We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Science (10 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Regardless, everyone will use the fruits of the scientific method, technology.

Science deniers use the Internet and computers frequently.

Case in point, this thread.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, tommy wrote:
Does philosophy exist in reality?

Does reality exist in philosophy?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
It seems to me that anyone who wants to know what scientists mean by the word "theory" should look at the queen of the sciences: mathematics.

    group theory
    number theory
    ring theory
    measure theory
    Galois theory
    homology theory
    probability theory
    knot theory
    cohomology theory
    field theory
    homotopy theory
    and on and on . . . .
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On May 19, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:
Quote:
On May 19, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On May 19, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:
I’ve seen some pretty good arguments from the young earth people about Carbon dating,


No you haven't, Tom. You've seen propaganda of the most egregious kind. The margin of error in claiming a 6,000 year old Earth is equivalent to saying that the distance from New York to L.A. is 20 feet! And that's not hyperbole either - do the math comparing 4.55 billion years to 6,000 years and you'll see for yourself.

Quote:
Just makes sense to me that nature seems to find a way to fix itself, and if for some reason something needed aging in a hurry maybe it did it.

Come to think of it, I saw a Superman movie onetime where he speeded up the earth to change time.Smile

Tom


What could possibly need "aging in a hurry"? And why?

And you do realize there is no such thing as Superman, do you? Smile

Ron


Now how in the world do you know what I’ve heard and what I haven’t heard?
Besides, I’m not saying I agree with it all, just that some of it makes sense to me.
I have no idea how old the earth is. I don’t think it’s as old as some think oh.


Tom, Tom, Tom. You just told us that you've "seen some pretty good arguments from the young earth people". And that it makes sense to you. But what makes what they say more credible than what actual scientists have to say? The Young Earthers will say the earth is 6,000 years old no matter what the actual evidence says, because THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! Don't you get it? They don't care about facts! The evidence for the age of the earth is overwhelming. It's not a great mystery anymore. The fields of anthropology, biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy all triangulate to a 4.55 billion year old earth (plus or minus 1%).
http://www.talkorigins.org/

And a Nobel prize and world fame is waiting for anyone to show that those calculations are wildly wrong and that the earth is 6,000 years old. Anyway, now you know how old the earth is. If I, or someone, asks you in 2 months how old the earth is you have no excuse not to tell them it's actual age. Unless of course, YOU too have an agenda.



Quote:
You are right about Superman, he is not real…....but I do know this other guy with some pretty good powers. Smile

Tom


Spiderman? Smile

Ron


Triangulate?!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, R.S. wrote:
I wonder what kind of backlash there would be if there was the same kind of push - the same continuing effort year after year - by scientists to teach science in churches. Does anybody think that would be downplayed? I think one news channel in particular would have daily conniptions over it. Smile


Ron


Well, personally, if a church or two were teaching some science during Sunday School, I doubt anyone would complain. Now if Scientists were trying to force churches what to teach, yeah, I can see a lot of complaints. Although, if they weren't making any headway, I doubt many would make statements that, "This was causing the greatest problem in religious education today!"

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of ignorant people think that people that go to church don't believe in science.


I'm not so sure about that. Heck, despite the fact that there is ZERO effort by scientists to force churches to teach science, many religious folks claim there is an ongoing "War on Christianity" in this country. And every year during Christmas time, one particular news channel dedicates a good portion of it's time to cover a supposed "war on Christmas". Smile

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Triangulate?!


Indeed! Smile

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3080 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:
Quote:

Serious answer: to be courageous.



"To be courageous" is a sentiment that can be applied to anyone in any field of endeavor that strives to break new ground. For example, it took courage for Copernicus to buck thousands of years of geocentrism to propose a radical way of looking at our place in the universe. This is true in astronomy, mathematics, physics, economics, music, art, writing, politics, etc.

My answer to the question "what is the purpose of philosophy?" It is to answer questions that are beyond the reach of science.

The earliest philosophers focused almost exclusively on metaphysics--the study of reality. What is real? What is the fundamental nature of being? Although there are still some interesting philosophical questions in this arena science has made leaps and bounds over the last several hundred years helping us understand the nature of reality and our place in the universe.

Philosophers were left with less to discuss in metaphysics, so there was a major shift into epistemology, the study of knowledge, which encompasses truth, belief and justification. Science invaded this realm, too, with psychology, chemistry, biology, and a much deeper understanding of how the brain works. Admittedly, science has a long way to go to fully understand the human mind but these disciplines left the philosopher with even less to ponder.

This has moved the modern philosopher into areas like logic, axiology and ethics. These branches of philosophy are rife with questions to which science has no substantive answers, or by definition, will never have substantive answers.


Philosphers get the left-overs?

I'm not sure Socrates would agree. But, you know, he drank the hemlock, and you and I haven't had to do that yet.
0pus
View Profile
Inner circle
New Jersey
1739 Posts

Profile of 0pus
Maybe science deals with the unknown while philosophy deals with the unknowable.
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2824 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
What does science think about church? A published NY Times article said this; “one of the most striking scientific discoveries about religion in
recent years is that going to church weekly is good for you. Religious attendance — at least, religiosity — boosts the immune system and decreases
blood pressure. It may add as much as two to three years to your life. The reason for this is not entirely clear.”

The article went on to say: “And we know that social support is directly tied to better health. Certainly many churchgoers struggle with behaviors
they would like to change, but on average, regular church attendees drink less, smoke less, use fewer recreational drugs and are less sexually promiscuous
than others.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinio......tml?_r=0


Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
Steven Keyl
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington, D.C.
2589 Posts

Profile of Steven Keyl
Most scientists would probably say that a correlation isn't causative. In other words, people that go to church are often the same types of people that drink less, smoke less, don't use drugs, etc. That fact alone means that church-goers will possess stronger immune systems because in general, they participate less in activities that would compromise their immune systems. It does NOT mean that going to church alone will strengthen your immune system and reduce your blood pressure.

The social aspect of church, though, is an important component to the equation. If your primary social group is in church where you can be amongst like-minded people, that can certainly provide a health benefit. But in that regard, church would be no different than a group of Civil War re-enactors, RC airplane enthusiasts, ceramic cat collectors, etc. If you create a support network of like-minded people (whatever the focus) there are substantive health benefits to be gained. This has been shown in study after study. Per Wikipedia:

Quote:

Chronic loneliness can be a serious, life-threatening health condition. It has been found to be associated with an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.[34] Loneliness shows an increased incidence of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity.[35]

Loneliness is shown to increase the concentration of cortisol levels in the body.[35] Prolonged, high cortisol levels can cause anxiety, depression, digestive problems, heart disease, sleep problems and weight gain.[36]

″Loneliness has been associated with impaired cellular immunity as reflected in lower natural killer (NK) cell activity and higher antibody titers to the Epstein Barr Virus and human herpes viruses".[35] Because of impaired cellular immunity, loneliness among young adults shows vaccines, like the flu vaccine, to be less effective.[35] Data from studies on loneliness and HIV positive men suggests loneliness increases disease progression

Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!

Come visit Magic Book Report.com!

"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron


And what makes you think I'm a religious person?

(I think the fact that you DO, doesn't reflect well on your critical thinking skills!)
Steven Keyl
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington, D.C.
2589 Posts

Profile of Steven Keyl
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron


You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!

Come visit Magic Book Report.com!

"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron


You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.

I'm a theist and a mathematician. You can't get more scientific than that.

In Ron's defense, he and I speak often; he's been nothing but a gentleman.
Steven Keyl
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington, D.C.
2589 Posts

Profile of Steven Keyl
Thanks for the info, Bill. It's quite possible I took the comment out of its appropriate context and inferred something that wasn't there. If that's the case, my apologies Ron.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!

Come visit Magic Book Report.com!

"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
[quote]On May 21, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
It seems to me that anyone who wants to know what scientists mean by the word "theory" should look at the queen of the sciences: mathematics.

I don't think we should be making gay-bashing comments about mathematics
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
It seems to me that anyone who wants to know what scientists mean by the word "theory" should look at the queen of the sciences: mathematics.

I don't think we should be making gay-bashing comments about mathematics

I presume that that was an attempt at humor.

Needs work.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, R.S. wrote:
I wonder what kind of backlash there would be if there was the same kind of push - the same continuing effort year after year - by scientists to teach science in churches. Does anybody think that would be downplayed? I think one news channel in particular would have daily conniptions over it. Smile


Ron


Well, personally, if a church or two were teaching some science during Sunday School, I doubt anyone would complain. Now if Scientists were trying to force churches what to teach, yeah, I can see a lot of complaints. Although, if they weren't making any headway, I doubt many would make statements that, "This was causing the greatest problem in religious education today!"

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of ignorant people think that people that go to church don't believe in science.


I'm not so sure about that. Heck, despite the fact that there is ZERO effort by scientists to force churches to teach science, many religious folks claim there is an ongoing "War on Christianity" in this country. And every year during Christmas time, one particular news channel dedicates a good portion of it's time to cover a supposed "war on Christmas". Smile

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron


I don't think religious people are threatened by facts. You don't have to believe in young earth to be religious. The war on Christianity is real from a governmental intrusion. Let's look at Obamacare and birth control. The whole point of religious freedom is the idea that the state will not interfere with beliefs and make the people subscribe to religious ideas that they don't agree with. The more government intrudes into peoples lives, it will eventually pit itself against religion. Also, atheists and others are going out of their way to remove religious symbols from the public. I don't know if this is right or not. Our heritage in this country is interwoven with Judeo-Christian culture. It doesn't mean we were always a Christian nation. It does mean that heritage informed and drove our institutions and community values.

Why can't Intelligent Design theory be taught along with Evolutionary Theory. They're both theories. Let the students decide for themselves what makes sense. ID is agnostic to a degree - I think.

Also no one has a hold on 'facts' Neither the layman or scientist. Facts change with knowledge.
Starrpower
View Profile
Inner circle
4070 Posts

Profile of Starrpower
Quote:
On May 20, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
So, do you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion?


Just my support. If you'd like, I can rescind it.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron


You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.


In context, I was responding (in a tit-for-tat fashion) to Rockwall's unnecessarily derisive comment:

Quote:
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of ignorant people think that people that go to church don't believe in science.


His baseless assumption that I believe that "people that go to church don't believe in science" was unfounded.

Anyway, I agree that the majority of theists aren't anti-science and embrace the value of science and technology in our lives. But, there is a segment that is clearly disdainful of science. And the reasons for that would be obvious.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:
Quote:
On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron


You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.

I'm a theist and a mathematician. You can't get more scientific than that.

In Ron's defense, he and I speak often; he's been nothing but a gentleman.


Well, I don't know about that, Bill. But thanks. I'll have to say that you though, are the consummate gentleman. Smile

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Science (10 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.39 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL