Curbing the Spread of Pseudoscience

Let us pray for an end to these metaphysical monstrosities.

Well, we have the cult of the sports jock, the true man?, who reacts conventionally, who runs with the herd, drinks beer to excess, plays no sport well, but is very rah rah. A lot of kids look up to jocks, and they attract a class of women.

Then we have the cult of the gangsta rapper, who gathers his tribesmen and controls his zone, who does not work, who has sex with no discrimination fathers children with many women, he plays his moronic repetitive music and practices his rap talk like I used to speak eg-talk in grade school. A lot of kids look up to these and they attract their women.

We do not have the cult of the scientist, who learns complex and arcane lore. In fact tech kids are geekified and looked down on and bullied. Some are able to play the social game well enough to avoid the bullying. Teachers allow bullying by bad supervision. When I was young, at recess we had a boys and girls yard, with 2 teachers in each yard to watch and supervise them. Between classes, there was a teacher in each hall run and at each landing to reduce bullying.

Nowadays we do not do this. It costs too much, teachers get $100,000 a year here in Toronto in wages and overhead. Rant about teachers unions here.

So we need heros in the USA/Canada that the youth wish to emulate, so they grow up to think with care and critical analysis of whatever they are told. They would not believe the 'free energy' from water BS, etc. etc. that the web is so full of, they would reject it the way I do.

Welcome to the club, naturalextraction. Now what is is ?? Afraid to post a name ?? As to the subject... we had these pseudo-scientists since time began and will apparently have them until time ends. Fortunately, they are harmless or perhaps almost harmless. They did not build the Hoover Dam, they did not build the Golden Gate bridge... they did not invent the transistor... examples are countless. So we are the dummies to them? Well, this is what there is. So relax, be proud of what you are, whatever you are. Enjoy life.

"Afraid to post a name??"

I know you are probably teasing, but If you read the rules of cr4, the plan is to criticize and improve ideas, and not criticise people. 'jes sayin. For the most part, peoples avatar's are not their own names for widely held beliefs about internet security.

Welcome to CR4 Alexander M. Berlin

Chris

Now what is is ?? Afraid to post a name ??

Hi Alexander, I didn't quite get you question exactly, if your asking; my name it's Tim Cordova. I post NaturalExtraction due to the nature of my business "making more efficient use of natural and man made resources." Hope that answers it for you. Thanks for contributing.

To naturalextraction (58) and to Chris288 (54) Rereading my message I must agree that my remark had a whiff of arrogance. I am sorry. I meant no offence and if I did offend I apologize. And to Chris288... thanks for the welcome.

"criteriological [whatever that is! - TvG] "

next will be criterologicalism..

I imagine it means 'parametric'. but I doubt you were really asking.

some people can't help their nounification... it just is. The have a compulsion to nounify. Is it perhaps another *pseudological* aspect of the human nature?

Chris

Whatever......the second there's a major war they'll want to know what us scientists think again. You can't BS a war.

Now that is true. During a major crisis, science and engineering suddenly become very important to people, and gangsta rappers and professional athletes becomerelatively unimportant. However, the crisis could be an actually global pandemic, impending extraterrestrial threat, major seismic events and related, or warfare, pretty much anything that makes the high possibility of near immediate or impending death to anyone (such that money may not afford substantial protection to make the threat insignificant) apparent to even the most unaware of our society

All I know is every time I get my APS Newsletter they are excitedly telling me how Physics memberships are reaching new highs.

They are either willfully ignoring the fact that there is a current population peak in college right now and in 5 years those numbers will be greatly reduced or they are so oblivious as to not even realizing it.

Hey did you know that the percentage of students choosing physics as a major is at an all time low? Awesome!

If we can't even stop lying to ourselves (I'm talking Physicists here) about our field, how the heck do we expect the general public to?

There is a major crisis brewing in physics right now that will become apparent by shortages in 10 years and APS is whistling through the graveyard. I don't blame the general public for being idiots, but we should know better.

There are similar issues with chemists and engineers. However, at least the federal government has already identified a current shortage of entry to mid level Civil Engineers, and are at least concerned about the shortage of upcoming engineers to fill the market as the baby boomers are retiring (of course they aren't considering the basic capitalistic concept of supply and demand as compensation rates continue to decline for engineers and scientist relative to other industries). I believe you will also find a similar trend amongst medical doctors in field like general practicioner, as the level of education is so great and the demand currently as people age is more for health care than medicine, so compensations are declining for doctors while nurses and other much lesser educated positions have climbed to points where the net benefits and wages exceed many Doctors receive (considering insurance and other costs Doctors incur that health care labor does not). Why would a 16 year old consider going to school and have to study hard for 5 to 16 more years after high school (and then spend another 3 to 6 year working as nearly free labor for 80 to 100 hours a week doing the grunt labor that technicians are to expensive to use, or union labor contract restrict use, in order to impress the aged established senior professionals so they might get the relevent experience and references to examine and become licensed) in any field to receive less recognition or reward than a someone who took an extension course in real estate, an AA in dental hygiene or receives a BA in business or Liberal Studies, etc.. To some degree the nature of our labor laws lead to the trend towards people wanting to work as unionized (and government protected) hourly labor, rather than becoming professionals in the corporate dominated market.

Many high school students who have excellent potential for engineering are opting out of courses in science and mathematics. When they get to college, they are then often advised (by counselors with weak science background) poorly to take inappropriate courses. Thus, they fall further behind and may never realize their potential to become engineers. These students should be evaluated and assisted more appropriately?

Chemical engineers are absorbed into the medical profession in huge numbers. Recently at a local university, six of the seven chemical engineering graduates were selected on the first round for medical school.

okiescienceprof wrote: "When they get to college, they are then advised poorly to take the inappropriate courses. Thus, they fall further behind and never realize their potential to become engineers. Why are we not evaluating and assisting these student more appropriately?"

The students I referred to earlier are sophomores and while they may have been poorly counseled initially, my experience suggests that their lack of active participation and initiative is rooted elsewhere.

Oddly enough, oriental exchange students with dramatically superior elementary school educations are also silent.

When I questioned them about their lack of participation they acknowledged that they'd already studied this course in their native country in High School! They are essentially reviewing the course, comfortable with their mastery of the subject so no questions in class are warranted. There is also a cultural inhibition at play.

L.J

Roger Pink wrote: "There is a major crisis brewing in physics right now that will become apparent by shortages in 10 years and APS is whistling through the graveyard. I don't blame the general public for being idiots, but we should know better."

Here! Here!

I'm currently auditing a 4 credit undergraduate course in Thermodynamics at the State University. I am also auditing a 3 credit class in Materials and Processing.

What I find unsettling is the almost total lack of engagement by students. They just sit there with blank expressions on their face!

There are four professors alternating in these two programs. It is embarrassing to see the frustration they exhibit as a result of their inability to solicit any response from participants who are alleged to be in attendance for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Maybe they expect to get it intravenously?!

In desperation, the teachers will frequently look directly at me and say "Anyone!".

Because I am auditing and not there as a matriculated student I feel I should not be taking time from students. Given my work experience and learning experience, I have an unfair advantage. I want to ease the professors frustration but feel caught between a hard spot and a rock.

If this situation is a microcosm of what our Country's colleges are going through, we may not have to wait ten years as you suggest for the "Fit to hit the Shan"

L.J.

Zish the blind do lead the blind and history repeats

I agree that authors need to perform some basic research (encyclopedia, dictionary, etc.) prior to posting on this forum. However, if they came to this site (where there are numerous experienced individuals willing to assist), they must be making an intelligent effort to search for answers. Remember that science has stages of validity: hypothesis (an educated guess), theory, and law. Where would we be if no one threw out ideas, problems, and questions for help and discussion. I think we have a problem with students etc. not asking enough questions (even though some appear lacking), and those that do appear to progress faster.

I have resisted weighing in on this thread because of the simple fact that many of you already know where I stand on the matter. Never the less, I have been asked, so I will now add my own two cents, for what little they may be worth.

First of all, I am a theist. More, I am a believer in Jesus of Nazareth. I believe the Bible, the whole thing and every word. I was not always a believer, but arrived at this faith through hard and careful reasoning and logic. If called upon I will defend my faith with the same careful reasoning and logic.

I have found the Bible to be a sound guide to my behavior down through the years. It has provided me with good ethics, and believe it or not has been a ward against much of the pseudo-science that is so popular today. But, it has never been a reason to accept false reasoning or logic, nor a cause for me to disregard scientific findings as being not in keeping with scripture. There is in particular a scripture in the epistles of Paul that says "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." Another, which I can't remember the exact address of exhorts the believer to "avoid science wrongly so called."

So, do I accept that evolutionary processes exist and are at work in the world? Absolutely. However, I do not accept that evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of life. Furthermore, I consider such things as astrology to be complete hogwash.

When I went to college, I double-majored in mathematics and physics. I also took a minor in philosophy, in which I learned to always question my assumptions. I continue that practice to this day. The one thing I do know absolutely and for certain is that I do not know everything, nor will I ever.

I take a lesson from history. At the end of the 19th century, science looked to be very nearly complete. Newtonian mechanics and his theory of universal gravitation, old atomic theory and so forth, provided a very good picture of how the universe worked. But then along came Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and host of other new theories and discoveries which yanked the rug out from under classical physics. Many eminent scientists went to their graves calling Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Dirac liars and worse.

It was not that classical physics was wrong, it was simply incomplete. And to assume that our present world model is now complete is to risk the same fate as those 19th century scientists who could not embrace Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Sooner or later, someone is going to yank the rug out from under our modern world-model, and the things we now hold as true will become as Newtonian mechanics.

If and when some new theory comes along which can be rigorously demonstrated to be true, we must embrace it. Science itself demands it. But, we are absolutely correct to demand rigorous proof. As I like to say, show us the numbers.

As for the pseudo-science which is so popular amongst those who have little or no mathematical and scientific training, this has been the case down through the centuries. No doubt it will always be the case. All we can do is to try, patiently and with good humor, to try to educate them.

It has provided me with good ethics,

By what standard?

Why, by a Biblical standard, of course!

But seriously, there does seem to be one universal standard for ethics, which is set forth in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Logically, this makes perfect sense. If I object to having things stolen from me, then it seems self evident that it is wrong to steal. Seeing as I wish to go on living, it seems obvious that it is wrong to kill. Furthermore, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" seems to me to be a very good concept.

The important point is that these rules of behavior are concrete, set in stone even. When I fail to follow them, I cannot reason my failing away, tell myself it's okay this time. Thus, the ethical system I follow is in no wise relative or subject to the whims of men.

Once again, I find it necessary to challenge some assumptions.

I have heard the term "excess population" used it this forum several times. In particular in a post I read a few minutes ago by RCE. Let me at this time go on the record and state that the idea of excess population is absurd.

In fact, the idea seems to have taken hold with the publication in 1968 of "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich, who is in fact an entomologist. In this book, which I find it rather difficult to understand his qualifications to write, Mr. Ehrlich makes a number of what appear to me to be unsubstantiated predictions, most notably that hundreds of millions of people will starve in the 70s and 80s. Of course this did not happen, at least, not on anything like the scale the he predicted. Never the less, the concept of "over-population" entered our collective psyche at that point and never let go.

In truth though, it can be demonstrated that population, manpower, is everything. When merry olde England exploded onto the world stage to become the mighty British Empire, the nation was undergoing a substantial increase in population, which gave it the manpower to send men to the far corners of the globe. When the United States won two world wars, our population was also increasing. Look at the populations of China and India, two of the fastest growing economies in the world today. Again, rapidly expanding populations.

On the other hand, look at every fallen nation down through history, and you will find declining birth rates and populations, which caused then to cease expanding and to begin contracting. Rome is a textbook example of this, as in Great Brittan.

Population is not merely mouths to feed, it's also hands to work, and minds to create.

BTW, another classic example of this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense was the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, published in 1962, and which effectively launched the environmental wacko movement. There is some reason to suspect that Ms. Carson's motivation for writing the book was the fact that she was dying of cancer and seeking something to blame it on. However, her book did directly cause the banning of DDT, the most effective pesticide available at the time, and which much careful research had demonstrated to be safe. I find myself wondering how many people starved to death because of that ban?

I take these to be classical examples of pseudo-science which large portions of the population assume to be true without any demand for proof.

Oh i don't particularly believe that that world as a whole has too many people, it just may be growing at an unsustainable rate given our productivity and resources without some matching progress in advancements to address the needs of the societies. Over population is just another environmental stressor that drives advancements to more efficiently provide some resources to sustain the population, or alternately you may sacrifice some sector of the population to redistribute some of the resources to provide for the remaining population, even if in excess of their basic needs (or emigrations, disease, warfare, and natural disasters can do the same thing). You can locally have too high a population density or growth to be able to provide sufficient local resources to support the population.

On another note, I just heard, I know it is just hearsay, the other day that there is a rise in the populations of bed bugs world wide. In particular they are all but eradicated in the western hemisphere and most of the 1st world due to the use and persistence of DDT from decades ago. Apparently, the benefits of DDT have not been replaced, since there has been no demand, and now the demand is on the rise again for an alternative to control a new pest which has not seen by most Americans through their entire lives. It makes me wonder how do you really strike a balance between the slight increase in mortality for few eagles and condors against the resurrection of pests and disease vectors that afflict mankind. I believe that if i lay a human baby in front of a bunch of hungry condors, who would then have the option of eat the baby or one of their own, they would have no problem deciding.

Hear Hear! I have to give you a good answer for that. It seems to me that the environmental wacko movement does in fact consider animals and plants to be more important that people. In a paper I wrote about ten years ago, I wrote that: "To prefer the purposes of other creatures above our own is to consider other creatures as more imporant than ourselves, which to me implies a certain self-loathing which is hardly to be found in nature." As I recall at the time *Chuckle* it got a lot of people mad at me. I admit to having little patience with tree, whale and bunny huggers.

As I have stated before, it appear to me that the problems with feeding large populations have more to do with logistics than production. Those places which have large groups of starving people seem to also be places that are subject to reigns of terror, ruled by men (and women!) that do not seem the least bit concerned if thousands or millions of their own people starve, are struck down by illness, or cut down my marauding militias.

I grew up on a family farm on the North American Great Plains, and I can state with some authority that this region produces food far in excess of the needs of the United States and Canada. There is little or no reason why the plains of Asia and Africa could not be made similarly productive, as the plains of South America already are. It is my understanding that Russian farm equipment is as good as anything built in North America, just for example.

So again I will say, the problem of feeding the worlds populations is not one of production. The responsibility rests solely at the feet of government.

As a footnote, I should be happy to make my paper, "Some Thoughts on the Subject of Animal Rights" available to anyone who desires a copy.

There are natural localize limits to the productivity that are greater than local politics, and the cost of production in those areas vastly exceeds the returns. It would be pretty unreasonable to expect much agricultural production out of the western Sudan, Chad, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, etc. just because of the environmental conditions that persist there. The environmental conditioons do not favor supporting large populations in those areas. Even the grain and range areas of Northern China are being desertified fairly rapidly due to over production of agriculture. Food much like water may be available in sufficient quantities as a whole if the human societies on the planet comprised a single control coordinated system, but many people seek to try to eek out a living in unfriendly environments, in part because it saves on costs, reduces social and government regulation/influences, they are unwilling to risk change from a familair environment, it is perceived (probably in the short term) as safer or requiring less risk/labor than any near by environments that might be better suited, and/or they think they might gain wealthy there. I guess you could relocate the people, but then there is the whole issue of redistribution of wealth (taking native residences jobs or increasing job competition and driving payscales down), racism, land and places to reside (probably not a big issue at the moment, but could potential drive housing costs upwards due to increased demand), etc.. Plus how do you keep others from not just moving in where the people you relocated left and over stressing the area again as their population grows.

While I agree that capitalization may be an issue, I see no reason why modern farming methods, especially irrigation and fertilization, cannot make any land arable, as long as it's reasonably flat.

Still, your point about costs is a good one. My family's farm ended up going to the bank, as my uncle just got in over his head. The truth is that it can very easily cost more to put a crop into the ground that it will return at harvest.

By the way, how the hell did we get to talking about farming in this thread?

Even with modern farming methods and imported irrigation you can not, and should not, farm on some land. The soils, particularly in deserts, can have very little capacity for retaining nutrients and are sensitive to environmental changes. Part of the problem they are having in northern china with desertification is the importation of water to the area and atempts locally to irrigate and grow crops at high production rates. Once the sands start to move and blow, they desertification begins spreading, and crops are not suitable as long duration stable ground cover in those areas. If irrigation was brought to a much poorer region like the Sahara, where people could not afford to implement the best possible BMPs in their agriculture (let alone if they have a bad year or even a crop failure), then you would develop problems in those areas where desertification problem do not curently exist. Plus you would increase demands on local resources, like groundwater, and also need to import some resources such as water, fertilizers and pesticides (locusts swarms in north africa could cover entire US states). Then the question becomes who do you take these resources from? The costs become too high in areas where recently formed shallow soils overly sand dunes and such. And , obviously those areas over very shallow or exposed rock would be unsuitable.

Again, your point is well taken, but I do believe that I was speaking of plains, not deserts. Furthermore, I care more about the people that are starving than about the sensitive soils. And also, farming tends to deepen soil, when things like wheat and corn are plowed back under after harvest. Proper farming techniques can make just about anything except sand and bare rock fertile and productive.

You said, "Then the question becomes who do you take these resources from?" You seem to be caught in zero-sum thinking. The object here is not to rob Peter to pay Paul, but to create more for everyone.

Farming doesn't deepen soils, it just homogenizes the upper 18 inches of materials and the organic materials disc under take years to form organic residue which will be burnt off when you add nitrogen & phosphorus fertilizer, since bacteria digesting the organic materials are more effective at extracting nitrogen than plants. So you are balancing a rate of decay against a rate of input. Also, sensitive soils doesn't imply that they need to be protected, as much as i was indicating that they are sensitive to environmental changes, such as farming, and tend to degrade rapidly. Some high plains border on becoming deserts, our dust bowl was in part due to intensive farming in an area not adapted to handle the intensity of farming, driven by the markets at that time, and then the market dropped out and people stopped planting. The areas suffering severe desertification now in northern China are plains that are over stressed. Some deserts are amenable to intensive farming if water supplies are available, e.g. Yuma AZ, while some plains are not. On a localized basis there is a zero sum in some areas there are to many people to be supported by the land and environment. Improvements to efficiencies can improve productions in some areas, but in some areas the demands on other resources due to the increased production eventually lead to disaster. Proper farming techniques also involves sustainable agricultural efforts, which includes production within the limits of the soils capabilities to recover. You can improve the efficiencies by implementation of BMPs in some areas, but in other areas even with advanced farming techniques they still are limited by the environmental conditions and may need to reduce productivity to reach a level of sustainable agriculture (plus there is always the concern over what happens if the markets drop and it isn't cost effective to plant or irrigate).

In certain areas in western Canada, say Saskatchewan near Saskatoon, the topsoil is still piled along the fence lines, while there are bare patches in the fields, because of the deep plowing done by early farmers. (after the advent of the tractor) When the thirties came, the wind blew the topsoil away, which drifted and was captured by the fences, the same way snow is captured by a snow fence.

Chris

Moose wrote: "As I have stated before, it appear to me that the problems with feeding large populations have more to do with logistics than production. Those places which have large groups of starving people seem to also be places that are subject to reigns of terror, ruled by men (and women!) that do not seem the least bit concerned if thousands or millions of their own people starve, are struck down by illness, or cut down my marauding militias."

I once was an active supporter of the Hunger Project whose goal was to end world hunger by the year 2000. Obviously it failed. Along the way, however, it educated people to the fact that world hunger is not caused by the lack of food but by barriers created by political systems that deliberately place barriers in the way of distribution.

Today's crises in Haiti validates the assertion that those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.

The Laughing Jaguar

But wait, there is hope .... breaking news we only hope to be true.

Low IQ among biggest heart health risks, study find.

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20100210%2fiq_heart_100210

Awww, probably just another example of poor science, poor reporting or both.

Of course I would suspect that over time with the cholesterol and such heart risk factors, would cause some similar physiological issues in the arteries in the brain leading to some issues of potential oxygen deprivations, chemical imbalanced, etc.. which in turn would correlate to a reduction in such peoples IQ. It could be like operating a CPU to hot, on lower voltage, or at a slower voltage frequency. It just isn't getting what it needs to oeprate efficiently.

It's BS, but it is funny BS! I know a couple of people I could bug with this.

chris

This thread appears to have spread (in some posts but not all) from pseudoscience to religion/atheism...I guess that is permitted. The USA courts differentiated between science and religion in reference to education. We are required and I prefer to keep them separate in the classroom, and I understand this forum is a different environment. Can science prove that God exists or does not exist? Some say that religion does more harm than good in the world, but I believe that any religion that does harm needs to examine itself very carefully. I will be in church again this week, and I am not ashamed of my position.

Damn...not the R word.
You can't prove the nonexistence of something...
I'm outa here <exits with swish of Cat cape>

Del

Yes, in a way - but to acknowledge existence of the CONCEPT [of god, or of "a god", or of "gods & goddesses"] is far from acknowledging or believing that the concept has a reality behind it. I acknowledge existence of the CONCEPT of god, but not the EXISTENCE of god.

Similarly, I acknowledge existence of the concept of ghosts, angels, devils/demons, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, the turtle who holds up the world, magic, four humours, phlogiston, universal aether, perpetual motion and over-unity machines, and on and on - but I see absolutely no evidence that these concepts have any basis in reality. None.

Ah ha! You are returning to the theme of pseudoscience! From what you have said (and rightly so) everything is conceptual.

Up until I was 5 years old or so, "ghosts, angels, devils/demons, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy," (not too sure about the rest ) were quite real to me. They weren't a concept because I had no indication or inclination to think differently and I wanted to believe in them. The (painful) onset of the development of my critical thinking led me to believe differently. I miss them all and enjoyed imparting the same wonderful fantasies upon my children, who have since, alas, matured into their level of critical thinking, be that as it may.

So it goes in the realm of the pseudo; if one wants, (or is lead or mislead, or is expected, or is too lazy to do otherwise, etc.) to believe, they will. A perfect example (and I don't want to open another can of worms here) is the global warming fiasco. There appears to be questionable data, from questionable sources, that has millions of people in an uproar (pro and con) over what to believe and or disbelieve and what to do about it. The problem is that very few people can either access or discern whatever data there is available, determine it's validity to thus make a realistic summation of it all; we're not all scientists. But we're all human and will for a variety of reasons (political, economic, social, etc) find a 'reason' to lean towards one school of thought or the other or somewhere in between.

I have to differ with your conceptualization of god, however. I presume that you agree that faith, albeit intangible and manifold in existence, is not a concept. Is not God the embodiment of faith for many? As many have said in previous posts, God is many different things (sic) to as many different faiths, philosophies and people.

By the way, I miss Santa.

I share your concern for some of the divergent threads and would like to see more focus on the primary question.

Though a deffinition of pseudoscience has not been offered it appears that mystism of any kind could be rightly included as such.

Having said that, I have to acknowledge that the divergent threads do have a bearing on what is being discussed and do make a difference.

The scope of the arguments has to entertained if we are to do justice to the pursuit.

L.J.

Definition:

"Any claim by a human to absolute knowledge."

As clarified here several times, Science actually only disproves.

Religion, properly practiced, embraces an attitude of gratitude, for any gift given, regardless of source. (imho) (including salvation)

While both seek and desire truth, it is only the misguided that claim to have it, in either case.

Chris

Chris ~ While I like your statement that we desire and search for truth (in science), I am not convinced that science can disprove anything with infinite certainty (I will probably take some arrows for that statement). I do believe that we should question all scientific beliefs and have values of statistical validity when feasible. When I was in graduate school at the University of Oklahoma, students were required (not in all classes) to have a null hypothesis that had to be measured statistically. I remember those days well with "blood, sweat, and tears", we were warned about using one-hundred or zero percent.

While both seek and desire truth, it is only the misguided that claim to have it, in either case.

In 19 words, you seemed to have summed up what I said in what (?) 50,000 or so in my post that caused Dell his brevquot overload.

ya, but you got a GA for your 50,000. so you win!

It isn't he who has absolute knowledge of the Universe that wins, but he who uses the most words to describe it.

Chris

Can science prove that God exists or does not exist?

If quantum theory is broadly extended to say that we can only predict the likelihood of some occurrence (rather than being able to prove with certainty, that something will occur) then I think we can reasonably say that science can also say that certain proposed cause/effect relationships are, at least, highly unlikely. The notion that the sun is pulled across the sky by a person-like entity driving a chariot is considered very, very, unlikely.

Regarding Apollo, I am an atheist. I suspect that you may be an atheist, too in this respect. Regarding Apollo, I think many people might say that science has essentially proven that He does not exist. Real scientists worry more about the highly unlikely event of their Toyota going too fast, than they do that Apollo may exist, and that their whole view of the solar system is wrong. So if science has effectively proven that Apollo does not exist, then science can effectively prove that any given god does not exist. Prove with certainty? No. But science proves little, positive or negative, with certainty.

For example, science can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, (yet without perfect certainty) that a given perpetual motion machine will not work. It has proven to my satisfaction, at least, that Apollo does not exist. But suppose I were an Apollo believer. Many people would think me foolish to make life decisions based on my belief in Apollo. Even more people (I suspect) would think that to hold my belief in Apollo as being more valuable or noble than my belief in reason would be especially unwise.

Books can, and have, been written about what we might mean when we say a god "exists." Do we mean that she has a physical presence that can be touched? Does she possess mass? Does she have a physical presence that can be seen? Does he have a place where he lives? What's the address? Does he "exist" in anyway that might be measured or observed. Is she the same entity in the electric potentials of one brain vs another brain. Can he only exist as a large field effect impinging on numerous brains or minds: a collective mind, "offer it up to the universe". Does she exist only as brain waves within each of us independently?

A myth about a god has an existence and a value of its own, independent of the actual existence of the various gods about whom the myths have been written. Do we create the existence of a god from the myth?

My friend, let me pose three questions to you.

1. Why is there something, instead of nothing? This BTW is the most profound question of natural philosophy, of which science can be considered a branch.

2. How can consciousness, self awareness and reason arise from instinct, seeing as they appear to be completely separate things phenomenologically?

3. Is there an absolute standard of morality, or are all ethical systems relative to the societies in which they arise?

Consider these questions carefully and take them to their logical conclusions. I should be very curious to know what results you arrive at.

Excellent questions!

I'll have to take some time to try to formulate answers that are clearer than my usual drivel.

In question #1, are you looking for a clear distinction between why there is something and how there is something? Or is the question more along the lines of: "Why/how is there something?

In question #2, you say "they appear to be completely separate things" Do you mean that the three states or phenomena mentioned (1 consciousness, 2 self awareness, and 3. reason) appear separate from one another, or that the three taken together seem separate from instinct?

I think I am clear on what you are asking in Q3.

I'll come back with some thoughts, and will be untested in getting your thoughts, too.

... in 19 words or less...

jk... chris

Hmm, you seem to have missed the repeated statements through the entire posst by numerous others that science can not actually prove anything, scientific experimentation can disprove the theories they test, but you can never prove anything in using the scientitific method. Al you do is achieve a level of acceptability based on the rational argument of the theory, the test of the logic, and the fact that a number of well adapted and performed repeatable experiments could not disporve the theory though they were designed to test the theory specifically.

Hmm, you seem to have missed the repeated statements through the entire posst by numerous others that science can not actually prove anything,

I didn't miss them; I don't fully agree with them, in other than the strictly technical sense.

Al you do is achieve a level of acceptability

Sure. But that level of acceptibility (which we could call a confidence level) at some point is high enough that we can say that something has been proved. We can reasonably say that F=MA has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether we say we have 99.99999999999% confidence level or 99.9999999999% is of no meaningful consequence. When a physics student asks if F=MA is true, there is no need to couch your answer like this: "Well, it has never been proven to be true."

Blink asked: Can science prove that God exists or does not exist?

It can't do either Blink because Science is limited to observing phenomena.

With no obvious cause and effect relationship as a starting point, there is nothing by which to give the research direction and no data with which to define a theory

A second reason is that any theory, in order to be valid must be able to consistently predict future behavior. How does one do any of that with something that has no directly observable phenomenon?

As for Perpetual Motion: In Thermodynamics there are reversible and non reversible states. Carnot's Dream only exists in a state which cannot be created, at least not in a Reality where non reversible states dominate the card game. It would need to be 100% efficient.

Assuming that were possible, the instant you draw off energy to work elsewhere. it ceases to be adiabatic environment and the "machine" grinds to stop, sooner or later.

I'm bowing out of this dialogue. Other responsibilities call and I think the discussions have pretty much addressed the initial question.

It was stimulating. Thanks

Laughing Jaguar

Blink asked: Can science prove that God exists or does not exist?

Actually, I didn't ask; I was quoting.

I've enjoyed your input. I might hang around a little longer (until they start noisily putting the chairs up on the tables), because I like DrMoose's questions.