Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

@Herald,

Well, I'm not asking you to believe me, am I? I'm asking you to give us a good reason to believe in your invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy. Just the same as a reasonable person would ask for evidence for any claim that isn't immediately verifiable. Show us something.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Ever heard of "projection" (Freud) in which a subject assigns his own failings to another ?
FBM's request for evidence, which is by definition a request for consensual data, cannot be a "selfish act".whereas your reluctance to supply it obviously is.
You are therefore the "arrogant one" here . You are the one who epitomizes "pseudo-science", and like a textbook patient of Freud you rationalize and protect your "self integrity" by projection.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You are the one who epitomizes "pseudo-science", and like a textbook patient of Freud you rationalize and protect your "self integrity" by projection.

Why don't you prove that my claim that the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' are unknowable is "pseudo-science"? BTW you are not talking on the theme as well - obviously you are fan of the scientism as well. Not talking on the theme of the thread is also arrogance.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Epistemology deals with what we mean by the word "knowledge" but recent philosophers have turned towards the contextual use of words like "knowledge" rather than making authoritative absolutist claims about what knowledge is. The pragmatists would say that our "knowledge of the big bang" is based on a consistent research paradigm (Kuhn) using "big bang" as a central hypothesis, which yields useful and interesting data. In short "scientific knowledge" is about scientific functionality, science being a human activity, not a set of absolutist claims, since all paradigms tend to be transient and limited in the long run. Indeed the "big bang" paradigm is already under attack from various quarters but dissenters must account for any data revealed by bigbangism if they are to establish an alternative.
Obviously, not all aspiring philosophers or scientists have that view of "knowledge", but irrespective of that, consensual functionality is a de facto limit to ad hoc speculation. In your case you don't seem to appreciate the essential factors of functionality and consensus which, like a rolling snowball, govern epistemological progress.
EDIT
Note that extrapolation from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem makes your request for proof about any axioms, vacuous. Proof proceeds from axioms whose truth value is already assumed. That is which functionality is a preferable criterion for axioms.

0 Replies

typo last sentence above
...That is WHY functionality is...

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

typo last sentence above
...That is WHY functionality is...

     O.K., forget about that typo - I haven't even noticed it. Tell us whether the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' are knowable or not, where knowable means:
     - can be formulated in a formal model and represented in our understanding of the world without being in contradiction with the rest of our knowledge (in physics and math logic, for example);
     - plausible interpretations exist, to which convincing truth values could be assigned;
     - the processes could be confirmed in a lab (like for example the 'natural happening' of the infinite gravity without causality can be reproduced as a test experiment in a lab; the existence of Matter & Antimatter without Time is possible and can create 3D space out of Nothing, etc.);
     - there exist at least one plausible physical interpretation and math model that can describe with sufficient accuracy the para-scientific concepts of natural happening, out of Nowhere and coming to exist without causality.

1 Reply

Because Herod desperately needs some sort of gap to wedge his alien/ILF/god-thingy into.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif

0 Replies

@Herald,

A pragmatist would argue that "scientific knowledge" is concerned with "prediction (+postdiction) and control". Insofar as a paradigm such as "the big bang" does that then it will be accepted. Questions of "ultimate causality"remain in the province of religion even if "causality" could be analysed (which Hume refuted). Notwithstanding attempts at "a theory of everything" (which appear to be untestable) such questions of ultimate cause are irrelevant to the pragmatism of science. And as a footnote, the concepts of nothing versus something is an absolutist one, because all "thinging" requires " a thinger" Berkeley try to solve that one by evoking "God".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

A pragmatist would argue that "scientific knowledge" is concerned with "prediction (+postdiction) and control".

... and what exactly predictions is doing the Big Bang? The predictions in the quantum mechanics about the particles have nothing to do with any Big Bang. Actually the whole QMs is a 'parallel universe' to the Big Bang 'theory'.

fresco wrote:

Insofar as a paradigm such as "the big bang" does that then it will be accepted.

Seriously - Big Bang is long ago badly broken both as a theory and as physics. The results are obvious even from elementary tests for consistency.

fresco wrote:

Questions of "ultimate causality"remain in the province of religion even if "causality" could be analysed (which Hume refuted).

     Causality has nothing to do with Religion. In physics it defines the direction of the process and the sequence of events and procedures specifying it. One cannot revert just so (out of Nowhere, out of Nothing, and naturally happening) and physical processes by wiping out causality. One cannot simply make a large pool and send upwards the water up the waterfall. Things in physics do not happen that way. One cannot take some Singularity without causality, and restore the neutron star standing behind it on the other side of the process, in reverse ... and from the neutron star with a backtrack 'to create' the whole Universe. This is absolutely inconsistent as physics. There is nothing in physics showing that the physical processes and Time are reversible.
     The assumptions are unknowable, because we have much more unknown & random variable than equations.
     The consistency tests actually show that the Universe has always existed with very high probability, and most probably the Intelligence in the Universe has always existed as well ... from the very beginning (if there has been a Beginning at all). But consistency tests cannot be applied over zero-knowledge. So far the knowledge of the Big Bang 'theory' about it own assumptions is absolute zero, the assumptions themselves should be viewed as unknowable.

1 Reply

Quote:

Quote:
RISK: REASON AND REALITY
An Inventory of the Dangers of Science Denialism

by DAVID ROPEIK

We sometimes get risk wrong. We fear some things more than the evidence says we need to, and some things less than the evidence says we should. That can be bad for our health, a risk I call the Risk Perception Gap. Recognizing this risk and understanding why it happens is a necessary step toward reducing some of its harm.

A significant group of these mistakes fall under the name Denialism (a label given by Michael Specter in his book of that name.) This is the seemingly irrational denial of clear and convincing scientific evidence by people whose worldviews conflict with what that evidence says. To illustrate this phenomenon, demonstrate that people on all sides of lots of issues do the same thing, and hopefully make dramatically clear just how dangerous this sort of Risk Perception Gap can be, I offer this list of examples:

The Issue: Vaccines Safety

The Body of Evidence; Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism (source: Centers for Disease Control)

...
The Issue: Genetically Modified Food

The Body of Evidence; No known human harm, environmental impacts no different from other forms of hybridization (source: National Academies of Science)

...
The Issue: Nuclear Power

The Body of Evidence: Even high doses of ionizing radiation do very little damage to human or environmental health (source: Radiation Effects Research Institute)

...
The Issue: Shale Gas extraction from “Fracking”

The Body of Evidence; Open. Many fears (increased risk of breast cancer, dangerous levels of radiation in drinking water, serious impacts from seismological danger, methane released in production equal to greenhouse gas reduction of natural gas to make electricity) either debunked or unsupported by any reliable evidence.

...
The Issue: Fluoride

The Body of Evidence; small increased risk for a small minority of the population of white spots on teeth. (source: National Academies of Science)

...

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/an-inventory-of-the-dangers-of-science-denialism

0 Replies

@Herald,

1 Big bang is essentially post-diction.
2 QM deals with the micro domain. Its relationship with big bang is indeed problematic at the singularity stage but this is no more significant than saying that chemical explanation cannot fully account for biology. What matters is the domain of application.
3. 'Causality' is a useful human concept (as indeed is 'time') in the quest for prediction. Ultimate causality is a pseudo religious ball game evoking an inevitable infinite regress.
4. Time is theoretically reversible as a mathematical parameter., and reverse time travel is a concept already used in the concept of a positron.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Big bang is essentially post-diction.

It is not claiming to be the explanation of the after-facts - the theory claims to be the fact itself, the event and act of the Creation.

fresco wrote:

QM deals with the micro domain. Its relationship with big bang is indeed problematic at the singularity stage

It is not problematic - the relation is totally missing.

fresco wrote:

... but this is no more significant than saying that chemical explanation cannot fully account for biology.

Biology is not chemistry. The biochemistry of the collagen is not chemistry ... it is intelligent meta-chemical process (we call it biology), programmed & controlled by the intelligence of the biological agents responsible for it. This is not only chemistry.

fresco wrote:

What matters is the domain of application.

What matters is that the Big Bang is not quantum mechanics ... and never has had anything with the QMs ... and the experiments at the Large Hadron Collide may have something in common with the study of the matter and its component carriers of energy, but have nothing to do with any Big Bang. How exactly will you recover the design of a glass furnace and the technological process for the production of glass, if you throw stones at some windows, and take photos of the distribution of the broken pieces of glass?

fresco wrote:

Ultimate causality is a pseudo religious ball game evoking an inevitable infinite regress.

Wiki Def.: Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. ... In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. ... Another requirement, at least valid at the level of human experience, is that cause and effect be mediated across space and time (requirement of continuity). This requirement has been very influential in the past, in the first place as a result of direct observation of causal processes (like pushing a cart), in the second place as a problematic aspect of Newton's theory of gravitation (attraction of the earth by the sun by means of action at a distance) replacing mechanistic proposals like Descartes' vortex theory; in the third place as an incentive to develop dynamic field theories (e.g., Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einstein's general theory of relativity) restoring contiguity in the transmission of influences in a more successful way than did Descartes' theory.

fresco wrote:

Time is theoretically reversible as a mathematical parameter., and reverse time travel is a concept already used in the concept of a positron.

What is Time in the real world and does it exist objectively, no matter that it is immaterial & immediately intangible? Will a Caesium clock on an asteroid run slower than a Caesium clock on the Earth (because of its vicinity to large mass)? Could anything have existed before the launching of the Time by the Big Bang 'theory' (if the Time has been launched at all, and not have always existed, for example)?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Biology is not chemistry. The biochemistry of the collagen is not chemistry ... it is intelligent meta-chemical process (we call it biology), programmed & controlled by the intelligence of the biological agents responsible for it. This is not only chemistry.

Alas, this is the sentence which puts you into the "religious camp" irrespective of what you want to call your hypothetical "goal directing agent".You are playing fast and loose with the word "intelligence" instead of referring to "teleology" or "feedback" which are normally used as aspects of self sustaining systems. (See Maturana or Prigogine). It may be NICE to think in terms of "cosmic consciousness" as a quick fix for teleology, but it is facile to call scientists who have no use for it as "arrogant".

We can all play at taking a God's Eye view. For example, why not place ourselves in a n-dimensional universe (physics already advocates 10 or 11) in which "time", the fourth dimension, by analogy with the first three, is reduced to no more than a parameter - a "static axis" laid out before us? Whence the meaning of "causality" then, implying as it does a simplistic ordering what humans define as "events" in "time" ? The key point is that such anthropomorphic speculations are arbitrary, and attempted transcendent statements about "time always existing" are completely circular or vacuous.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

fresco wrote:
Big bang is essentially post-diction.
It is not claiming to be the explanation of the after-facts - the theory claims to be the fact itself, the event and act of the Creation.
...

Utterly, profoundly wrong. Do you claim that your teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy hypothesis is the alien/ILF/god-thingy itself? Do you claim it is the act of teleportation itself? Or just an explanation? Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10418974_10153282839486605_8451771489899177536_n.jpg

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Utterly, profoundly wrong. Do you claim that your teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy hypothesis is the alien/ILF/god-thingy itself?

Wretch.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Pro tip: Start making sense and providing evidential support for your hypothesis, and I'll bet you'll have a lot more harmonious exchanges here at A2K.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Start making sense and providing evidential support for your hypothesis, and I'll bet you'll have a lot more harmonious exchanges here at A2K.

What about you enumerating the Gaps and specifying your beliefs ... if you still pretend to have some scientific and human integrity.

2 Replies

@Herald,

There's a children's book about a scarecrow whose world view is entirely rationalized in terms of bird scaring. Replace scarecrow with software engineer and we have another children's book.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Keep repeating the same fallacies and I'll point them out as we go along. Otherwise, do your own research.

0 Replies

Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know