Sci - Goldilocks planet is no fairytale

[annielaurie]

Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Yes, this is my belief system ..

[AiA in Atlanta]

Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Yes, this is my belief system ..

So your belief system is one of randomness and purposeless? There are too many variables and not enough time for pure chance to account for the universe.

[annielaurie]

So your belief system is one of randomness and purposeless? There are too many variables and not enough time for pure chance to account for the universe.

No not randomness, instead think in terms of cause and effect: the science is out there to demonstrate this. Much too sophisticated with the maths and the particle physics to post here: must go to real scientific sourses to get the peer-reviewed material on all that. And as for purpose, we make our own ..

[boxy]

Annie, Boxy, Swami et al, here is your religion:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

You see, I just don't get the implied problem with this viewpoint.

Using the scientific method to reach knowledge. Yeah, we all know it's a powerful tool, but what's the alternative? Reaching for "knowledge" because it feels right? Sure, sometimes what feels right, is proven right... but proven how?

Scientific method.

Do I think it's appropriate to apply the scientific method to everything I do? No, but only because it's impractical.

[Super Nova]

Do I think it's appropriate to apply the scientific method to everything I do? No, but only because it's impractical.

No, absolutely not. We need to rely on are instincts that allow us to make imediate decisions as we go through life. When we have thetime to reflect we then can seek to rationalise the decision we made. Sometimes learning how things work, imrpoving our future decisions.

[Bart]

So there's:
a) the scientific method,
and b) gut feeling or instinct.
However lately there's a third,
c) propagander eg global warming and censorship to anyone who disputes the BS worldwide global warming scam.


So with c) present then a) & b) have buckleys chance of being heard much less listened to.

[boxy]

Do I think it's appropriate to apply the scientific method to everything I do? No, but only because it's impractical.

No, absolutely not. We need to rely on are instincts that allow us to make imediate decisions as we go through life. When we have thetime to reflect we then can seek to rationalise the decision we made. Sometimes learning how things work, imrpoving our future decisions.

Exactly.

BTW, a sobering thought is that rational thought may not in fact be a successful meme, and may indeed be selected against in a similar way to genes being selected against, in favour of memes that encourage successful delusions.

[AiA in Atlanta]

"Scientism is a dogmatically reductionist view of the world that holds, both as its starting point and the conclusion toward which it drives, that the universe is fundamentally and only the result of the random interactions of physical objects and that all phenomenon can be reduced to them. It vehemently denies any higher power or intelligence and reduces full interiority of human experience to chemistry and physics. It is an "ism" because while cloaking itself in the mantle of science it denies the scientific spirit of open-minded inquiry, starting from a conclusion rather simply examining facts and letting them take one where they will. It is not a search for Truth but rather a dogmatic pronouncement of it and a correspondingly limited search only for supporting evidence."

[annielaurie]

"Scientism is a dogmatically reductionist view of the world that holds, both as its starting point and the conclusion toward which it drives, that the universe is fundamentally and only the result of the random interactions of physical objects and that all phenomenon can be reduced to them. It vehemently denies any higher power or intelligence and reduces full interiority of human experience to chemistry and physics. It is an "ism" because while cloaking itself in the mantle of science it denies the scientific spirit of open-minded inquiry, starting from a conclusion rather simply examining facts and letting them take one where they will. It is not a search for Truth but rather a dogmatic pronouncement of it and a correspondingly limited search only for supporting evidence."

This sounds like propoganda against science and the scientific method, written by someone who believes in God or in a Supreme Intelligence (ie the universe was created by Intelligent Design) and is determined to twist the definition of science and scientific method to his/her advantage.

First of all, the universe is not "random" and does not operate by just any old random events here and there.

There is an underlying order to it, built into the singularity that first inflated 13.7 billion years ago: in the weak and the strong forces; in the attraction of quarks to one another to make pairs, to make the force fields that are the nuclei of atoms; in the attraction of whole atoms to one another to make molecules: in the attraction of molecules to one another to make whole galaxies: in the resonance and trajectory of particles; there is an order to the fundamental particles that make up everything; and this determines the course of spacetime, and the cause and effect of everything in it.

Think in terms of cause and effect, not randomness.

Think in terms of time. Even one thousand years is hard for us to imagine. One thousand thousand equals one million. One thousand million equals one billion. Now multiply one billion times 13.7.

A recent measurement of the universe is 156 billion lightyears wide: measured both by the speed of light and taking into account the continuing inflation of the elastic-like fabric of spacetime itself.

(One must study physics to understand all this, which I have not, I have the understanding of theory and a layman's knowledge of the workings of spacetime)

But there has most certainly been enough time for the universe to looks as it looks today. We know that, because we are here to observe it, and this is what it looks like today.

Remember that in a natural universe there is nothing supernatural. The idea of supernatural exists in the human mind, but not outside. Outside, the universe is natural, and everything that happens in it is natural.

What we don't understand today, we tend to want to explain by supernatural causes. But this is not necessary, and even the questions we ask - such as why are we here and how did we get here, and what purpose does it have - are probably the wrong questions. We make our own purpose, and our ancestors made up our religions to try to explain it all.

Eventually (if we don't blow our civilization off the face of the planets because of fighting over politics and religion first) scientific method will be able to answer more and more of the questions. But only science and math will be able do the job and get accurate results, not philospophy and religion.

Go to: University of Manchester Physicist Professor Brian Cox as he delivers a series of lectures on particle physics and the workings of the universe, aimed at GCSE/Key stage 4 science pupils:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsRvxQzI ... ure=relmfu

[Super Nova]

This sounds like propoganda against science and the scientific method, written by someone who believes in God or in a Supreme Intelligence (ie the universe was created by Intelligent Design) and is determined to twist the definition of science and scientific method to his/her advantage.

This is the current strategy of the religious, particularly in the US. They are seeking to use a warped, impure methods that look scientific to their own ends... that is to justify a believe in god and their dogma. They are using this to convince the middle masses and the uneducated into believing their arguements by using what appears to be sound arguments pretenting to be sciencitic method.

First of all, the universe is not "random" and does not operate by just any old random events here and there.

The universe is not random however at the smallest level somethings appear random to us as outside observers. Since we don;t understabnd what is really driving things at this level we are unable to predict an obsolute position and velocity in advance (or the state of a sub-atomic particle). We apply probability theory to our equations to forecast comnplext systems of inteaction. I believe this is not random, we just cannot see and don't understand yet what is under it all.

Think in terms of cause and effect, not randomness.

The cause and effect is so low level and currently beyond our understanding however applying combination/permutation theory (randomness) works on a large scale view.

Think in terms of time. Even one thousand years is hard for us to imagine. One thousand thousand equals one million. One thousand million equals one billion. Now multiply one billion times 13.7.

Quite a while. I do think that while we think time has always been constant, I would not be surprised to find that even time has changed over time

A recent measurement of the universe is 156 billion lightyears wide: measured both by the speed of light and taking into account the continuing inflation of the elastic-like fabric of spacetime itself.

For jsut this bubble we live in.

(One must study physics to understand all this, which I have not, I have the understanding of theory and a layman's knowledge of the workings of spacetime)

But there has most certainly been enough time for the universe to looks as it looks today. We know that, because we are here to observe it, and this is what it looks like today.

The facinating thing ios that the universe is structure to allow the evolution of a complex self replicating set of matter that can ask questions and has the capactity to undersdtand the universe it lives in. That is amasing. So amasing that we created a god to explain the unexcplainable in our early development. Today we need no such explaination. I do believe there is a compelling inbuilt need in most humans to have a believe in something.

It is a shitting feeling when you first realise that I am insignifiant in space and time. I have no purpose other than to procreate and when I die that's the end..... it is easier to believe in an after life and I have a purpose as define by god.

Remember that in a natural universe there is nothing supernatural. The idea of supernatural exists in the human mind, but not outside. Outside, the universe is natural, and everything that happens in it is natural.

God could be natural

What we don't understand today, we tend to want to explain by supernatural causes. But this is not necessary, and even the questions we ask - such as why are we here and how did we get here, and what purpose does it have - are probably the wrong questions. We make our own purpose, and our ancestors made up our religions to try to explain it all.

10-4

Eventually (if we don't blow our civilization off the face of the planets because of fighting over politics and religion first) scientific method will be able to answer more and more of the questions. But only science and math will be able do the job and get accurate results, not philospophy and religion.

Bring on Startrek. That is the way forward.

I'll be Q.
You can be the Borg.