Great read. http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
The title should read "dumb ass creationist are on the ropes". Not everyone who believes in God is a creationist. Some of us believe God created the building blocks for the universe and evolution.
Nothing wrong with a flexible worldview. A rigid worldview constrains alternative considerations or at least slows the acceptance of revelations. The scientific dogma regarding the standard model is a prime example.
Could you expand on that last sentence? To me, the scientific world view is the most flexible, as it changes when new evidence is presented. I don't see much of this in any other world view, and in the religious ones, things aren't supposed to change because the word of God is final, and the religious text will tell you how things are. Am I wrong?
No, you're not.. but it is a common theme of those who hold on to spiritual dogmas to project themselves onto others and say that it is scientific dogma. There is no dogma in science.. only in scientists. Unlike religion, where there is actually dogma in the teachings.
I'm a computer scientist myself, and I've been to a few conferences now. It's a beautiful exchange of information to be part of, though at times the human element of pride can halt progress. At times someone will present a counter to someone's theory, and the originator will stubbornly put himself in a smaller and smaller box to keep the theory alive, very much like I've seen religious people do to talk themselves out of the many logical faults of their beliefs. At dangerous times, a lot of scientists with big egos band together to defend a theory they have thrown their weight behind for a long time. The general trend, however, is that these get ridiculed in the long run once the evidence piles up.
Yeah, scientists can be stubborn.. they are only people after all. No one wants to be wrong, that's where the rigidity of individual scientists comes in. They will fight and fight and fight to be right, and that's a good thing. That's the whole point, to falsify something.. and it works out good for science cause no matter your idea, there will be an idea to counter it and the one with the evidence comes out on top. That's why science is flexible.. and people with metaphysical beliefs (usually the ones who go on about scientific dogma) seem to ignore the fact that they can bring their idea into the scientific method. Science studies it all if you want.. aliens, the afterlife, God.. nothing is stopping anyone from presenting their theory aside from the fear that their belief will be shown to be wrong. For me, I rather enjoy being wrong. People think that that is weird.. but I'm not an emotional person. For the spiritual people, I'm lacking a lot of "ego". So being wrong doesn't phase me.. cause every time I am wrong, that just means I've learned something.
Yes, and while I agree with most of this post (some things can't be proven or disproven (yet)), I'd still like to hear from the person I asked explain himself rather than take your assumption of what he meant. With respect, of course.
Of course.. lol, was just jumping in with an observation I've made over time. Usually those who hold on to metaphysical/spiritual dogmas are the ones you see trying to go on about the dogmas in science. Might not be the case with this one, but I feel it is.
As stated, I agree with your post and thought it was well stated! I hope it didn't seem uncouth to say I wanted to hear from the other blade too, because I've read several of his posts and I don't think the way I read it was the way he meant it.
Like I said, not an emotional person. You wanting to hear from the one who made the statement isn't going to rub me the wrong way.. and only Thor really knows what is going through Thor's head and I don't want to steal his thunder, but I'd wager that it mainly relates to the "dogma" of the big bang theory. Circling back to when you said there are things that can't be proven or disproved.. that is true, but that doesn't mean you can't try. Forget where I saw it, but they listed a bunch of random things that people have tried to scientifically prove. It might be a metaphysical concept that can't be falsified, but science won't exclude it. All you need to do is convince enough people for the funding you need and go at it. With the way people are, you'd be able to raise the funds you need to test your idea if you put some actual effort into it.
(nice) And yes, I do agree. Working in the heart of science as I do at a university, I'm definitely an optimist when it comes to human potential for discovering the secrets of the universe. We've done amazing, mind-boggling work so far, and even if a negative, dogmatic view of science was right, even if scientists are cunts who want to be right, we still have to drop to our knees and worship at the altar of the scientific method. It's the best way to discover truth.
Not ragging on anyone, but you see a lot of internal projection on here if you pay attention enough. People that go round saying everyone is closed minded, they're typically the one being closed minded. People that blaim others for playing semantics and dropping fallacies.. are typically the ones guilty. It's usually true in most cases I see.. including this dogma. I can see why, someone has a metaphysical belief.. and in order for science and reason to take it seriously, there needs to be some sort of physical evidence or at least a way to secure it. You won't ever have that with a metaphysical belief.. cause if you did, it'd end up being a physical belief anyway. Since they can't get people who require proof to buy into their belief, they assume they are dogmatic with science.. when it is rarely the case. Even if they were, the cool thing about science is it changes when new, legit knowledge and evidence is presented. So even if they are dogmatic with science, at least it is able to change whereas a metaphysical belief doesn't have to change if the believer doesn't want it to.
Well, then, I'll point you to the first post in which I qouted you in this thread, and the question I posed there.