Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

I knew his chapter would get picked apart here. But many points still stand. Just found it a nice co-incidence that someone who I have great respect for shares nearly identical views to me. :)
 
Zeuzzz said:
I knew his chapter would get picked apart here. But many points still stand. Just found it a nice co-incidence that someone who I have great respect for shares nearly identical views to me. :)
Click to expand...
Someone that nobody here respects and has no knowledge on actual physics or cosmology has identical views based on ignorance as you.

Was that suppose to sound intelligent?
 
Dancing David said:
‘Thunderdoltsbolts of the Gods’

Bow the reason to do this is then once you find these sites, especially Thunderdolts
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you just clearly demonstrated your emotional biases for what they really are, irrational emotional biases. The irrational name calling is rather typical of religious and scientific zealots.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I'm afraid you just clearly demonstrated your emotional biases for what they really are, irrational emotional biases. The irrational name calling is rather typical of religious and scientific zealots.
Click to expand...
Laughing at cranks is a completely rational bias, so is ignoring said cranks ignorance based garbage.
 
paximperium said:
Someone that nobody here respects and has no knowledge on actual physics or cosmology has identical views based on ignorance as you.

Was that suppose to sound intelligent?
Click to expand...

One of *THE* most common tactics of "zealots" is their strong desire to personalize the conversation and take pot shots at individuals. This is *EXACTLY* the kind of behavior that hurts 'science' and turns off would be 'scientists' from even getting into the field. The personal attacks are highly indicative of the religious-like nature of modern astronomy. You don't typically see that kind of personal put down applied to "non standard" particle physics theories for instance. How is the personal put down supposed to "sound intelligent" in your opinion?
 
paximperium said:
Laughing at cranks is a completely rational bias, so is ignoring said cranks ignorance based garbage.
Click to expand...

Everyone that ever made a real scientific discovery was also labeled a "crank" at first too. The only thing you're demonstrating is the problem with intolerance.
 
paximperium said:
I'm assuming you're aware where Zeuzz usually posts on the net? He tends to post in physics and drug-user forums.
Click to expand...

So? What does that have to do with his other scientific beliefs like particle physics theory or say the theory of evolution? This is a really pathetic argument IMO.
 
Ahh, since you admit to ranting, I'll answer. ;)

I'll answer directly to the OP, not just because I don't bother to read ALL the thread, but because from what I have read, I gather not much debate has come about.

Zeuzzz said:
Well I think that the title sums it up quite succinctly.

The idea that science is a religion is ludicrous, science is an extremely useful internally self consistent system, a vital tool for understanding how the universe works.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Religion is an attempt at changing peoples thought systems, some might say, a sycophantic type of moral law. No religion is consistant with one another in most regards.
Click to expand...

Although religion does that, I don't agree that this is the basic purpose of it. IMHO, religion is another system for attempting to understand how the universe works.

However, where science bases itself on observation and verification, religion bases itself on philosophy and imagination.

And you have to balance all the positive effects individuals get (church's, spiritual guidance, etc) against the mass atrocities that have happened over the years due to religion. And still do. Most religious leaders are slightly bigoted, due to their dated beliefs.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in principle. However, we may well disagree on where that balance stands. ;)

Now we have the average scientist. They go to work, do their research, go to a lecture, and then they come home from all that, to whats important, their family and wife/husband.
Click to expand...

Not quite, in my experience. Of course you have nine-to-five scientists, but for many, and I think most, it is not just a job, it is a way of living.

I've noticed that those people that have religious type convictions about scientific areas will tend to not have partners, or instead strained relationships, as they are so vehemently engrossed in their subject they have time for little else.
Click to expand...

That is not my impression. In fact you will often find that very dedicated scientists have surprising hobbies; they are musicians, spare time athletes, entertainers, etc.

On partnership, I'd say that heavy dedication to any kind of profession will often be a strain on partnership. You see it with musicians, actors, high-level athletes, and no doubt also with highly dedicated scientists. It is simply difficult to find a partner who will accept to perpetually play second fiddle.

Some get the balance right and can carry on happily seeking their subconscious god whilst keeping things in order. Lots end up as crackpots too however.
Click to expand...

Oops! Which subconscious god are you suddenly implying, here?

Now we have a hypothetical religious scientist. Since a kid he was always fascinated with time and where the universe came from and decided this was his career path.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure some are 'born scientists'.

After studying the literature in depth he understands the theory, but to him its more than a theory, its a blueprint that can reveal to him the secret of the creation of the universe, or the answer to philosophical matters, like the argument from universal causation.
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if the insatiable curiosity which drives many scientists could also drive some to religious devotion.

And this is what he's always looking for in the data, better explanations of a creation event. To him data and time periods can reveal special information, for example the exact millisecond the universe was created, the Planck time 10-43s can be deduced, and many other figures and times.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever. But remember that science is the conviction that the explanation must be found, whereas religion is the conviction that the explanation has been found.

These numbers, to a normal scientist are just data, but to the religious scientist its more like a revelation from the universe.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a postulate. To any scientist, data is the be-all of his/her profession, and the only kind of revelation that exists.

You will often hear the mathematicians saying the theory is "beautiful" and "mystical" or words to that effect at this point.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but remember that scientists are not just robots; they are emotional people like the rest of us. For a scientist to say that a theory is "beautiful" is just a way to describe his/her delight of good work, just like a car enthusiast may describe a new car model as "sexy" without implying that he has any kind of car fetish.

The apparent accuracy of the models results makes the person loose sight that this is one data set out of many, the error bounds on the figures are enormous, new better equipment is made all the time, and many other reasons.
Click to expand...

I think not. Assessing the uncertainty of your data is a very integral part of all serious research.

A normal scientist may get new data that shows the old data to be wrong, and he will just forget about the previous results.
Click to expand...

At times, a scientific theory is shown to be plain wrong, in which case it has to be forgotten, but in the vast majority of cases, it is just shown to be incomplete, or to have taken a wrong turn at some stage. What the normal scientist does is supplement the theory, or back up a bit and catch the better track.

The religious scientist tries his hardest to keep the figures he previously worked out were significant in some way in the literature. And thus starts the downward spiral into crackpot-en-dom. After finding his religious revelation he has no intention of loosing it. To him its the secret of the universe that can be used for boundless purposes.
Click to expand...

That has happened occasionally. Some scientists 'burn out' in their later years, cling to the state of the art as it was when they won their laurels, and try do deny later progress. Fortunately, those seem to be the exception. Most realize and appreciate that they are the giants on whose shoulders the next generations stand.

So he'll probably invent something metaphysical like Aether Quantum Dynamics to explain why hes right and everyone else is wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh, some people invent all sorts of things to make their own explanation of reality, but they don't have to start out as scientists. Just look at a poster named Bjarne, elsewhere in this forum.

I guess what I'm saying in a roundabout way is that scientists that distance themselves from their work and the meaning of it all (maybe in exchange for a happy family life) always seem to end up inadvertently finding much better scientific discoveries than the religious type of scientist. They also have the ability to admit openly when their theory is falsified, and they move on. A religious scientist would NEVER let that happen.
*snip*

Rant rant rant.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm afraid I don't see exactly what your point is, but in my opinion, once a scientist turns into defending his ideas with religious fervor, he turns into a former scientist.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
So? What does that have to do with his other scientific beliefs like particle physics theory or say the theory of evolution? This is a really pathetic argument IMO.
Click to expand...
So? That is not what paximperium said.
He posted "I'm assuming you're aware where Zeuzz usually posts on the net? He tends to post in physics and drug-user forums." There is no statement there about scientific beliefs.

paximperium is resolving my surprise that Zeuzzz cited a pharmacologist's (really, really wrong) opinion about the Big Bang theory.
My guess (and Zeuzzz this is just a guess) is that Zeuzzz has been so impressed by Shulgin's drug expertise that he thinks that Shulgin also has expertise in cosmology. The linked page shows that Shulgin does not.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Everyone that ever made a real scientific discovery was also labeled a "crank" at first too.
Click to expand...
You must be talking to those "cranks" who actually accomplished something as opposed to those failures who continue to be appropriately labelled cranks and failures.
The only thing you're demonstrating is the problem with intolerance.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty intolerant of cranks who do not accomplish anything or add anything to society except their stupidity.
So what's your accomplishment?

Michael Mozina said:
So? What does that have to do with his other scientific beliefs like particle physics theory or say the theory of evolution? This is a really pathetic argument IMO.
Click to expand...
Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Thanks for making my point.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Stay on topic. And don't blame anyone else for bringing it up either.

Just remembered a short chapter I thoroughly enjoyed from Alexander Shulgins TiHKAL http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/bigbang.html

Awesome that he has basically the same views as me on this subject.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should abate your hostility, I gace specific reasons for what I poseted, in that they will elad to people who are saying that mainstream science rejects certian theories out of hand which is the TOPIC of your thread. and it was in reference to the topic.

I did not reference your name in a hostile way but in reference to the starting post.

So any evidence yet that the religous attitude (referenced in the OP) is a detriment to the process of science?
 
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/bigbang.html
This is portrayed as a super explosion, and what we see now is the debris, the shards and fragments, still flying away in every direction
Click to expand...

Really Zeuzzz, after all this time, you still can't cite a source that at least gets the BBt right, seriously?

the expansion of spacetime inherent in Einstein's equations for General relativity are not an explosion.

From that minuscule source came all the stuff that constitutes this universe: the energy, the eventual mass, the stars and the galaxies, the forces of gravity and of life.
Click to expand...
If you actually read the threads about the BBt here you would already know why this is wrong as well, the source of the BBE is unknown, it has many great speculations to it, but there is no source at this time that is any sort of valid part of the theory.

It stated that both authors agreed that our universe emerged as a cataclysmic explosion from an initial singularity, understood in contemporary astrophysics as a state in which the mass/energy of the universe is condensed into an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely small (zero diameter), infinitely curved, pointlike dimension. If those were the true dimensions of our origin as shown on that birth frame, then even if that "cataclysmic explosion" were to increase that original diameter a zillion-fold it would still be zero, if the temperature were to drop a zillion-fold, it would still be infinite. Anything times zero is still zero. Infinity divided by anything is still infinity. In short, the second frame, and the thousandth frame of our movie would appear identical to the first one, and there would be no stars or galaxies. We would not exist.
Click to expand...
So now this author has solved the ToE and resolved the QM and general relativity metrics, really Zeuzzz, why don't they have a Nobel prize for the ToE?

You do know that the metrics of the singularity or whatever it si are unknown as there is no resolution between QM and GR, so your philosopher is dead wrong and using a giant strawman.

I took the time to educate myself on your alternative theories Zeuzzz, you have gone and not even done the same, now you say that you agree with a source that can not even get the BBt correct and so far has just constructed a bunch of hooey. This person is obviously not critiquing the theory itself.


So which part of the Shuglin paper do you feel is relevant is particluar? that way I can try to understand what alternative it provides and try ti educate myself on it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm afraid you just clearly demonstrated your emotional biases for what they really are, irrational emotional biases. The irrational name calling is rather typical of religious and scientific zealots.
Click to expand...

Hi MM,

Considering that Thundebolts wants to violate the physics of plasma all the time and does not even have the ability to make it through the actual math to understand what the Debye length is, they are philosophers using magic words that they don't understand. And considering the fact that electric stars would explode at relatavistics speeds and that the field/charge strength between the galaxy and stars is too weak to do anything that they claim...well

If they have a relevant physics point that is actually based in physics, let me know. Seriously, one that is a true physics and not some "I don't like the words."
 
Michael Mozina said:
One of *THE* most common tactics of "zealots" is their strong desire to personalize the conversation and take pot shots at individuals. This is *EXACTLY* the kind of behavior that hurts 'science' and turns off would be 'scientists' from even getting into the field. The personal attacks are highly indicative of the religious-like nature of modern astronomy. You don't typically see that kind of personal put down applied to "non standard" particle physics theories for instance. How is the personal put down supposed to "sound intelligent" in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Except for the FACT that Shuglin does not even have the physics of the BBt correct and his critiques are therefore strawmen.

Now you will note I did not criticize Shuglin as a crank, I criticized the ideas in the paper.
 
paximperium to Michael Mozina said:
So what's your accomplishment?
Click to expand...


Over a half a decade of preaching a crackpot conjecture, literally millions of words in tens of thousands of posts on dozens of forums touting a crazy fantasy based on gross errors in understanding, abject arrogance, pure religious-like faith, and an outright disdain for math and science, all resulting in a complete failure to convince a single professional scientist that the crank "theory" is remotely compelling or worthy of legitimate consideration. None but the most fervently religious would flee from math, reject real science so wholly, fail time after time while dishonestly claiming success, and still cling so tightly to a delusion which has no bearing whatsoever on the way the Universe actually works. His accomplishment has been, in fact, to provide the quintessential example of a pretend scientist who is religious about his pretend science.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Everyone that ever made a real scientific discovery was also labeled a "crank" at first too.
Click to expand...
Not really. For every scientist you can name to support your hypothesis (e.g. Alfred WegenerWP or Ilya PrigogineWP) we can name several who don't (e.g. John BardeenWP or Michael O. RabinWP or Edward Mills PurcellWP or Arno PenziasWP or Walter AlvarezWP).

As I understand it, Linus PaulingWP was first labelled a crank for his political activism, which led eventually to his Nobel Peace Prize. He won a Nobel Prize in chemistry before his advocacy of megavitamin therapy and vitamin C became well known and controversial.

Among those who have won the Turing AwardWP, I see a couple of cranky personalities but none who were labelled a "crank" for their discoveries. Marvin MinskyWP might come closest, but he won the fourth Turing Award in the same year one of his most controversial books (PerceptronsWP) was published.

In my experience, scientists are far more likely to be labelled "crank" by non-scientists than by their fellow scientists.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Hi MM,

Considering that Thundebolts wants to violate the physics of plasma all the time
Click to expand...

Thunderbolts as a whole, or a few members? Define "violate the physics of plasma" in contrast to what Alfven said about "magnetic reconnection'? IMO you have scientific history standing on it's head. I guess it's all a matter of perspective, wouldn't you say? What's with the emotional need to go on crusade against *ONE* specific website anyway? I could rail on more than a few, but I fail to see the point of painting with such a large paintbrush.

and does not even have the ability to make it through the actual math to understand what the Debye length is,
Click to expand...

From my perspective, one of the single most common debate tactics you folks use is the personal attack, starting with questioning of one's math skills (which you always "dis"), and really ending with "name calling". The whole thing reeks of a "Christian" calling an atheist "evil" for not believing exactly as they do. I'm seeing so many parallels in these debates in terms of the villianization process, it's not funny. It's actually quite sad IMO, because it's basically a witch hunt.

they are philosophers using magic words that they don't understand.
Click to expand...

You should hear a half dozen astronomers explain "inflation" or "dark energy" sometime. You guys use magic words too.

And considering the fact that electric stars would explode at relatavistics speeds and that the field/charge strength between the galaxy and stars is too weak to do anything that they claim...well
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to be painting with a very broad brush, you're unwilling to even entertain "electrical" anything in terms of solar physics, and your whole industry has an aversion to electricity in space, that is almost identical to that of a religious zealot who's harping on the evils of "satan". You guys seem to utterly ignore all of Birkeland's work on solar physics, all of Alfven's work on solar physics, and fixate on simply the "magnetic" aspects of what's going on out there. It's really like an ostrich hiding it's head in the sand pretending the whole universe is going to change just because they continue to hide their head in the sand.

If they have a relevant physics point that is actually based in physics, let me know. Seriously, one that is a true physics and not some "I don't like the words."
Click to expand...

The problem here David is that the same was said by Alfven of what you're calling "magnetic reconnection". If you continue to berate Alfven's whole approach to the application of MHD theory to objects in space, and you continue to cling to something Alfven rejected his entire life, how can you ever be sure that you were actually "right" about any of it?

It seems to me that the only way for science to remain "healthy" is for all sides to adopt a "live and let live" approach and let things progress without all the hostility. The problem in my experience however is that as long as you continue to paint everyone with such a broad brush, we all continue to talk past one another and nothing really changes.
 
paximperium said:
You must be talking to those "cranks" who actually accomplished something as opposed to those failures who continue to be appropriately labelled cranks and failures.
I'm pretty intolerant of cranks who do not accomplish anything or add anything to society except their stupidity.
So what's your accomplishment?

Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Thanks for making my point.
Click to expand...

What exactly have you "accomplished" in your life that's so damn important to you, let alone the whole world anyway? FYI, I measure my accomplishments as a husband of over 20 years, a father for more than 18 years and the fact I've kept a roof over their head and kept them fed and provided them with a loving home. I measure my accomplishments in terms of being self employed for more than 17 years, and for being able to live in such a beautiful environment and raise my family here. I don't really care what you think of me personally, but your emotional need to villianize me and anyone you disagree with on some particular topic (do we even disagree about the theory of evolution for instance?) is really a pathetic debate tactic. The fact you're turning your attentions to me personally just demonstrates that emotional need you all have to attack the individual rather than the issues themselves. It's really an intriguing study of the human psyche, and the need of the human psyche to see everything in terms of "black and white", and to viallinize the greatest "threat" to their current belief system with a passion. Just out of morbid curiosity, have you even read "Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven, or are you just winging this as you go?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom