kelpdiver 2 #151 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuote Says you, apparently. Still waiting on something more definitive. .16 seconds on Google. This was the first return. U.S. Center for World Mission estimated in 1997 that the percentage of humans who regard themselves as Christians rose from 33.7% in 1970 to 33.9% in 1996. 2 Its total number of adherents is growing at about 2.3% annually. This is approximately equal to the growth rate of the world's population. Islam is growing faster: about 2.9% and is thus increasing its market share. What, did you cherry pick that one...most of your cite says Christianity is in decline. This cite is a long collections at attempts to measure, but with no great degree of certainty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #152 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Science doesn't explain away God. The percentage of religious people in the world does not decrease each year, even with the advent of new theories. Are you sure of this? I know very few people who attend church on Sundays. Actually, the number of people engaging in religious practices is decreasing. If it weren't for the population explosion going on in certain very religious places - - it would be dropping like a rock. Contrary to what Speakers Corner would have you to believe, religion is not going away. The percentage of believers even in non-population exploding areas has been constant or increasing for decades. My source is not SC. Belief in divine beings is falling fast in Europe and the US. What is your source? I shared mine a while back in a different thread. I believe it was a NYT recap of a very thorough study. Links to the actual study were in the article." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #153 January 14, 2009 QuoteI have no problem with science. I just find it amusing that you believe whatever the current issue of Astronomy magazie tells you is the truth. What is true today wasn't true years ago and won't be true a few years from now. You call theories proof of our creation and existance. I call them theories. I call my belief in creationism the truth. My proof is that I pray for help and help arrives. You call it cooincidence. We're not going to convince each other that one way is right over the other. My claim still stands that science is not proof there is no God. The existence of God does not mean science can't explain some things. What a bunch of vague rubbish and BS conclusions. I can see why you are so eager to discredit real science. You need to stay away from logic." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #154 January 14, 2009 Quote Quote So how do you know what to believe? i read and try to learn from people like nerdgirl. she is actually a geek, i'm a nerd. geeks are smarter than nerds. Thanks! I've written it before: I just ask a lot questions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #155 January 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Says you, apparently. Still waiting on something more definitive. .16 seconds on Google. This was the first return. U.S. Center for World Mission estimated in 1997 that the percentage of humans who regard themselves as Christians rose from 33.7% in 1970 to 33.9% in 1996. 2 Its total number of adherents is growing at about 2.3% annually. This is approximately equal to the growth rate of the world's population. Islam is growing faster: about 2.9% and is thus increasing its market share. What, did you cherry pick that one...most of your cite says Christianity is in decline. This cite is a long collections at attempts to measure, but with no great degree of certainty. The cite says the % of world share for Christians is in decline meaning that other religions are on the rise. Even in the part I pasted says Islam is growing faster. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #156 January 15, 2009 Quote Science can seem unbelievable for those that just have a superficial understanding of it. The more you learn and dig, the more unbelievable and contradictory it gets. QuoteIf the experiment says no, the theory is wrong, end of. The which is correct, SR or quantum mechanics? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #157 January 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteI have no problem with science. I just find it amusing that you believe whatever the current issue of Astronomy magazie tells you is the truth. What is true today wasn't true years ago and won't be true a few years from now. You call theories proof of our creation and existance. I call them theories. I call my belief in creationism the truth. My proof is that I pray for help and help arrives. You call it cooincidence. We're not going to convince each other that one way is right over the other. My claim still stands that science is not proof there is no God. The existence of God does not mean science can't explain some things. What a bunch of vague rubbish and BS conclusions. I can see why you are so eager to discredit real science. You need to stay away from logic. I have no desire to discredit science. I'm just saying that it does not explain nearly as much as you think it does. Even proven theories contradict one another. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #158 January 15, 2009 Quote Quote Science can seem unbelievable for those that just have a superficial understanding of it. The more you learn and dig, the more unbelievable and contradictory it gets. To some extent I disagree with both of you ... Altho' it may take more time then most folks are willing to give (& a white board), for almost all cases (all of which I can think of), even the most complicated science should be explainable and able to be made understandable to the average adult human. Yes, there will be simplifications; how drastically effecting the underlying concept those simplications will be varies. Otoh, I think science becomes immensely more fascinating as one dives deeper into it. I'd extend that to most subjects, e.g., skydiving in which one's sphere of perception and reaction increases dramatically as one goes from 10 to 100 to 1000 jumps ... maybe when one gets to 10k jumps, it's a different experience? I've got a way to go til there. Similarly, I've observed the same phenomena w/r/t international relations, ancient eastern religions, literature, gardening, ... etc. Quote Quote If the experiment says no, the theory is wrong, end of. The which is correct, SR or quantum mechanics? Yes. Both can be correct. Perhaps I missed it (?), what's the disconnect? They're not competing theories. Even if they were competing theories, if one was shown to be inadequate that would not automatically make the other the 'winner.' Each theory stands or falls on its own merits (or lack thereof.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,571 #159 January 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe punishment comes from not believing. If you choose not to believe then that's your right as a free-willed person. What on earth makes you think it's a choice? One cannot simply choose to believe that which is unbelieveable. It's a choice to believe or not. How is that confusing? We've spent the past few pages discussing how science is often just as unbelievable. It's not confusing. I understand exactly what you're saying, but I think you're wrong. Like the other posters have said, I could not choose to believe in God right now, because I have never seen a thing that would lead me to the conclusion that any god exists. I could pretend to believe, but with the information I have available, I could not actually believe.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #160 January 15, 2009 QuoteAltho' it may take more time then most folks are willing to give (& a white board), for almost all cases (all of which I can think of), even the most complicated science should be explainable and able to be made understandable to the average adult human. I agree that it would be very nice to be able to explain even the most complicated theories to the average human but I just don't think it is possible. One of my big beefs with popular science literature is that a lot of it isn't very well written and people often get the wrong end of the stick when they read it. They then criticise science for what they think it is instead of what it actually is. How often do you hear the uncertainty principle misused? Or people bleating on about 11th dimension "gravitrons" [sic]? The complaint that science has to be taken on faith may be a false one, but for many people that's exactly what they do. This is because they do not understand the building blocks or why the theory is the way it is and they lack the tools necessary to find out. But they've read "A Brief History of Time". My old prof used to say: "You've got physics with calculus, physics without calculus, and physics without physics". He was right. You can't understand the subject unless you first understand the language, and the language of physics is maths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #161 January 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Science can seem unbelievable for those that just have a superficial understanding of it. The more you learn and dig, the more unbelievable and contradictory it gets. QuoteIf the experiment says no, the theory is wrong, end of. The which is correct, SR or quantum mechanics? Now you haven't learned or dug very far have you? SR and QM seek to answer different questions so it isn't an either/or situation. But both are correct in so far as they agree with experiment and have excellent predictive powers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #162 January 15, 2009 Quote We've spent the past few pages discussing how science is often just as unbelievable. We have? Where do you see that? As always, owned as my perspective … cause we’re not talking about science here but a whole group of people’s *views* of science … the last few pages have: (1) Started with an OP who didn’t seem to understand that theory does not mean “notional guess” or speculation … that’s the akin to not understanding that the Eucharist doesn’t mean cannibalism, i.e., both misinterpretations are wrong. (2) Brief discussion of how altruism fits into evolutionary theory. (3) A little history of Galileo. (4) Foray into discussion of “evil” … there were a few scientific ideas invoked (game theory) but no real discussion of science; it was mostly morality. (5) One rick-rolling, (that’s now a verb ). (6) There were some interesting ideas posed by [argyle] … it’s still unclear to me (& remember these are my perceptions) how much entanglement of philosophy (ontology, mostly I think …), prescriptive vs positivist ideas (e.g., should the Universe mean something or is not a relevant question), limits of resolution (if the cones & rods in eyes were different we might see in IR or at some other wavelength), and physics was in it. (7) Assertions and a little data but not a lot of real discussion regarding growth, decrease, or stagnation in world-wide adherents to religious practice, which is demographics (a kind of science) but was largely used here, imo, to assert a correlation to disprove science … how the two correlate was never clear (to me at least). (8) David Berkowitz and his neighbor’s dog … something I didn’t know. (9) Bacterial flagellum, which are a fascinating case … but most of what’s been discussed there is also more of a pseudo-sociology of science – how different folks conceive of what constitutes fact/theory/conclusion rather than discussing the molecular biology, genetics, or protein structure. (10) References to quantum mechanics and string theory without any specification of what are the “unbelievable” aspects. Quote Even proven theories contradict one another. Which ones? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #163 January 15, 2009 Quote I have no desire to discredit science. That's good that you have no desire to do so, as you would have a lot of trouble trying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #164 January 15, 2009 Quote Quote Altho' it may take more time then most folks are willing to give (& a white board), for almost all cases (all of which I can think of), even the most complicated science should be explainable and able to be made understandable to the average adult human. I agree that it would be very nice to be able to explain even the most complicated theories to the average human but I just don't think it is possible. One of my big beefs with popular science literature is that a lot of it isn't very well written and people often get the wrong end of the stick when they read it. They then criticise science for what they think it is instead of what it actually is. How often do you hear the uncertainty principle misused? Or people bleating on about 11th dimension "gravitrons" [sic]? The complaint that science has to be taken on faith may be a false one, but for many people that's exactly what they do. This is because they do not understand the building blocks or why the theory is the way it is and they lack the tools necessary to find out. But they've read "A Brief History of Time". My old prof used to say: "You've got physics with calculus, physics without calculus, and physics without physics". He was right. You can't understand the subject unless you first understand the language, and the language of physics is maths. What you wrote really isn't irreconciable with what I wrote ... unless you want to be stubborn. (Mine was also a normative statement: "should".) The majority of the population makes a choice (it is their choice ... personal responsibility, eh?) to not *make* the time. Those who do or who are interested in doing so, I don't want to discourage. A lot don't care. A lot don't perceive any tangible or short-term rewards. [illustrative tangent:] The Governor of Georgia announced earlier this week that in 2008, the State of Georgia graduated 3 new physics teachers. Who's going to be teaching physics? ("Exercise science" majors as 2/3 physics teachers in my high school were ... there are folks pursuing legitimate work under the discipline of exercise sciecnce; it has been my observation that what one finds in US high schools are largely college athletes who wanted to continue having their summers off ...). [/tangent] We're back to the idea of lex parsimoniae creating more problems than it may be worth. As Albert Einstein wrote in 1933 that “The supreme goal of all theory [& I would assert, communication of science] is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience,” which can be paraphrased as “science should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #165 January 15, 2009 “science should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Simple doesn't necessarily mean easy to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #166 January 15, 2009 Quote“science should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Simple doesn't necessarily mean easy to understand. Concur - after all there's a lot in skydiving that is neither simple nor do non-skydivers find it easy to understand, eh? Simple, easy, or taking the 'easy way out' shouldn't necessarily be a goal or value either, imo. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #167 January 15, 2009 Quote What you wrote really isn't irreconciable with what I wrote ... unless you want to be stubborn. (Mine was also a normative statement: "should".) I think we're in general agreement. A lot of science, in broad strokes, should in principle be explainable to the average person. I was just commenting that the average person won't understand most of that science without putting in quite a bit of effort. Quote We're back to the idea of lex parsimoniae creating more problems than it may be worth. I'm all for lex parsimoniae, I think the unnecessary details should be omitted from a first attempt at deriving any theory, it's often the only way you can start. The problem I have is that in order to get the apathetic populus to make any attempt at understanding science, many of the necessary details are also omitted. So much so that science as taught (even at high school level) is dumbed down to the point where it is no longer the same subject (it's a bit like alcohol-free beer: it ain't beer, it's merely beer flavoured drink). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #168 January 15, 2009 I'm specifically referring to the ongoing debate between Hawking and Penrose. I don't understand all of their theories and models, I just read what articles are written in the discussion. I find it all fascinating. My point in this isn't to call science evil or really even wrong. My point is that people 'believe' (or don't believe), for lack of a better word, even without understanding. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frequentfaller 0 #169 January 15, 2009 either way is fine. If you "believe" you won't be rewarded to a clouded afterlife. It means you understand logical reasoning and the "broad strokes" of science. If you don't believe you won't be tortured for eternity in firey pit. it means you dont understand logical reasoning or dont want to accept the obvious. either way science will be unchanged by "believers/nonbelievers", but society is affected by religious dogmata view of science.Born ok 1st time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #170 January 15, 2009 Quote Altho' it may take more time then most folks are willing to give (& a white board) (the 'alt' text on that one is classic too) Quote “science should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” As one of the nerdier nerds amidst my nerdery, I occasionally get in quarrels with my management not over the amount of detail I plan to give in a presentation about a concept, but rather over whether trying to explain the concept to a given audience is even worth attempting. "It's a concise and excellent explanation... but no one cares enough to know how that works. Take the chart out." "But they should know how it works! They should care!" Which is an important part of the "people not making the time to understand science" issue. The people doing the explaining first have to convince the explainees that they should care and listen, an act that may involve little or no science content whatsoever. And before that happens, the explainer needs to convince himself or herself that all that convincing and explaining is worth it for the subject matter in question. A lot of times it's not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
argyle 0 #171 January 17, 2009 It looks like this thread is dying down. (\gasping ) To the person who saw contradicitons between SR and quantum mechanics: if SR is special relativity, then there is no contradiction. The combination is called quantum electrodynamics, and it works very, very well. The bad egg is general relativity, which does not seem to play well with quantum mechanics. If theories really contradict each other, one of them is wrong. The next breakthrough would be to figure out which one. It is usually not true that as you look deeper, you find contradictions. What you usually find is more questions. That's just how it works. Art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #172 January 17, 2009 QuoteThe bad egg is general relativity, which does not seem to play well with quantum mechanics. True. My bad. I'm no rocket surgeon. QuoteWhat you usually find is more questions. That's just how it works. Agreed. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
