown themselves to be automatically illiterate in the
> >>area of biology at least. Again, how are we to assess each persons
> >>claim to literacy, literal or scientific, so that their opinion can be
> >>weighted accordingly so that we can get this mess sorted out?
> >
> >
> > Each person would be trusted on their own merits.  I'm talking personal
> > trust here, not in terms of legal power to publicly declare someone as
> > worthy to define science.  To me, as long as the person is honest,
> > they're qualified.
>
> Honesty doesn't come into it. Even the honest have fallible memory. That
> is why evidence needs to be obective and repeatable.

No problem.  I just don't want evidence which is not objective and
repeatable to be summarily dismissed without ANY consideration.  A lot
can be missed that way.

>
> >>>No particles have ever been observed, inferred, or reproduced to pop in
> >>>and out of existence.  It's all guesswork to try to grasp at
> >>>theoretical explanations for how the universe functions, especially at
> >>>and right before the Big Bang.
> >>
> >>They have been inferred, I even inferred them in my post, and note I
> >>also said "apparently".
> >
> >
> > Please tell me that you inferred their existence because of some
> > physical discovery as opposed to "it's the only way to make my Big Bang
> > theory work".
>
> It can be experiemtally demonstrated. Read up on the Casimir Effect.

Sure.  But, mathematically predicting the non-graviational force on two
plates is a far cry from knowing that the force is caused by these
supposed quantum particles.

>
> >>>>Something coming from absolute nothingness (which you are presuming, the
> >>>>absolute nothingness I mean) may be no more surprising to humans in 500
> >>>>years than nuclear radiation is to us compared with those who lived 500
> >>>>years ago.
> >>>
> >>>Wishful thinking at best.  At least, I have the Bible, ancient
> >>>third-party writings, modern day miracles, and God's interaction with
> >>>my own life to establish and deepen my belief that there is a God.  The
> >>>belief in theoretical particles popping in and out of existence
> >>>requires much more...faith.
> >>
> >>Not at all, I don't believe in them, I can imagine the possibility
> >>that they exist, it does not affect my life one whit if they do or
> >>don't.
> >
> >
> > Sure it does.  If these supposed particles really do pop in and out of
> > existence, then what happens if they suddenly appear in the space
> > occupied by your body?
>
> The particles being talked about are on the subatomic level and the
> effect only occurs in a vacuum. So no need to worry.
> 
> Nicholas

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... >>>methodology of science. ... > Please tell me that you inferred their existence because of some ... >>>belief in theoretical particles popping in and out of existence ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... but the lack of existence of everything else is. ... My theory, like any other theory, does not need to convince anyone. ... theories (including the fundamentals of EM) and experiements conducted ... induced in particles as a function of the distance between elementary ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Tiny Dot
    ... >>> However there are two reasons for excluding them from the science ... >>> the random elements of evolution is a characteristic of creationists, ... >>statement often heard that intelligent design is not science because ... > particles such as gravitons, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More on the addled brain of Francis Collins...
    ... the inexplicable fact that Mother Theresa existed at all. ... trying to say that morality cannot be justified by science, ... existence of moral behavior in the first place. ... There is no one "uniquely human moral law." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pope - the end of the church as we know it ...?
    ... I am merely having a pop at how the ignorant blind masses follow whatever science has to say, ... explain how and why the image of a crucified man was impressed on this linen burial cloth. ... existence of God and his power to intervene in the world - the Shroud merits more serious consideration from you than you have hitherto given, judging by the flippant attitude you invariably take when asked quite simple questions about it. ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)
Loading