Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

1…5681011…13

Comments

  • #212
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I didn't know Feynman was a philosopher as well as a physicist.
    Feynman wasn't a philsopher. He was, however, a smart guy who happened to understand the distinction between something and the meaning of something.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Why Feynman insisted on answering the guy philosophically I don't know.
    For the reason that everybody has been pointing out to you repeatedly -- the interviewer asked a confused question that implied that he may have been trying to ask one question, while actually asking another.

    Feynman politely answered the "how" question and the "why" question, and clarified why there is a distinction between the two.


  • #213
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robindch wrote: »
    as opposed to popularity-based truth, such as those of religions

    Ah, now! Let's be reasonable here, robin. People behave like this, not just religions. I remember even the self-styled freethinkers over at RD.net, the bastion of rationalism, were up to some funny business with regards to responding to critiques of TGD. It came to the point were a specific member was appointed to review a given book so as to tell the other freethinkers how awful it was. The echo from all the self-congratulatory back-slapping was deafening. Much could be said about the irony of this; but it seems enough to suggest that it is a good example of popularity-based "truth" in action.


  • #214
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Feynman wasn't a philsopher. He was, however, a smart guy who happened to understand the distinction between something and the meaning of something.

    So do you admit then that it would be OK for us to take John Barrow's (being an expert in the field and all) assessment of the universe - when there was no universe - as a valid assessment of the facts as we know them even today?


  • #215
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    People behave like this, not just religions.
    Er, yes -- that's what cultural evolution is all about. Religion's a great example, but there are plenty of others.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    [...] a specific member was appointed to review a given book so as to tell the other freethinkers how awful it was. The echo from all the self-congratulatory back-slapping was deafening.
    Sounds frightful. Do you have a link? Though I wouldn't be surprised to hear that people who spend time on a website run by Dawkins might happen to have fairly similar opinions about a book criticizing RD. Particularly if it was any of the "flea" books that came out in the wake of TGD, every one of which criticized some other book written by some RD analog in some parallel universe, rather than seriously attempting to rebut any of the points that RD made.

    You should, of course, consider also the possibility that whatever the reviewer wrote was entertaining and accurate, in which case, it's hardly inappropriate that folks congratulate him :)
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    So do you admit then that it would be OK for us to take John Barrow's (being an expert in the field and all) assessment of the universe - when there was no universe - as a valid assessment of the facts as we know them even today?
    I'm not quite sure why you're getting all hung up on whether or not Feynman was a philosopher. As I mentioned above, you don't need to be a philosopher to understand (a) English, and (b) that there's a difference between "something" and "the meaning of something". Feynman was, as I've also said before, smart enough to understand the difference, and sympathetic enough to see that the interviewer didn't.

    I've no idea who John Barrow is, but his wiki page claims that he's an enthusiastic supporter of the anthropic principle, that he has creationist sympathies and that he's won the Templeton prize. From those, I infer that his religious beliefs are more important to him than scientific facts, so no, it's unlikely I'd accept his "assessment" of anything where the two clash, regardless of how many conventional baubles he's acquired during his career.


  • #216
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    I've no idea who John Barrow is, but his wiki page claims that he's an enthusiastic supporter of the anthropic principle, that he has creationist sympathies and that he's won the Templeton prize. From those, I infer that his religious beliefs are more important to him than scientific facts, so no, it's unlikely I'd accept his "assessment" of anything where the two clash, regardless of how many conventional baubles he's acquired during his career.

    Which is basically another way of saying that you'd only respect his assessment if he was an atheist. I get ya now, thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I quoted a guy who actually specializes in the subject he was talking about but because it was 25 or whatever years ago it seemingly doesn't hold true today for some reason even though Hawking et al still submit to it in principle (although they try to define it as something first), and yet when Feynman speaks (even though if it is in a area that is not his field) we should all sit up and take notice. :confused:

    Feynman's video was in reference to a general statement about 'why' questions. Your quotation of Barrow was in support of the claim that scientific big bang model supports the assertion that the universe had a beginning. It would be akin to me quoting the well out of date Feynman's lectures of physics explanation of the Standard Model and saying "This is the standard model of physics today and what it means". Or, perhaps more scathingly if I was quote to Feynman's opinion of sociology. Or Albert Einsteins explanation of Quantum Mechanics. Science moves on, heck in some fields today a paper a year old is already out of date and almost irrelevant!


  • #218
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Feynman's video was in reference to a general statement about 'why' questions. Your quotation of Barrow was in support of the claim that scientific big bang model supports the assertion that the universe had a beginning.

    The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. That means that it has not been falsified yet, which means what Barrow said about it 25 years ago still stands today, heck even Stephen Hawking holds to it even though he and others try to get around the idea coming up with speculative alternatives to it but none of these theories are as prevalent as the standard Big Bang model still is. So on the whole I'm on safe ground quoting Barrow in relation to this area of science.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    It would be akin to me quoting the well out of date Feynman's lectures of physics explanation of the Standard Model and saying "This is the standard model of physics today and what it means".

    Like Hawking this is John Barrow's area of expertise not Feynman's, so no it would not be akin to quoting what Feynman says about it.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Or, perhaps more scathingly if I was quote to Feynman's opinion of sociology. Or Albert Einsteins explanation of Quantum Mechanics. Science moves on, heck in some fields today a paper a year old is already out of date and almost irrelevant!

    Again this is just wrong. It would not be the same thing at all. What you should have said was this:

    Or, perhaps more scathingly if I was quote to Feynman's opinion of physics. Or Albert Einsteins explanation of physics. Science moves on, heck in some fields today a paper a year old is already out of date and almost irrelevant!

    Which wouldn't be scathing at all. And yes science changes everyday but until someone actually falsifies the standard big bang model like finding evidence for a steady state model or something then to quote Barrow when he talks about what a singularity is is perfectly OK because that theory hasn't changed that much.


  • #219
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. That means that it has not been falsified yet, which means what Barrow said about it 25 years ago still stands today, heck even Stephen Hawking holds to it even though he and others try to get around the idea coming up with speculative alternatives to it but none of these theories are as prevalent as the standard Big Bang model still is. So on the whole I'm on safe ground quoting Barrow in relation to this area of science.

    No, you're not on any kind of safe ground.

    First of all, it has been explained to you that using a 25-year old quote from one scientist, expert or otherwise is a quote-mined appeal to authority.

    Secondly, Barrow has himself reconsidered his opinion and rejected the quote which WLC uses to bolster his arguments. In his book, The Book of Nothing written in 2000, Barrrow states:
    The interesting thing about the singularity that is predicted by [the Hawking-Penrose] theorems is that there is no explanation as to why it occurs. It marks the edge of the Universe in time. There is no before; no reason why the histories begin; no cause of the universe. It is a description of a true creation out of nothing.
    However, it is important to realise that they are mathematical theorems not cosmological theories. The conclusions follow by logical deduction from the assumptions. What are those assumptions and should we believe them? Unfortunately, the two central assumptions are now not regarded as likely to hold good. We expect Einstein’s equations of general relativity to be superseded by an improved theory that successfully includes the quantum effects of gravitation. … It is widely expected that this new improved theory will not contain the singular histories that charicterised Einstein’s theory, but until we have the new theory we cannot be sure.
    There is a more straightforward objection to the deduction of a beginning using the theorems of Penrose and Hawking. The assumption is that gravity is always an attractive force. When the theorems were first proved this was regarded as an extremely sound assumption and there was no particular reason to doubt it. But things have changed.

    He goes on to conclude:
    Thus the old conclusions of the singularity theorems are no longer regarded by cosmologists as likely to be of relevance to our Universe.

    He has himself, therefore, made redundant any attempt by WLC to bolster his claims by appeals to the opinion of experts.


  • #220
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. That means that it has not been falsified yet, which means what Barrow said about it 25 years ago still stands today, heck even Stephen Hawking holds to it even though he and others try to get around the idea coming up with speculative alternatives to it but none of these theories are as prevalent as the standard Big Bang model still is. So on the whole I'm on safe ground quoting Barrow in relation to this area of science.
    .

    Do you really believe the theory proposed by LeMaitre is the Big Bang model cosmologists use today? Of course it isn't! What Barrow said 25 years ago is well out of date with the modern consensus. You'd have to email Barrow himself to see if he stands by that assertion. Just because a theory hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it hasn't been modified.
    Like Hawking this is John Barrow's area of expertise not Feynman's, so no it would not be akin to quoting what Feynman says about it.
    It is exactly akin to quoting what Feynman said.Feynamn wrote three huge volumes of lectures on physics and in one them (think it was the first one) he described in very good detail a very accurate picture of the standard model of particle physics at that time [1960s]. Of course that standard model isn't an accurate representation of the current one used by particle physicists today. No physicists in the their right mind would dare quote Feynman's description of it though.


  • #221
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I didn't know Feynman was a philosopher as well as a physicist. He was asked the question as a physicist right? Was the interviewer expecting a philosophic answer or a scientific answer? I think the latter. Why Feynman insisted on answering the guy philosophically I don't know. I think Feynman maybe thought that the guy was trying to catch him out and decided to venture down the philosophical route in an attempt to out smart the guy. Anyway if we are allowed to adhere to something that someone said even though it was outside of their field of expertise 20 plus years ago then why can I not adhere to what John Barrow said as quoted in an earlier post?

    There is no "philosophically vs. scientifically". He was asked why/how magnets repel. Feynman explained that it was the same force that pushes the chair against your hand, only over a longer distance. And that it cannot be described in terms of anything the interviewer is more familiar with. It was a thorough and appropriate response, and I don't see why you would raise any objection over it.

    I quoted a guy who actually specializes in the subject he was talking about but because it was 25 or whatever years ago it seemingly doesn't hold true today for some reason even though Hawking et al still submit to it in principle (although they try to define it as something first), and yet when Feynman speaks (even though if it is in a area that is not his field) we should all sit up and take notice. :confused:

    You are over-complicating the issue. It is simply the case that the big bang theory cannot describe the very early universe, because it does not incorporate quantum mechanics. This is not disputed by scientists. The beginning of the universe from absolute nothing is not established even theoretically, let alone empirically. Hawking is guilty of labelling quantum nothingness as "nothing", but considering his definition of "nothing" is "no matter, energy, space or time", it's forgiveable.

    I cannot stress enough that the big bang theory does not describe the early universe. From the wikipedia article:

    "there is no well-supported model describing the action prior to 10^−15 seconds or so. Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed to break this barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics."

    Even the scientist you quoted, as oldrnwisr has pointed out, does not believe the big bang describes the beginning of the universe*. Hawking's preliminary work gives us a glimpse of what a quantum-mechanical description might look like. Penrose postulates that the big bang is due to our conformal scale. Others propose models based on string theory or loop quantum gravity. It is this which is relevant to our understanding of the universe. What is irrelevant is metaphysical arguments which use misunderstandings as their premises.

    *"Thus the old conclusions of the singularity theorems are no longer regarded by cosmologists as likely to be of relevance to our Universe." -- Barrow


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Which is basically another way of saying that you'd only respect his assessment if he was an atheist.
    You should try to read and understand what I write, rather than mischaracterzing it so that it meets your emotional needs.

    It's utterly immaterial to me whether or not JB (or WC) asserts the existence of one or more access-all-levels deity characters with which he thinks he can mop up the universe's loose ends.

    It is vitally important to me, however, that some commentator is honest and he is able to think. As a recipient of large amounts of Templeton cash, he's unlikely to be the former. As a creationist sympathizer, he's almost certainly can't manage the latter.

    This is really quite simple stuff.


  • #223
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    You should try to read and understand what I write, rather than mischaracterzing it so that it meets your emotional needs.

    It's utterly immaterial to me whether or not JB (or WC) asserts the existence of one or more access-all-levels deity characters with which he thinks he can mop up the universe's loose ends.

    It is vitally important to me, however, that some commentator is honest and he is able to think. As a recipient of large amounts of Templeton cash, he's unlikely to be the former. As a creationist sympathizer, he's almost certainly can't manage the latter.

    This is really quite simple stuff.

    Yes, everything must be very simple when you view the world in such an astonishingly one-eyed way.

    If someone doesn't agree with Robin about evolution and Creation then, by definition, they can't think. Therefore there's no need to address anything they say and you can snootily dismiss them.

    If everybody took that approach then we would have precious little to talk about on boards.ie - other than slapping other people on the back when they say something that matches our opinions, thus proving that they are able to think.

    Thankfully there are still those in the world who are prepared to engage with people who hold differing views, and whose opinion of themselves is slightly more humble in that they recognise that those who disagree with them may still be highly intelligent and (perish the thought!) might still have something worthwhile to contribute to a discussion.


  • #224
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, everything must be very simple when you view the world in such an astonishingly one-eyed way.

    I'm conscious that I'm writing on the Christianity board here, so I'll try not to tread on any toes - but it seems to me there is only one way to analyse the material universe: science.

    The same science that brought you the semiconductor and the internet (not mentioned in the Bible). The same science that brought you radar and helicopters (not mentioned in the Bible). The same science that brought you heart transplants and laser eye surgery (again, oddly, not mentioned in the Bible).

    To accept that science can drag us from the dark ages to where we are today and where we will be in the future, and still pretend that the Bible is a scientific document that speaks to us about materialist issues in the face of everything we have learned from a proven method of discovering the truth of how the material world works...it's just a failure of thought. It's pure doublethink.

    And of course it has to go hand in hand with pretending all the other materialist claims in the Bible are 'poetic language' or whatever. Only where it is utterly cornered will religion concede that it is wrong in a point of fact, and then claim that what it had stated as fact was never really a fact, it was something else.

    Religion has no more place (unsuccessfully) dictating scientific truths about the material universe than science has in telling us how to approach God.


  • #225
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    If someone doesn't agree with Robin about evolution and Creation then, by definition, they can't think.
    Now, now, ninth commandment and all that, PDN! :)

    I did say that somebody who has creationist sympathies, as Barrow appears to, is unlikely to be able to think. I should, of course, have added the words "in a scientific manner"(*) since that's the point that I had made in the post to which SW was replying, a post which was misinterpreted rather badly.

    (*) An omission which may be related to the amount of liquid cheerfulness I'd imbibed earlier in the evening.


  • #226
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Now, now, ninth commandment and all that, PDN! :)

    No, I wasn't accusing you of bearing false witness against anyone, I was pointing out the seeming arrogance of your post. However, if it was yet another case of alcohol fuelled drive-by posting then we're well used to that.


  • #227
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, everything must be very simple when you view the world in such an astonishingly one-eyed way.

    If someone doesn't agree with Robin about evolution and Creation then, by definition, they can't think. Therefore there's no need to address anything they say and you can snootily dismiss them.

    If everybody took that approach then we would have precious little to talk about on boards.ie - other than slapping other people on the back when they say something that matches our opinions, thus proving that they are able to think.

    Thankfully there are still those in the world who are prepared to engage with people who hold differing views, and whose opinion of themselves is slightly more humble in that they recognise that those who disagree with them may still be highly intelligent and (perish the thought!) might still have something worthwhile to contribute to a discussion.

    Are you a creationist too? You do realise ID and creationis are the benchmarks for stupidity and scientific ignorance right?
    What the hell is going on in here?


  • #228
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Are you a creationist too? You do realise ID and creationis are the benchmarks for stupidity and scientific ignorance right?
    What the hell is going on in here?

    No, I recognise that some proponents of ID and Creationism are highly intelligent and are trained scientists. But the likes of you and Robin seem determined to give the impression that atheism is a benchmark for intolerance.

    What the hell is going on in here is that I am recognising that intelligent and educated people can hold different opinions - even ones that I strongly disagree with. You should try it sometimes - it is actually much preferable to bigoted name-calling.


  • #229
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    PDN wrote: »
    What the hell is going on in here is that I am recognising that intelligent and educated people can hold different opinions - even ones that I strongly disagree with. You should try it sometimes - it is actually much preferable to bigoted name-calling.
    The problem is that evolution or physics are not matters of opinion, they are matters of fact.

    If creationism and ID are reasonable propositions in the slightest, can anybody cite an example of a non-religious scientist who supports them? :confused:

    Or do beliefs in these anti-scientific positions correlate exactly with religious convictions, in which case we would justifiably ask whether religious beliefs can interfere with scientific thought in some individuals?

    And I would also enquire as to how seriously you would take the creation myths of other religions. The only reason there is any 'scientific' weight behind Christian 'science' is because of the overlap between the huge number of scientists in the US and the huge number of fundamentalist Christians in the same country. If the Americans were mostly culturally Chinese, we'd hear nothing about ID or Noah's flood or creation in 7 days - instead we'd here lots of attempts to make Taoism or something seem scientifically plausible.


  • #230
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The problem is that evolution or physics are not matters of opinion, they are matters of fact.

    If creationism and ID are reasonable propositions in the slightest, can anybody cite an example of a non-religious scientist who supports them? :confused:

    Or do beliefs in these anti-scientific positions correlate exactly with religious convictions, in which case we would justifiably ask whether religious beliefs can interfere with scientific thought in some individuals?

    And I would also enquire as to how seriously you would take the creation myths of other religions. The only reason there is any 'scientific' weight behind Christian 'science' is because of the overlap between the huge number of scientists in the US and the huge number of fundamentalist Christians in the same country. If the Americans were mostly culturally Chinese, we'd hear nothing about ID or Noah's flood or creation in 7 days - instead we'd here lots of attempts to make Taoism or something seem scientifically plausible.

    We are not discussing in this thread whether ID or Creationism are true, nor are we discussing the motivation that might make people receptive (or not receptive) to them. If you wanmt to do that then feel free to go to the Creationism megathread.

    The fact is that, for whatever reason, a number of intelligent and educated people hold such beliefs. Many of them have been adjudged by universities to be well capable of critical and scientific thinking and have been awarded doctorates and tenure on that basis.

    To simply dismiss them as stupid or as incapable of thinking (even if one is too drunk or too careless to specify that one meant 'scientific thinking') is muppetry of the highest order.

    And yes, if someone believes a creation myth from a different religion I would certainly disagree with them, but I would not be so arrogant or bigoted as to claim that they are therefore incapable of thinking.


  • #231
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    PDN wrote: »
    We are not discussing in this thread whether ID or Creationism are true, nor are we discussing the motivation that might make people receptive (or not receptive) to them. If you wanmt to do that then feel free to go to the Creationism megathread.
    I'm not discussing that either - I'm discussing the possibility that religious belief can interfere with scientific thought in some people.
    PDN wrote: »
    The fact is that, for whatever reason, a number of intelligent and educated people hold such beliefs. Many of them have been adjudged by universities to be well capable of critical and scientific thinking and have been awarded doctorates and tenure on that basis.
    This is not surprising, as no doubt they adhere to real science when pursuing their PhDs. Once they are tenured, they can confuse their spiritual beliefs with science to their hearts' content. You will not find real universities awarding PhDs to people for unscientific 'research', although perhaps the many Bible colleges in the US would do so.
    PDN wrote: »
    To simply dismiss them as stupid or as incapable of thinking (even if you are too drunk or too careless to specify that you meant 'scientific thinking') is muppetry of the highest order.
    You don't have to be stupid to be mistaken or misguided. Presumably you yourself can believe that - say - Hindus are mistaken in their beliefs about religion, but acknowledge that they are not stupid?

    Similarly, our friend WLC is clearly not a stupid man, but seems to be a mistaken or misguided one.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    However, if it was yet another case of alcohol fuelled drive-by posting then we're well used to that.
    Awww, I want to give you a big wet kiss on your forehead :)
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Are you a creationist too? You do realise ID and creationism are the benchmarks for stupidity and scientific ignorance right? What the hell is going on in here?
    I'd have thought it was a bad case of intellectual relativism, the odd idea that all points of view are equally respectable and that one should therefore never call a spade a spade, lest one leaves oneself open to accusations of intolerance, or a bigoted name-calling, or both.

    .


  • #233
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm discussing the possibility that religious belief can interfere with scientific thought in some people.
    I think it was Dawkins who wrote of a chap in the UK who spent years doing good scientific work on some topic, but who ultimately rejected his own findings since they were outweighed by his need to find his own interpretation of the the bible true.


  • #234
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    We are not discussing in this thread whether ID or Creationism are true, nor are we discussing the motivation that might make people receptive (or not receptive) to them. If you wanmt to do that then feel free to go to the Creationism megathread.

    The fact is that, for whatever reason, a number of intelligent and educated people hold such beliefs. Many of them have been adjudged by universities to be well capable of critical and scientific thinking and have been awarded doctorates and tenure on that basis.

    To simply dismiss them as stupid or as incapable of thinking (even if one is too drunk or too careless to specify that one meant 'scientific thinking') is muppetry of the highest order.

    And yes, if someone believes a creation myth from a different religion I would certainly disagree with them, but I would not be so arrogant or bigoted as to claim that they are therefore incapable of thinking.

    To reject scientific consensus is the height of stupidity and irrationality, now that's not to say that the consensus will change but to hold a view going against the grain of scientific discovery is pathetic and stupid. Incapable of thinking is something entirely different, one can be stupid and still think, that's 95% of the world.


  • #235
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    robindch wrote: »
    Awww, I want to give you a big wet kiss on your forehead :)I'd have thought it was a bad case of intellectual relativism, the odd idea that all points of view are equally respectable and that one should therefore never call a spade a spade, lest one leaves oneself open to accusations of intolerance, or a bigoted name-calling, or both.

    .


    :pac: That's a riot!


  • #236
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    robindch wrote: »
    I think it was Dawkins who wrote of a chap in the UK who spent years doing good scientific work on some topic, but who ultimately rejected his own findings since they were outweighed by his need to find his own interpretation of the the bible true.


    A geologist no less. He looks like yer man from Flight of the Concords, except he's annoying and not funny.


  • #237
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    To reject scientific consensus is the height of stupidity and irrationality

    We should be grateful, I guess, that Einstein was so stupid and irrational as to reject the Newtonian consensus.
    That's a riot!
    It would be, if anyone had argued that all points of view are equally respectable. However, since no-one has argued anything remotely like that it's another drive-by pot-shot rather than a riot.


  • #238
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    To reject scientific consensus is the height of stupidity and irrationality

    We should be grateful, I guess, that Einstein was so stupid and irrational as to reject the Newtonian consensus.
    That's a riot!
    It would be, if anyone had argued that all points of view are equally respectable. However, since no-one has argued anything remotely like that it's another drive-by pot-shot rather than a riot.

    So you have something better than evolution. I'm all ears.


  • #239
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    The fact is that, for whatever reason, a number of intelligent and educated people hold such beliefs.

    Robin didn't say anything about how intelligent or educated these people are, he said they were unlikely to be thinking rationally about the subject given their acceptance of some bogus ideas.

    Given that intelligent and educated people have and continue to believe such a bogus idea the world is flat, despite all the evidence there is that it isn't, it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that being intelligent and being educated will not ensure that you think rationally about a subject less supported by evidence, particularly one surrounded by something as emotive as religious faith.

    If you think Robin is coming across as arrogant you should perhaps re-evaluate why you yourself seem to think subscribing to such bogus ideas is not justification to seriously worry about the persons ability to think rationally about the subject.

    I'm sure you would have little problem dismissing for example a person's opinion of the Bible if they hold to the idea that it was written by Constantine 300 years after Jesus' death, a particularly stupid and unsupported idea that would cause someone to wonder about the motivations or ignorance of anyone who subscribed to such an idea and then promoted it.


  • #240
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I'm not quite sure what I'm reading here. Are people here really suggesting that if you believe in one stupid idea that you're not a rational person? Well d'uh!
    Nobody is rational.
    Or is that a strawman?

    Either way, I sincerely hope what I think I'm understanding here is wrong.

    Oh and I HATE the notion that believing the world is flat is stupid or irrational. Yeah we have pictures, but really when one works out the math and just about everything else they usually get an Earth with a curvature of zero. (Well very close to it).


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Oh and I HATE the notion that believing the world is flat is stupid or irrational. Yeah we have pictures, but really when one works out the math and just about everything else they usually get an Earth with a curvature of zero. (Well very close to it).

    Would you like to elaborate on that? I'm puzzled that I can't see the Burj Khalifa when I look at the appropriate part of the horizon...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement