Aww Crap...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2012, 08:29 AM
Aww Crap...
This is going to make Craig drool...


Why physicists can't avoid a creation event

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: Aww Crap...
Quote:resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.

Huh

How the fuck does "no way to avoid a creation event" translate to "supernatural more likely". From New Scientist ??? FFS. These guys suck big hairy balls. Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2012, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2012 08:55 AM by scientician.)
RE: Aww Crap...
(18-01-2012 08:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.

Huh

How the fuck does "no way to avoid a creation event" translate to "supernatural more likely". From New Scientist ??? FFS. These guys suck big hairy balls. Angry

Oh it doesn't at all. That's why before the case for a non-beginning universe was even mainstream Sean Carroll wrote this. There is no reason to insert god just because we don't have the answers yet. But WLC and his cronies just love to use this as an argument for the existence of god. The thing is adding god to the equation complicates it and is therefore not the preferred theory of real scientists. And philosophy will never solve problems like this because it 's claims cannot be verified empirically.

My opinion is this: Philosophically the existence of god is a logically coherent view, it's just the way it is. However, atheism is too. Just ask Hume or Nietzsche. Where the logic fails is the connection between this creator and all of the world religions today. This is definitely in the world of empirical science and is where our arguments have been and always will be focused. Scientists should keep advocating the fact that the god hypothesis is useless and not even worth serious attention. Leave that to the philosophers and we can at least guarantee that WLC will never have made any progress.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes scientician's post
18-01-2012, 08:53 AM
RE: Aww Crap...
(18-01-2012 08:45 AM)scientician Wrote:  
(18-01-2012 08:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.

Huh

How the fuck does "no way to avoid a creation event" translate to "supernatural more likely". From New Scientist ??? FFS. These guys suck big hairy balls. Angry

Oh it doesn't at all. That's why before the case for a non-beginning universe was even mainstream Sean Carroll wrote this. There is no reason to insert god just because we don't have the answers yet. But WLC and his cronies just love to use this as an argument for the existence of god. The thing is adding god to the equation complicates it and is therefore not the preferred theory of real scientists. And philosophy will never solve problems like this because it 's claims cannot be verified empirically.

Ja I get that. How come New Scientist in their article teaser had that sentence? It's like frikken laying it out on a platter for WLC et al to come along and say "hey check it out, even the physicists are starting to believe that God started it all".

So yeah. New Scientist - big hairy balls in mouth right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2012, 10:11 AM
RE: Aww Crap...
(18-01-2012 08:53 AM)morondog Wrote:  Ja I get that. How come New Scientist in their article teaser had that sentence? It's like frikken laying it out on a platter for WLC et al to come along and say "hey check it out, even the physicists are starting to believe that God started it all".

So yeah. New Scientist - big hairy balls in mouth right now.

Yeah true, typical New Scientist sensationalising everything to get more views/readers. Popular science journals like this, Nature and Science love controversy.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2012, 10:58 AM
RE: Aww Crap...
It says it's premium content and requires a log in. Can anyone give A quick run down on what it says?.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2012, 05:37 PM
RE: Aww Crap...
(18-01-2012 10:58 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  It says it's premium content and requires a log in. Can anyone give A quick run down on what it says?.

It's copied here, though I'm not sure how lawful that is...?

I didn't realize it was a sub req article, I was on the university server.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like scientician's post
18-01-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: Aww Crap...
(18-01-2012 10:11 AM)scientician Wrote:  
(18-01-2012 08:53 AM)morondog Wrote:  Ja I get that. How come New Scientist in their article teaser had that sentence? It's like frikken laying it out on a platter for WLC et al to come along and say "hey check it out, even the physicists are starting to believe that God started it all".

So yeah. New Scientist - big hairy balls in mouth right now.

Yeah true, typical New Scientist sensationalising everything to get more views/readers. Popular science journals like this, Nature and Science love controversy.

Sensationalization of science...
Correction Morondog... your evaluation would be more accurate: infinite hairy balls in mouth right now.
The claims of science must be verified empirically, after all. Blush

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
18-01-2012, 05:58 PM
RE: Aww Crap...
These people aren't saying anything new.

Just because it's coming from people who call themselves scientists now doesn't make any difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ben's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: