I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
I'm not Astyanax, but I do have a question

Why would you insist science be 100% accurate (ever - especially weird point you're trying so hard to make since science itself factors in fallibility - unlike magic) when you're only relying on your own intuition, and a need to prove - what?

I insist science always produces strong evidence before establishing something as scientific fact (a claim endorsed by scientists themselves in the past and to this very day). I don't know if you are aware with my posts in other topics like philosophy ones where I give detailed reasons as to why I believe 100% accurate knowledge is not even possible to establish. Therefore, no I am NOT insisting or demanding 100% accuracy from science, I am "demanding" strong evidence for every scientific fact that exists, which IS a reasonable request.

Can you even make your argument without intuition? Or, without admitting you're fallible?

OK, you obviously don't know much about me in regards to my philosophical beliefs or views in most other topics. I do recall us debating on Social Issues in the past, but not much else aside from that. To be brief: what you just asked me is not something I advocate.

What does your intuition tell you is happening on Europa right now? How is that more accurate than a conclusion based on actual information?

I don't even know if the "intuition" is a real construct. I was using it in my previous interactions with the other member so he would know what I was referring to when I brought it up. I am presently divided on whether intuition is a real construct myself.

Are there assumptions I can make about Europa with the knowledge I currently possess about it? YES, and here they are: it is VERY far away from the planet I am living on. It is closer to the planet Jupiter than it is to Earth. It is probably far colder in terms of climate than Earth. We need technology to confirm any belief about it that cannot be derived aside from viewing it in the sky when outside (which I believe is NOT possible with the naked eye as far as I am aware). Essentially, ANY confirmation of ANY belief about Europa has been CONFIRMED through the use of technology.

This may be your best chess game ever, but all I see is you trying to say science makes mistakes. Duh

That is not what I am saying or implying. I HAVE had that view in the past, but that is NOT my current view at all.

What's the alternative - remote viewing? :-)

Haha, good one.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

That is not what I am saying or implying. I HAVE had that view in the past, but that is NOT my current view at all.

My mistake then

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and was just wondering if you were ever going to cut to the chase

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I did just before you posted your previous reply (My last reply to Astyanax).

I am hoping Astyanax gets to see it soon, because I cannot find a better way at present to express the issue I see.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

If SF1 is true and SF2 is true, how can UF1 = SF3?

You could have just asked: if people and instruments can’t always be relied upon, how can we know anything for certain?

The answer is threefold.

1. Instruments and people can be relied upon most of (in fact, nearly all) the time.

2. The inquiry is repeated numerous times, with known sources of error controlled for, and the results compared.

3. Still, we can’t ever be certain. But we can be sure enough to treat the conclusion as certain.

Before you tell me that observations made by spacecraft can’t be repeated, let me assure you that they can and are. Moreover, we knew there was water ice on Europa long before we sent any probes there.

And now, Mr Ghost, you have had a very generous share of my (fairly expensive, as it happens) consultancy time for nothing. As far as I am concerned, your questions have been answered and your concerns sufficiently dealt with. Our conversation ends here. Salut!

originally posted by: Astyanax
You could have just asked: if people and instruments can’t always be relied upon, how can we know anything for certain?

That also would fail to explain the issue I raised. At this stage, it almost seems like you are trying hard not to understand what I am referring to. It also seems like a misrepresentation of the argument (intentional? I'm not sure...) I have been trying to express in a way that you felt "comfortable" to digest.

The answer is threefold.

1. Instruments and people can be relied upon most of (in fact, nearly all) the time.

No, that is incorrect.

Firstly, the difference in the margin of error between the most decorated/intelligent scientists of all time and the most expensive and advanced instruments is not negligible. What percentage of calculators can near-instantly and accurately give you an answer to the mathematical expression of "9 to the power of 9"? Compare that with the percentage of how many humans can do that, not only in terms of speed, but also in terms of accuracy. Also note, instruments consume far fewer resources/energy to achieve the same goal.

Secondly, instruments can function for a significantly longer duration than 99.99% of humans can function without the need to rest or sleep. People cannot even function at 100% if every other extraneous variable (aside from the need to rest variable mentioned before) were magically removed in order to achieve a goal.

Thirdly, technology continues to advance as supporting technology gets better. People do not advance or improve at a near-comparable rate, even if the majority of other people have advanced or improved. Has the percentage of people with an IQ over 180 increased over time at a rate comparable with technology's improvement over time? Have people been able to increase their ability to be more accurate in their observations and measurements without the aid of technology to assist them?

2. The inquiry is repeated numerous times, with known sources of error controlled for, and the results compared.

The key word there is of course known sources of error. How can you be certain there were not other variables (extraneous ones) that have not been accounted for? If you repeat a experiment that seemed 100% accurate 50 times in a row, is it still possible different variables you didn't consider before could interfere on the 51st time? Moreover, what if the period of time between each attempt was greater than 1 minute? Are you certain to get the exact same result 1000 years later, even if you use the exact same tools and method as you did 1000 years earlier? If so, how about we compare the quality of strength of the Ozone layer 1000 years ago and compare it today using the same tools and method in both scenarios?

3. Still, we can’t ever be certain. But we can be sure enough to treat the conclusion as certain.

That is a contradiction. If you cannot be certain at all, then how can you be certain about the conclusion you have decided to afford this special "treatment" to?

Before you tell me that observations made by spacecraft can’t be repeated, let me assure you that they can and are. Moreover, we knew there was water ice on Europa long before we sent any probes there.

I didn't even think of that irrelevant argument. Everything I have expressed above strongly challenges the explanations you just provided.

And now, Mr Ghost, you have had a very generous share of my (fairly expensive, as it happens) consultancy time for nothing. As far as I am concerned, your questions have been answered and your concerns sufficiently dealt with. Our conversation ends here. Salut!

Is that a gentle way of saying: "I just made some awful arguments and don't want to have to face the consequences when you get back to see them, so I'll pretend I'm busy and split before I have to." ?

Since you are in a worse position now compared to when the conversation first began, I suppose it's only natural you would feel compelled to depart. I would too if I were in your current position.

I guess empathy is a beautiful thing after all?

* * * * * *

I have successfully demonstrated that Science is no more reliable about the things we currently CANNOT know than is Religious belief. It might be a better method of understanding things we CAN know, but what if a superior method is discovered next year? Science would THEN be relegated to the status we currently reserve for religious belief.

Furthermore, the concept of falsifiability that Science claims is integral to its methods cannot even be verified using the scientific method itself! I guess we can both blame Karl Popper for making the "falsifiability=science and non-science=everything else" myth an established fact.

When scientists hear anything they don't properly understand, or do hear and comprehend but suspect it would lead them into dangerous territory, it just becomes "pseudoscience". Looks like pseudosciece is the new Islamophobia!

Maybe Science and Religion — fear of non-science vs. fear of non-religion, which both tend to become irrational when they are pressed far enough — aren't so different after all...

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I have successfully demonstrated that Science is no more reliable about the things we currently CANNOT know than is Religious belief.

No you haven't

Not only that, you didn't feel that you could have this discussion and be honest about it

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
No you haven't

I know the member you are defending happens to be Asian and I am white, so you probably do have a strong desire to try and get me worked up and self-doubtful...but still, at least try to make it less obvious next time.

Not only that, you didn't feel that you could have this discussion and be honest about it

Right...do you want me to ask you a question in response to that statement...?

a reply to: Dark Ghost


This kind of thing is just insufferable - and dishonest. The self doubt part is not my mission - that's on you. Funny that when you get called on something you still can't own up to it

I love these kinds of discussions. I love reading everyone's thinking, their ideas, how they arrive at their conclusions, why they feel the way they do. We all see things differently. There aren't enough of these threads anymore here at ATS

We (sometimes) get to the inevitable and realize that certain posters don't have the guts to just argue their point honestly. And frankly, if you can't, then no matter how much philosophy you want to throw out to try and obfuscate your real point - it's still obvious

Right...do you want me to ask you a question in response to that statement...?

Not really. I wouldn't have minded earlier on - but now it's no fun :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's the bittersweet experience of participating in an online forum: when people hear the stuff they want to hear and they are already your friend, they will support your views even when your views are irrational. If they hear stuff they don't want to hear and already have a reason to dislike you, they will support even those making an irrational against the person they dislike just to spite you, try to harm you and cause you to do something stupid, to inflate their own egos.

To make it even more confusing, words on your screen might be received in a manner contrary to how you intended to present them when they were typed.

Does the above relate in any way to anybody's behaviour in this thread? Of course it does. Clearly all the above negative displays of behaviour can be attributed to me, and all the regular stuff relates to you and all other members participating in this thread.

Come to think of it, I do take part in this type of behaviour in all other threads I participate in. Yep, there is no escaping it now: I am to blame. I am the one being dishonest. I am the one afraid to admit I am wrong. I am the one who needs to change, to open my mind and realise that no I am not always right and actually have no clue about anything.

Thanks for the lesson,
I think it's time for me to leave.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Churlish, perhaps, for me to withdraw without thanking you for a stimulating conversation. When it began, I didn't know how it was known that there is liquid water on Europa. Your question moved me to go and find out. It turned out to be a fascinating story, and I now know quite a few things I didn't know before. Thank you for that.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

That's the bittersweet experience of participating in an online forum: when people hear the stuff they want to hear and they are already your friend, they will support your views even when your views are irrational. If they hear stuff they don't want to hear and already have a reason to dislike you,

Just so you know – I often really like people I disagree with

I also like arguing with them. A lot

And I’ve been accused of obfuscation a few times my own self

:-)

a reply to: droid56

A 'big bang' could very easily be explained by simulation theory or a reality based on information and consciousness. It's really the easiest and most logical theory out there.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Churlish, perhaps, for me to withdraw without thanking you for a stimulating conversation. When it began, I didn't know how it was known that there is liquid water on Europa. Your question moved me to go and find out. It turned out to be a fascinating story, and I now know quite a few things I didn't know before. Thank you for that.

You are welcome. As an act of courtesy for my generous act, would you be willing to read over your post above and then compare it with the one that sparked our initial interaction with each other in this thread? You (and your fellow SJW, Spiramirabilis,) might notice something a little embarrassing. (She might even feel bad herself for starring your above post, thinking it was only her that was aware.)

If not, then hey, thank you for opening my eyes as well: people that refuse to admit they could be wrong will never admit they are wrong...even when their sense of pride is the only thing that prevents them from doing so.

They do say "too much pride can kill a man", but since I have witnessed somebody embracing their pride to excessive levels and not die, doing it on more than one occasion, I truly believe that is merely a scientifically-propagated myth.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Just so you know – I often really like people I disagree with

Something tells me it's not people disagreeing with you that makes you dislike them, it's people disagreeing with you on issues you consider important that makes you dislike them. Maybe that's just my intuition?

I also like arguing with them. A lot

I bet you do it to learn and empathise with their perspective too. I couldn't see a hater of hate refusing to listen to somebody that hates...or is accused of hating...or has ideas that you consider hateful to be fun to engage with.

And I’ve been accused of obfuscation a few times my own self
Well, whoever did say it has just convinced me! I wonder why that would happen a few times? Not once, not twice, not thrice, but a few times. Hmm, makes you wonder, doesn't it.

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
a reply to: droid56

A 'big bang' could very easily be explained by simulation theory or a reality based on information and consciousness. It's really the easiest and most logical theory out there.

So god creating a universe on his macbook is the most logical explanation in your opinion? Yes i think god would be a mac guy since i see all the stuff of microsoft being owned by the devil. Seriously the requirements of any simulation to be able to use all the information in the universe would be impossible. Every single thing in the universe would need to be represented in some sort of computer language. Meaning it would require photons or electrons to represent it. And to do that you would need more particles to make the machine then exists in our universe.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Something tells me it's not people disagreeing with you that makes you dislike them, it's people disagreeing with you on issues you consider important that makes you dislike them. Maybe that's just my intuition?

What I said I said for a reason Dark Ghost. I read your posts here at ATS all the time

It's interesting that you assume so much and then state things as being fact based on those assumptions. Could it be that your intuition is wrong? Or, are your assumptions only a matter of ego? :-)

I'm willing to go anywhere you want to go. It's up to you

It's also interesting that you can't quite bring yourself to say out loud what it is you want to say - but then claim you've proven something you obviously haven't proven. Is that a need worth exploring?

From an earlier post of yours:

I am not saying there is a problem with using technology. I am saying there is a problem with using technology to deliver reliable information when NO technology on Earth is 100% reliable and certainly not old 1979 technology that was over 300 million miles away at the time it was in the best position to deliver those results. Yes, it is POSSIBLE...but the odds of it being possible are comparable with a belief such as "There is strong evidence that God exists". Which makes me question whether science is ALWAYS as reliable as many in here claim it is.

Since nobody in this thread or outside in the real world (that I'm aware of) has ever made the claim that science is infallible, I'm wondering what your reason is for trying to prove (prove: LOL) that science isn't reliable. Reliable...

If it weren't as reliable as people claim - what would be the problem with that?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Since nobody in this thread or outside in the real world (that I'm aware of) has ever made the claim that science is infallible, I'm wondering what your reason is for trying to prove (prove: LOL) that science isn't reliable. Reliable...

If it weren't as reliable as people claim - what would be the problem with that?

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. What is it you have a suspicion about me that you are scared to communicate?

If Science is only reliable on things we can know, why classify it as more reliable than say religious belief in regard to things we cannot know?

Are you aware that when Astyanax said to me i his last reply: "When it began, I didn't know how it was known that there is liquid water on Europa."

Does that seriously not ring alarm bells off in your head, if you did indeed read through the whole thread?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Scared to communicate? :-)

I've been asking you all along what it is you're trying to say. But, this will do:

If Science is only reliable on things we can know, why classify it as more reliable than say religious belief in regard to things we cannot know?

See? There we go. And I love this sort of thing

So, if science is only reliable on things we can know (you're willing to grant as much) then how did we come to know the things science can reliably know?

Does that seriously not ring alarm bells off in your head, if you did indeed read through the whole thread?

Why would it?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Dark Ghost
...then how did we come to know the things science can reliably know?

Most of what became known as "modern science" (Latin: "scientia", English: knowledge, which means a familiarity wth facts/certainties/truths/realities) was discovered by this guy (his methodology to discover new facts/certainties/truths/realities was also later referred to as "modern science"):
Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

a reply to: whereislogic

Thank you whereislogic, I do appreciate that

But, I was sorta asking a different kind of question