Atheism

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

hingehead wrote:
I completely disagree with your premise that 'science' is an institution. No-one owns it.
Science as you call it, is absolutely subordinated at various levels. No scientist can express freely any personal expert opinion, if it is not approved at least at 3-5 levels of 'management'.

That's bullshit. I know lots of scientists. They are not constrained in this way.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Science as you call it, is absolutely subordinated at various levels. No scientist can express freely any personal expert opinion, if it is not approved at least at 3-5 levels of 'management'.

Nope, you're wrong again - that's not what I call science. All you need is testable evidence. Personal expert opinion doesn't come into it. You are still railing against institutions by blaming the methodology. You are misdirecting your angst. Science will call out institutions that try to subordinate it. It may take a while but it will get there. I'm looking at you tobacco industry.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
You follow me on Facebook? Cool.

"Follow" would be an overstatement. We have friends in common there.

Yup. And some of these friends are atheists.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Herald wrote:

hingehead wrote:
I completely disagree with your premise that 'science' is an institution. No-one owns it.
Science as you call it, is absolutely subordinated at various levels. No scientist can express freely any personal expert opinion, if it is not approved at least at 3-5 levels of 'management'.

That's bullshit. I know lots of scientists. They are not constrained in this way.

So..you stayed at the Holiday Inn Express and that makes you an expert. Hmmm.....Science is certainly an institution. For anything, even ground-breaking work, rules and protocols must be followed. When presenting a paper for instance, one must quote a body of work as a reference(s) and cite individual contributions(including tech-related), which are to be presented to a
body of academicians for review. Science is a collaborative effort. Everything MUST be proven or in cases disproven. All is subject to peer-review.

3 Replies

@Germlat,

I think you're getting the institutions mixed up with the process, but I may be wrong.

Peer is a loaded term. Publishing certainly relies on peer review for publishing but ultimately science relies on testable evidence. You don't have to be a peer to test it.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

How do you think things are awarded validity? It's through review processes. Who do you thinks publishes , funds research, etc. Do you think an individual scientist can decree a law of science? Other scientists must find validity in the work in order for it to be deemed credible.

2 Replies

@Germlat,

That's what science is; it can be validated by others through observation.

0 Replies

@Germlat,

That doesn't make science an institution. That's just confusing the process with an institution. If you wanted to allege that scientific publishing were an institution, you'd be on firmer ground--but thanks to the internet, even that is no longer true.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Get out in the world? That's the best laugh I've had today. I have traveled around this planet equivalent to 30 times. I don't think you personally know of anyone who has traveled as much. LMAO

I can certainly rely on you for a good chuckle. You seem to equate travelling a distance and viewing the world with having a worldly view. You should really open your mind to take in all that is around you. Keep what you want and discard what you do not.

Ridiculing that with which you do not agree is simply using energy that you can probably ill afford to use.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Perhaps we see this differently becaue religion does not hold the same place in Canadian society as it does in the United States. In the 20 years of Republican presidents between Reagan's election and Obama's election, they succeeded in prohibiting any federal program from giving funds to any organization which provided abortions or birth control, or even advocated it. The religious right became disenchanted with the younger George Bush because they felt he had not kept his promises. He doubtlessly was advised that Federal courts would strike down any program of his which overtly promoted religion. Ironically, the recent Greece, New York decision by the Supremes suggested that they may not have been the case. Republicans became disenchanted with the religious right, too, as people whom they opposed were elected to state offices, and even to the Congress. Nevertheless, the religous right wields a good deal of power in American politics.

Abolutely, Setanta. And, that is exactly what I was alluding to in a previous post.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

So, what is it about my 'world view' that I'm missing?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'using energy.' I've been posting on a2k since its beginnings, and have posted over 90,000 posts. If you disagree with anything I've posted, please let me know. My 'world view' is probably more expansive than most people on this planet. Prove me wrong.

BTW, I have friends all around the world.

A little history about myself. I worked in management positions 88% of my working career. Do you know of anyone you've met who has accomplished as much? If I'm lacking in 'world view,' I'm sure my bosses would have not given me the promotions and salary increases I have earned.

Peanuts are better off staying in the peanut gallery; you.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI..... Not sure what the rant is about. Oh, and about you spending 88% of your working career in management? Sorry, but that does not impress me as I spend over 90% of my working career in management.

The difference is, I do not boast about it as you have over the years. Peanut gallery? I beg to disagree.

You are an atheist. I am not. Does that make us enemies? I get the impression that, in your eyes, it does. From my perspective you are just another human being spending time on the same earth as I am. The main difference only being that of a faith, or lack of, in God.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

I'd have you for an enemy, but i don't know where you live and i'm too lazy to bother hunting you down. Consider yourself glared at.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

You wrote,

Quote:

You are an atheist. I am not. Does that make us enemies?

You prove your ignorance with such statements. All my siblings are christians married to christians. 90%? I'm impressed. Prove it?

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Germlat wrote:

Science is certainly an institution. For anything, even ground-breaking work, rules and protocols must be followed.

No, the talk was not exactly about that, for it is obvious.

Germlat wrote:

When presenting a paper for instance, one must quote a body of work as a reference(s) and cite individual contributions (including tech-related), which are to be presented to a body of academicians for review.

We all know how are these papers copy-pasted ... and also how 'carefully' the body of the academicians is reading them. Besides that any opinion is highly subjective and the decision to proceed in one or another direction involves a lot of personal interests ... that have nothing to do with any objectiveness. Further the board may be mislead in many ways and by various reasons. The system does not guarantee that what emerges on the surface in the end is the best. It does not even guarantee that it would be fit for use. For further details see the papers about the perpetum mobile in the library archives.

Germlat wrote:

Science is a collaborative effort. Everything MUST be proven or in cases disproven. All is subject to peer-review.

Just asking - do you really think that the 'theory' of the Big Bang has passed any proofs and peer reviews, for I doubt. Take for example the assumptions - they are all variables, some of which even undefined. We don't know whether the Universe has always existed or not (in which case there is no way for the Big Bang to have created whatever); the red shift in the light might be due to various reasons (in order to claim that it is an indication of expanding space one should disprove all the other possibilities ... that are not even defined); can you name at least one of the laws of physics (for the preservation of the energy, for example) that is applicable to the Big Bang; what about the Time - how old is the Universe in the center and how old is 'along the edges'; and what is the probability for us to be into the center of the Universe (equal red shift of the light in all directions) and how does that happen, etc.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Sigh.

It's a theory that fits with the evidence. Note that some of the evidence came first, then a theory was postulated to explain the evidence. Then people used the theory to make predictions. Then they tested those predictions and gathered more evidence. It's just the current best guess that fits the facts better than any other theory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

If it's proven wrong do you think there'll be anything other than excitement in the scientific community?

Is there any better way for a scientist to get a reputation, and a thrill of achievement, than to overturn an existing paradigm?

You continue to berate science for institutional behaviours. Yet science is our best way of questioning those behaviours. The whole point is it takes out personal subjectivity because it relies on reproducibility.

I can't help but feel you have a personal bugbear you're not telling us about.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

He seems comfortable fighting that uphill battle for some unknown reason. You may have tapped into something about Herald's 'personal bugbear.'

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
You are an atheist. I am not. Does that make us enemies?

You prove your ignorance with such statements. All my siblings are christians married to christians. 90%? I'm impressed. Prove it?

How does my question prove ignorance of anything? What does the fact that your siblings are christians and married to Christians have to do with anything? You seem to have found it convenient to state that my question was a statement. Do you know the difference?

Funny that you go around bragging about being in management 88% of your career, but when I indicate that I have 90% you demand proof? You seem to want proof of anything that is beyond your comprehension.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That doesn't make science an institution. That's just confusing the process with an institution. If you wanted to allege that scientific publishing were an institution, you'd be on firmer ground--but thanks to the internet, even that is no longer true.

By definition, an institution is an established practice or custom. Science operates as a social institution which has a set of values, practices, concepts, processes, etc. It is an established social institution, rather than a uniquely rational industry or mere vocation. The scientific community adheres to a set of rules, employing scientific philosophy and the use of scientific method to gain wisdom. Review processes such a as peer review by other scientists ( scientific communities, societies),operate as a type of self-regulatory system (governance). The institution of science is overlaid across universities, foundations, governmental agencies and industry.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Germlat wrote:
Science is certainly an institution. For anything, even ground-breaking work, rules and protocols must be followed.
     No, the talk was not exactly about that, for it is obvious.

Germlat wrote:
When presenting a paper for instance, one must quote a body of work as a reference(s) and cite individual contributions (including tech-related), which are to be presented to a body of academicians for review.
     We all know how are these papers copy-pasted ... and also how 'carefully' the body of the academicians is reading them. Besides that any opinion is highly subjective and the decision to proceed in one or another direction involves a lot of personal interests ... that have nothing to do with any objectiveness. Further the board may be mislead in many ways and by various reasons. The system does not guarantee that what
emerges on the surface in the end is the best. It does not even guarantee that it would be fit for use. For further details see the papers about the perpetum mobile in the library archives.

Germlat wrote:
Science is a collaborative effort. Everything MUST be proven or in cases disproven. All is subject to peer-review.
     Just asking - do you really think that the 'theory' of the Big Bang has passed any proofs and peer reviews, for I doubt. Take for example the assumptions - they are all variables, some of which even undefined. We don't know whether the Universe has always existed or not (in which case there is no way for the Big Bang to have created whatever); the red shift in the light might be due to various reasons (in order to claim that it is an indication of expanding space one should disprove all the other possibilities ... that are not even defined); can you name at least one of the laws of physics (for the preservation of the energy, for example) that is applicable to the Big Bang; what about the Time - how old is the Universe in the center and how old is 'along the edges'; and what is the probability for us to be into the center of the Universe (equal red shift of the light in all directions) and how does that
happen, etc.

The objective of science is to ultimately prove or disprove . It's philosophy can include hypothesis, theories, laws, etc. Collecting data, extrapolating through reasoning are but methods to gain wisdom.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know