Kimpatsu

Ouch!
But how would you know? You have no sense of humour...

yguy

When have I ever implied that you did?

I would never put it in such absolutist terms. It would be like saying the Catholic Chuch is nothing but a haven for pedophiles.

Not much good if they are unconsciously biased against God's influence manifesting itself through natural events.

I think not. It is suggestive of the idea that one can get attached to an idea just as one can to a person of the opposite sex - blindly and against reason.

Hey, I wish others around here had that attitude.

True, which is I believe all theories are destined to become little more than dusty, forgotten relics. The time will come when, rather than working within the constraints of what appear to be the rules, a man will be able to ask the Rulemaker for an exemption - and it will be granted, as it was when Joshua reputedly commanded that the sun stand still, and it did.

They are perfectly compatible, because God is the author of Reason. Human reason would have let the Jews stone the adulterous woman, but Reason in the form of Christ saved her alive. IOW, what we call reason or logic is in many respects a corruption of the raw essence of truth. If scientists are bound by such logic, they can't see the truth.

Lobstrosity

This sentence is pointless. What's the meaning of "natural" events if they're driven by God's influence? Scientists are simply looking for what is. If God is driving things behind the scenes, then scientists will see in their experiments the result of his work. It would be impossible to construct theories because processes wouldn't be predictable, they'd be the result of God's whim at the time. Unfortunately, theories don't fail. The reason why scientists are unconsciously biased against God's influence is the same reason why they are unconsciously biased against the influence of all those giant telepathic sloths on Jupiter: there's no objective reason to assume the existence of either. If the data shows it, then theorize it, not vice versa. Making assumptions based on emotion leads to bad science and faulty reasoning, like geocentrism and creationism.

Quote:

I think not. It is suggestive of the idea that one can get attached to an idea just as one can to a person of the opposite sex - blindly and against reason.

Yeah, the use of the word sexy has nothing to do with a lack of reason. You're exploiting a logical fallacy based on semantics, here. A theory is called "sexy" because of how well it conforms to reason. If it matches certain logical criteria, makes an abundance of testable predictions, and promises to explain many heretofore unknown factors, scientists get excited about it and call it "sexy." They do this because scientists like discovering things...that's why they're scientists. I think they should be allowed to enjoy their work.

And this time will come when? Why are things so different now? Don't you feel a bit hypocritical typing this kind of drivel on your computer? Yeah, clearly theories are good for nothing. I can't believe anyone bothers wasting their time on any of this science crap! What has science ever done for us???

Kimpatsu

You mean, besides roads, aquaducts, sanitation, education, law and order... Oh, no, that was the Romans.

Abacus

Gosh, maybe someday I'll be able to brush physics and meteorology and other relics aside and simply ask Zeus to strike people that I don't like dead with a lightning bolt. Now, if only those damned scientists would stop "worshipping at the altar of empiricism", maybe we could get to that point. Afterall, they haven't absolutely ruled out Zeus as being the cause of lightning bolts.

Thanks yguy for reminding me what muddled crap the mixing of mythology and science would produce.

I think science is doing just fine and dandy with its biases.

Corona688

You keep hammering home the point "SCIENCE ISN'T PERFECT! SCIENCE ISN'T PERFECT!" as if you've stumbled across something capable of shattering our collective worldviews. Get over yourself. No, but you're certainly willing to scream "SCIENCE ISN'T PERFECT!" every time we destroy your arguments.

So it isn't perfect. So freakin what? Without a COMMON, SHARED dogma that doesn't mean squat. There are mainstream theories, yes. There are also non-mainstream ones. One scientist, or even a group of scientists dogmatically adhering to some theory won't prevent other scientists from doing research that destroys their position. If there were a god controlling things, it should be OBVIOUS. he IS in everything, afterall. This kind of strange double-think shouldn't be necessary. Doens't he WANT us to know he exists? Please direct me to a physics paper in a scientific journal that contains the term 'sexy', and I'll believe that he meant what he said literally. Some do, some don't. You can't lump us all together. Yeah! Who needs the Bernouilli theory when you've got GOD on your side! Pray hard enough, and you can FLY! Can you provide any evidence for this that wasn't written by ignorant sheepherders 5,000 years ago?

And just what makes it a 'rule', if it's bendable? That would only work if god is totally rational. And if god is totally rational, then he doesn't have free will, and therefore it boils down to logic again. So are you saying those laws came from man, not god? That, frankly, is ridiculous bullshit. Why should we assume all these things that have ***NO*** support in reality other than a book written in the dawn of civillization by ignorant sheepherders?

yguy

The point of this question eludes me utterly. Natural events have no meaning unless they're NOT driven by God's influence?

Obviously, but they won't necessarily make the connection.

Really?

I must have said this a hundred times by now, but I've never suggested assuming God's existence. That would be as silly as assuming His non-existence.

If it is found that the foundations of M-theory are faulty to the point that it must be scrapped, will its proponents find such a discovery "sexy"?

I'll tell you when you tell me when we're going to solve the unified field problem.

Because we're farther away from God than Joshua was, IMO.

No. Why would I?

Geez, this place is so lousy with strawmen it's a fire hazard.

yguy

You are, of course, conveniently trivializing my argument.

Why not? An attitude doesn't have to be codified to influence thinking.

To some people, it is.

The instant realization of God's existence would kill most people - which is why He gives us a little space to try it our way.

I'm not suggesting necessarily that any theory causes an erection, I'm just saying one can get attached to an idea to the point where giving it up is too much for the ego to bear.

As far as the word "sexy" in a scientific paper, I don't suppose you'll find many references to "hot altar boys" in statements of Catholic Church doctrine either.

If we did, obviously we wouldn't, because we'd know what the theory - and all theories that prove substantially correct - are based on.

No. What difference does it make?

As I said, it APPEARS to be a rule.

This appears to be a non-sequitur.

Same here, unless your definition of rationality somehow precludes free will.

There was nothing wrong with the law, but the Jews had, by their own hypocrisy, thrown away their moral authority to enforce it.

Again, I do not propose that anyone assume anything.

Shadowy Man

How do you know this?

Corona688

No, that's actually what it is. The trivial part you made up yourself. To influence ALL thinking, yes, it does! There is a certain doctrine one must abide by to be a strict catholic; if you don't, you're not a strict catholic. One can be a scientist and NOT support the Standard Model, albeit this scientist would need to produce some actual results to be taken seriously. Bullshit. You've got no idea if this is true. I repeat: So freakin what? Unless *EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD* simultaneously decides that the Standard Model must not be given up, ever, then other alternatives will continue to be looked at. One can be a scientist and not accept the standard model!

Doesn't work. If reality is nothing but Yog making up the rules as he goes along then there *IS* nothing that it's based upon, other than the will of Yog himself, which cannot be truly predicted in any way, shape, or form. Without evidence of this god of yours, why should we assume something as massive, complex, and incomprehensible exists? Well, unlike you, science is restricted by a little thing called 'evicence'.
YES! It does. And that somehow is simply that god, being perfect in all ways, would have to be perfectly rational - and thus totally predictable. Thus undifferentiable in any way from no god at all.
What difference does it make WHO uses the law, if it is the law of god himself? It cannot possibly be wrong!

Bull. You're asking people to make a GIGANTIC assumption - that of god. The idea of god cannot be seen, supported, denied, or even understood by definition - it can only be assumed.

I've had it with this argument... I've already said everything I have to say, and you've ignored every bit of it. Feel free to proclaim victory in my absence.