Frothers Unite! UK

mcfonz wrote:

THE Bob wrote:

Duff wrote:

Goldwyrm wrote:That is what you believe though?

No, that is what can be empirically proven.

Exactly.

The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, etc. These are not things that we "believe" in. They are what we think based on the best evidence available. There is no equivalency between scientific understanding and belief.

Believers wish there was. They will claim: "You believe that the Earth is 4.5 million years old and that life evolved. I believe that the world is 6,016 years old and life was created as is by a magic space pixie." But of course, this attempt to equate is bollocks. For the majority, we would accept creationism if the evidence pointed that way; it doesn't so we don't accept it. It is not about belief, it is not about choosing something that we wish was true. It is about accepting evidence or ignoring evidence and believing something else.

Actually that only works whilst there is one theory.

When there are several different theories to explain the same thing. Then what you have is scientists that 'follow' or 'believe' or 'agree' that one theory has more weight than another.

There are certainly grey areas.

Oh dear.
I think I need to give myself a cooling off period before replying....

I don't.

No, there are scientists that note that theory A has 50% evidence behind it and Theory B has 60% evoidence to back it and explore one or both at varying times to see if the evidence can be increased (or decreased) for either. Science doesn't take the view that there can only be one at any one time.

As regards the science vs humanities debate - C P Snow correctly observed the position but also posited the right solution. Why can't we all get along?

Apart from the religious fuckwits obviously.

mcfonz wrote:Actually that only works whilst there is one theory.

When there are several different theories to explain the same thing. Then what you have is scientists that 'follow' or 'believe' or 'agree' that one theory has more weight than another.

There are certainly grey areas.

If there are different ideas about the underlying principles behind something, the scientific approach is to develop hypotheses supporting each and test to see if the expected results are obtained in repeatable form. Then you approach a theory by eliminating those ideas whose hypotheses fail. You don't go around waving your notes yelling 'Mine is the one true Theory' and burning everyone who doesn't believe in it. Faith/belief has nothing to do with it.
Science is about working towards truth not imposing your unproven version of it on others.

Levied Troop wrote:I don't.

No, there are scientists that note that theory A has 50% evidence behind it and Theory B has 60% evoidence to back it and explore one or both at varying times to see if the evidence can be increased (or decreased) for either. Science doesn't take the view that there can only be one at any one time.

There are examples of people working competitively against one another however. And as you say, science suggests that whilst there is still a margin of error as large as you suggest people accept that it may be flawed, however some scientists still choose to prefer one theory over another. Although as you say when one starts to be more proven it becomes more scientifically accepted.

Levied Troop wrote:As regards the science vs humanities debate - C P Snow correctly observed the position but also posited the right solution. Why can't we all get along?

Apart from the religious fuckwits obviously.

Absolutely spot on.

The successful colonisation of a planet would rely upon both areas. For the science to work the people would need to remain at their most productive - science has in turn proven that things such as music and art can improve productivity.

Fuckwits are fuckwits - you can get scientific fuckwits and you can get musical fuckwits as well as religious fuckwits and atheist fuckwits.

Mcfonz wrote

Believers wish there was. They will claim: "You believe that the Earth is 4.5 million years old and that life evolved. I believe that the world is 6,016 years old and life was created as is by a magic space pixie." But of course, this attempt to equate is bollocks. For the majority, we would accept creationism if the evidence pointed that way; it doesn't so we don't accept it. It is not about belief, it is not about choosing something that we wish was true. It is about accepting evidence or ignoring evidence and believing something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lzcefyEtjo
Neil Degrasse Tyson. For the hard of thinking, he is NOT getting at Muslims.

mcfonz wrote:.............. however some scientists still choose to prefer one theory over another.

This is because they are studying one theory that they often think may be the correct one and are looking to prove it rather than disprove it.

However, see Bronshtein's comments for how religious people preferring one theory over another behave.

Ah, I think you miss-understand. I'm not comparing religion to science, just that 'belief' is more than just a religious phenomenon.

And that belief, hope, faith - tends to be used to top-up the doubt, or to fill in the void of the unknown.

Two scientists may be conducting the same experiments on the same theory, one to disprove - one to prove. Those terms alone suggest that one feels that the theory is flawed and the other feels the theory is solid.

I can understand people disliking religion, especially if at some point in their lives it gave them bad experiences, from serious to just being made to attend as a child. My own approach to religion is an open mind - if people are not hurting anyone and in fact appear to be gaining through some sort of experience, a more positive outlook on life, or feel more comfortable within the world then who am I to have issue with it?

I understand that there is the question of what role does religion play in the modern world, and I should imagine it will remain for a long time. However I also think it is worth noting that it's not as simple as science Vs religion. They don't have to replace each other or exist in conflict.

Much the same with the science Vs humanities - as you suggested before.

Note to self: next time, add smilies to make sure jokes are understood as that.

mcfonz wrote:Ah, I think you miss-understand. I'm not comparing religion to science, just that 'belief' is more than just a religious phenomenon.

I think I understood your point, I just think you tread on uncertain ground when you use the term 'belief' about science. The believer's misinterpret that as putting science on a par with religion. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, some people believe that a monster in the sky will smite them if they have naughty thoughts or that covering their wife with a sack will stop them having naughty thoughts. These beliefs are not compatible.

But then, my experience of religion has not been a positive one. And I don't mind the void of the unknown - given my humanties background, I have to be

I guess what I was trying to get at is that there are similarities and links, after all both require humans.

I think it's very easy in the modern era to question religion, but not the 'humanities' as a whole. Whilst their impact may not be as measurable as leaps forward in science, which can easily be mile-stoned, things like music and art are often easier to reflect on in hindsight.

Where would modern culture be without things like Punk music for example?

How important are things like the 'Arab Spring'? Will the impact be measurable instantly? Things like education being made available for more people is massively important. Medical advances are great, but how important in the greater scheme of things if few people can access them?

Discovery of more planets that share the same distance from a star as us is fantastic, but so many questions remain - even the article suggests that they may not all be planets, there is no guarantee that they have an atmosphere or conditions conducive to life. Again in the grander scheme of things, how much of an impact does this have on the rest of the planet? Not much. It may give us hope for dreams one day becoming reality and something to work towards maybe.

Also, going even further back the likes of Aristotle were scientists and philosophers. Some remain to be today.

"I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, some people believe that a monster in the sky will smite them if they have naughty thoughts or that covering their wife with a sack will stop them having naughty thoughts. These beliefs are not compatible."

Indeed, but I did not say all science or all religion are compatible. Perhaps those religions with strict deity worship are less compatible. But there are less invasive religions that are more compatible.