The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[thesometimesaint]

We are all equally "close" to reality, it just depends on what reality you are talking about.

 

If you can tell me what "closer to reality" means I would appreciate it, and who gets to measure that.  You are the scientist so you should be able to measure it, right?

 

Five feet closer?   Two inches closer?   How do you know?  We can even put it in centimeters and get all scientific if you like. 

 

Depends if that speeding Mack Truck is coming toward me or away from me.

[Uncle Dale]

Depends if that speeding Mack Truck is coming toward me or away from me.

 

An interesting thought.

 

Were I standing right next to you, at that moment, I would no doubt

share your viewpoint almost exactly.

 

But, if I step away, to a position on the international space station

and glance down through my telescope, your situation would not

be markedly any different than a million others I could examine.

From my lofty, perch in the heavens, all trucks speeding toward

hapless pedestrians would be a single, trivial phenomenon.

 

Then suppose I could shift my point of viewing to a spacecraft

a couple of light years travel distance, away from this galaxy.

Your planet, sun and star system would be merely one bright

dot amid a collection of billions of the same. The "resolution"

of my concept of "reality" becomes blurry -- I see more, but,

in doing so, I discern less detail. My comprehension at that

level of removal is inadequate for knowing "the fall of every

sparrow."

 

And what if I could somehow "see" a multi-dimensional

"hologram" of that galactic representation -- "multi" in the 

sense of vast periods of time gathered into a single

composition. "Fast Forward" and "fast backward" merged

into a single snapshot.

 

At that level of removal from your "reality," what happened

a billion years before the earth was formed, and what will

happen a billion years after it is incinerated to a crisp, all

become equally weighty collections of events in my own,

super-sized Reality.

 

I've come to the realization that the topic of Reality is really puzzling.

 

UD

[pogi]

See the difference? The correspondence theory says that "correspondence to the real world" is what makes the statement TRUE- but we can never KNOW if IN FACT the statement "corresponds" to the real world because ALL WE HAVE ARE PERCEPTIONS of the "real world" and not the "real world itself" So statements CANNOT ever "correspond" to the real world because they are SYMBOLS of our PERCEPTIONS.

 

I agree with you here as far as it extends to mortality only.  We can never know (in this life) if statements correspond with the real world.  

 

How can perceptions NOT be "humanly created" if they are human perceptions? Your "three things" are all human perceptions themselves of what cannot be- remember? There are no "independent things" independent of human perceptions. The word "light" is what? A symbol of a human perception.

What happened to the idea that "linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception."? Remember those are YOUR words.

 

To say that "linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception" is not to say that there are no things "independent of human perception."  It is the idea that there are things that are independent of human perception and imperceivable at present, that makes our interpretations "unsure".  Our mortal perception is nothing more than interpreting the pixels and empty spaces (unseen reality) to mean something.  

 

I believe that most things are not perceivable by mortal humans, yet they exist independent of our present perception.  I believe that we have more empty space than we do pixels on the screen at present.  We will continue to discover knew pixels which will alter our perspective of the whole little by little.   

 

So yes, perceptions are humanly created so far as they are interpretations of the seen and the unseen, to create something that gives life meaning for us individually.  Though perception is humanly created, I believe that it is dependent on an external and independent reality.  I believe that those pixels really exist independent of me, and that we can only see a few pixels in an endless sea of pixels.  The more pixels we are given, the closer our perceptions will resemble things "as they are".  Line upon line, and precept upon precept, until we see and know all things as they are and not as we imagine them to be.  

 

I have no problem with this, this is a statement of faith with which maybe I agree or disagree, but either way that is irrelevant to what counts as "truth" in this world

 

Maybe we will see "things as they are" or maybe not- again, this is a statement of faith.   I am not sure if I agree or not, that is another discussion.

 

Here we are talking about a subject about which we cannot speak in human language, which makes it hard to talk about. 

 

 

Yes, ultimately it is based on faith.  It is how I "interpret" the "words" of scripture, and therefore forms my present, though ever changing perspective of what is.

Edited February 20, 2015 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you here as far as it extends to mortality only.  We can never know (in this life) if statements correspond with the real world.  

 

 

To say that "linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception" is not to say that there are no things "independent of human perception."  It is the idea that there are things that are independent of human perception and imperceivable at present, that makes our interpretations "unsure".  Our mortal perception is nothing more than interpreting the pixels and empty spaces (unseen reality) to mean something.  

 

I believe that most things are not perceivable by mortal humans, yet they exist independent of our present perception.  I believe that we have more empty space than we do pixels on the screen at present.  We will continue to discover knew pixels which will alter our perspective of the whole little by little.   

 

So yes, perceptions are humanly created so far as they are interpretations of the seen and the unseen, to create something that gives life meaning for us individually.  Though perception is humanly created, I believe that it is dependent on an external and independent reality.  I believe that those pixels really exist independent of me, and that we can only see a few pixels in an endless sea of pixels.  The more pixels we are given, the closer our perceptions will resemble things "as they are".  Line upon line, and precept upon precept, until we see and know all things as they are and not as we imagine them to be.  

 

 

 

Yes, ultimately it is based on faith.  It is how I "interpret" the "words" of scripture, and therefore forms my present, though ever changing perspective of what is.

Yup. I have no problem with this view, though my view of how God organizes reality differs.

But that's ok, it is a fine point, totally speculative, and irrelevant to anything important

The main point is to understand that anything in human language is based on interpretation of symbols, does not "correspond" to an eternal reality in any way that can be checked to pronounce as "true" with certainty.

That does not mean it is false, or even that it is not "true" in an Alma 32 sense, that it makes me happy and gives meaning to my life, just that we accept it provisionally on faith for now.

To me, that us the attitude we need to cultivate here and really in all discourse.

Just as one cannot say with certainty, other than in an Alma 32 sense, that God exists, Dennett and company cannot say he doesn't.

Same for Joseph being a prophet, or any other gospel principle.

Same for evolution, or biblical or BOM historicity

This is why we need to affirm this view of Truth always and everywhere, and is vital to believers.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I concur that a nations politics can adversely affect science. There is also the" internal " politics which can affect grants and careers.

 

Scientific organizations in China, Russia, Venezuela, Japan, Mexico, all of them agree that humans are causing climate change. 

Are all of them saying that for USA grants? What about the independent scientific organizations that also agree?

What about the retired climate scientists that also agree?

 

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Edited February 21, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Uncle Dale]

Scientific organizations in China, Russia, Venezuela, Japan, Mexico, all of them agree that humans are causing climate change.

Are all of them saying that for USA grants? What about the independent scientific organizations that also agree?

What about the retired climate scientists that also agree?

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

A fellow on TV just said that global warming must be

a hoax, because an awful lot of snow has been falling

where he lives. Proves that the whole thing is just a

political lie cooked up by people who want to raise

our taxes.

And, as the passenger on the fantail of the HMS Titanic

yelled down to the water-soaked sailor holding on to

the bowsprit -- "Whaddya mean, sinking! Why, our real

problem is that we're tipped up 200 feet into the air!"

Oh well...

UD

Edited February 21, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

Sometimes people on both sides of this debate confuse correlation with causation.

How do you spell FALLACY?

[Gervin]

 

At that level of removal from your "reality," what happened

a billion years before the earth was formed, and what will

happen a billion years after it is incinerated to a crisp, all

become equally weighty collections of events in my own,

super-sized Reality.

 

I've come to the realization that the topic of Reality is really puzzling.

 

UD

 

Ever read Calvin and Hobbes?  They sometimes played around with this reality. 

[Uncle Dale]

Ever read Calvin and Hobbes?  They sometimes played around with this reality. 

 

For anybody old enough to recall the old Dell Comics'

Donald Duck -- there was one episode in which he and

the nephews were instantly transported to various far

off (and far out) places, times and situations.

 

I read the story as a kid, and it probably had more impact

upon my young mind than the Torah, Elvis, 1984 and

Delbert W. Curtis, all rolled into one.

 

UD

[Gervin]

Just as one cannot say with certainty, other than in an Alma 32 sense, that God exists, Dennett and company cannot say he doesn't.

Same for Joseph being a prophet, or any other gospel principle.

Same for evolution, or biblical or BOM historicity

 

This is why we need to affirm this view of Truth always and everywhere, and is vital to believers.

 

Huh?  Which one of these is not the like the other?  

 

The Moabite Stone depicts historic elements described in the Bible. Same with the Hittite Monuments from Boghz-Keui.  Biblical historicity is a fact - absent any spiritual elements described - it just depends on the degree.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

The Moabite Stone...  is a fact

...

 

 

Ah, but you are dealing with a conversationalist (controversialist?)

who would dare question Aristotle, Bosworth and Webster, when

it comes to figuring out just what "fact" means.

 

My favorite Shelly Berman quote, of all time:

If you've never met a student from the University of Chicago,

I'll describe him to you.

 

If you give him a glass of water, he says,

"This is a glass of water.

But is it a glass of water?

And if it is a glass of water,

why is it a glass of water?"

...And eventually he dies of thirst.

UD

[mfbukowski]

Huh?  Which one of these is not the like the other?  

 

The Moabite Stone depicts historic elements described in the Bible. Same with the Hittite Monuments from Boghz-Keui.  Biblical historicity is a fact - absent any spiritual elements described - it just depends on the degree.

Sigh.

 

I never knew an Evangelical who understood that their problem with historicity was just as serious as anyone else's.

 

And precisely what stone proves that Jesus died for your personal sins?

 

Because you have a stone that gives the same name as a place name in the Bible, Jesus died for your sins??  

 

Give me a break!

[Gervin]

Sigh.

 

I never knew an Evangelical who understood that their problem with historicity was just as serious as anyone else's.

 

And precisely what stone proves that Jesus died for your personal sins?

 

Because you have a stone that gives the same name as a place name in the Bible, Jesus died for your sins??  

 

Give me a break!

You don't read too closely:

"absent any spiritual elements described"

[mfbukowski]

Ah, but you are dealing with a conversationalist (controversialist?)

who would dare question Aristotle, Bosworth and Webster, when

it comes to figuring out just what "fact" means.

 

My favorite Shelly Berman quote, of all time:

If you've never met a student from the University of Chicago,

I'll describe him to you.

 

If you give him a glass of water, he says,

"This is a glass of water.

But is it a glass of water?

And if it is a glass of water,

why is it a glass of water?"

...And eventually he dies of thirst.

UD

Well it was UCLA and the City University of New York, and I keep well hydrated, thank you for your concern.

 

At least I know where faith begins and science ends

[mfbukowski]

You don't read too closely:

"absent any spiritual elements described"

Oh then rah.

 

If that's all you're saying it wasn't even worth the post.  Yes there's a rock with a place name that also appears in someone's ancient manuscript written by who knows who for who knows what reason.

 

Congratulations.

[Gervin]

Ah, but you are dealing with a conversationalist (controversialist?)

who would dare question Aristotle, Bosworth and Webster, when

it comes to figuring out just what "fact" means.

 

maybe I could just go with the pool of siloam and pool of bethesda as factual places.

[mfbukowski]

maybe I could just go with the pool of siloam and pool of bethesda as factual places.

So?

 

THOSE prove Jesus is your savior?

 

Suppose there WAS a historical Jesus who was a magician and a fraud?   Historicity proves nothing.

[Gervin]

Oh then rah.

 

If that's all you're saying it wasn't even worth the post.  Yes there's a rock with a place name that also appears in someone's ancient manuscript written by who knows who for who knows what reason.

 

Congratulations.

thank you. it's worth it just knowing that you now know how to use the word historicity.

[Uncle Dale]

maybe I could just go with the pool of siloam and pool of bethesda as factual places.

 

Nope -- no factual places -- not in Ptolemy nor in Strabo.

 

In fact... (oh oh!..)

 

In reality, that is -- only Erewhon is a place -- second star to the right.

Tell them Wendy sent you.

 

UD

[Gervin]

So?

 

THOSE prove Jesus is your savior?

 

Suppose there WAS a historical Jesus who was a magician and a fraud?   Historicity proves nothing.

The Book of Mormon declares itself a history, yet no history can be found.  The Bible makes no such self-claims, yet elements are supported as being founded on real people, places, and events. Historicity proves nothing to the person who boils the veracity of both books down to "their historicity is equally ambiguous." 

[Gervin]

In reality, that is -- only Erewhon is a place -- second star to the right.

 

UD

I once visited a friend's aunt who lived in Reklaw, Texas.  I was told that "Walker" was already taken.

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon declares itself a history, yet no history can be found.  The Bible makes no such self-claims, yet elements are supported as being founded on real people, places, and events. Historicity proves nothing to the person who boils the veracity of both books down to "their historicity is equally ambiguous." 

Well for those who want history for the BOM, there is plenty, it's just in Mayan according to the latest theories.

 

But history proves nothing spiritual.

 

Talk to any atheist and he will tell you the same.  It would take a fool to believe in God while accepting an atheist's theory of truth.

 

Why would anyone do that?

 

That is precisely what you are doing.   All the stuff about religion and science conflicting USE PRECISELY THE THEORY OF TRUTH YOU ARE USING HERE.

 

If you really want to argue that science proves religion, I wish you well on the atheist boards.

 

WHY DO EVANGELICALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?????

Edited February 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Believers really need to stick together on this but no one sees it.

 

Totally ridiculous

[MormonFreeThinker]

I concur that a nations politics can adversely affect science. There is also the" internal " politics which can affect grants and careers. Add to the mix the human traits of ego and greed which scientist are also not immune from and one must carry a pinch of salt when viewing some ' research '.

 

 

Scientific organizations in China, Russia, Venezuela, Japan, Mexico, all of them agree that humans are causing climate change. 

Are all of them saying that for USA grants? What about the independent scientific organizations that also agree?

What about the retired climate scientists that also agree?

 

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

Scientists could be wrong, but we should take their high probability claims seriously. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Huh?  Which one of these is not the like the other?  

 

The Moabite Stone depicts historic elements described in the Bible. Same with the Hittite Monuments from Boghz-Keui.  Biblical historicity is a fact - absent any spiritual elements described - it just depends on the degree.

Well, given that we want to exclude the supernatural or boastful claims made in any ancient document (including those of King Mesha of Moab, or of any Egyptian king), where does that leave us?  Based on your assumptions, we are therefore left with no forensic evidence for Abraham, for Moses, for the Exodus, or for the Resurrection.  That is Bukowski's point, and these conclusions are the bulwark of atheism and the death of god in our own time.

 

On what, therefore, do you posit a basis for faith?  If you reply that the Bible actually came from the ancient World (which it did), then we must therefore accept the gods of Olympus simply because the Iliad and Odyssey came from the ancient world.  Or do you have a more nuanced basis for faith?  You usually seem unable to come to grips with such problems.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith