Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[sten_super]

I am not religious. However I dont think priests claim to be infallible !
Science itself is not 'religious' but the followers of science do seem to exert some religious behaviour.

You said this;
"It behaves like as wave or a particle depending on how you try to look at it. But as I previously stated, the action of observing sub atomic particles it sufficient to change them. Technology is such that we have not yet developed a way to 'see' sub atomic particles without interacting with them"

When you say 'technology is such that we have not yet developed a way to 'see' sub atomic particles without interating with them', you are expressing faith that science will overcome this paradox. The paradox is that consciousness/awareness affects the results of the experiment.. showing that a purely objective understanding of the world is not possible. 'Believing' that one day science will be able to overcome this is similar to religious behaviour. There is no 'proof' or 'evidence' that this will occur.

You seem to have picked up on a really weird (and, it seems to me, irrelevant) strand of argument here. We can all agree that science does not explain everything. father_and_son and others (including me) believe (yes, believe) that in the future science will be able to explain them - but that explanation will only come about as a result of a valid hypothesis and rigorous testing. To suggest that this bit of future-gazing is comparable to religion (where the whole premise, past, present and future, is based upon belief, with no evidence at any stage) is disingenuous.

 

[Dub-67]

You seem to have picked up on a really weird (and, it seems to me, irrelevant) strand of argument here. We can all agree that science does not explain everything. father_and_son and others (including me) believe (yes, believe) that in the future science will be able to explain them - but that explanation will only come about as a result of a valid hypothesis and rigorous testing. To suggest that this bit of future-gazing is comparable to religion (where the whole premise, past, present and future, is based upon belief, with no evidence at any stage) is disingenuous.

I dont think so... not disengenous anyway.. maybe stretched a little to make the point..
Some followers of Science 'believe' science will answer all these questions. Other more enlightened scientists accept it probably wont. Faith in Science IS comparable to faith in religion.

 

[sten_super]

I dont think so... not disengenous anyway.. maybe stretched a little to make the point..
Some followers of Science 'believe' science will answer all these questions. Other more enlightened scientists accept it probably wont. Faith in Science IS comparable to faith in religion.

Perhaps disingenuous is the wrong word. But the rest of your post is nonsense. Let me rephrase it for you.

Some followers of Science 'believe' science will answer all these questions. Other 'more enlightened' scientists 'believe' it probably wont.

Your belief that it won't is no more or less valid than my belief that it will. We are both hypothesising based on the available data and with no absolute knowledge.

 

[Dub-67]

Perhaps disingenuous is the wrong word. But the rest of your post is nonsense. Let me rephrase it for you.


Your belief that it won't is no more or less valid than my belief that it will. We are both hypothesising based on the available data and with no absolute knowledge.

I'm afraid your post is nonsense.
Neither me, nor more enlightened Scientists believe that science wont bridge the explanatory gap, we accept it hasnt.. simple. I am not expressing a belief that it wont, I amstating facts. Its amusing that I am being more scientific in my analysis than you, when you are defending science. I said 'accept' because I meant 'accept' you changing it to 'believe' in your post IS disingenuous..

 

[sten_super]

I'm afraid your post is nonsense.
Neither me, nor more enlightened Scientists believe that science wont bridge the explanatory gap, we accept it hasnt.. simple. I am not expressing a belief that it wont, I amstating facts. Its amusing that I am being more scientific in my analysis than you, when you are defending science. I said 'accept' because I meant 'accept' you changing it to 'believe' in your post IS disingenuous..

Sorry, I'm really struggling to follow your point. Post #183 says

Other more enlightened scientists accept it probably wont.

That is completely supposition, because it is forward-looking. If you are simply saying 'science hasn't yet answered these questions' then I would agree with you, because that makes no judgement on whether it will do so in the future; which none of us can know with certainty.

As I've said, to me it's all irrelevant anyway, it's simply arguing semantics. The current scientific theories are testable and have not yet been disproved; if they are in the future, then new theories are developed and re-tested. This is significantly at odds with the approach to religion, which says that no evidence is required, and no testing should be undertaken.

 

[beorhthelm]

Sorry, I'm really struggling to follow your point.

you're stuggling because he is presenting a strawman, presenting science as a set of values not widely held, while putting everything in the context of one philosophers view to which he is heavily subscribed.

 

[father_and_son]

In the language of Dragon's Den.... I'm out.

Based on the available data I will hypothesise that [MENTION=25505]Dub-67[/MENTION] was touched by his/her Physics teacher and so has a permanent downer on scientists and science. Being a man of science and not a man of religion, I believe this to be fact, but when presented with more compelling data I will accept a new paradigm rather than declare a holy war and burn the heretics who challenge my world view.

 

[father_and_son]

Oh... And I believe the laws of Internet discussion compel me to compare you to Hitler before seeking Porn relating to Sub Atomic particles.

 

[Dub-67]

In the language of Dragon's Den.... I'm out.

Based on the available data I will hypothesise that [MENTION=25505]Dub-67[/MENTION] was touched by his/her Physics teacher and so has a permanent downer on scientists and science. Being a man of science and not a man of religion, I believe this to be fact,

thats not a very tasteful comment really is it? Banter is fine, but alluding to sexual abuse for no reason is rather sick in my opinion.

I would suggest that you are not a 'man of science' as you so pompously state....and youre entirely wrong, I have an A level in Physics and physics is one of my favourite topics.. I actually love physics.. However I recognise the limits of science in explaining the world, and unlike you I dont have a religious 'faith' in science... Nor a faith in religion by the way, I think that religions are actually fairly poisonous, I am anti-religion, but I am not anti-science. I just find it amusing that when people like you decant the whole science vs religion thing into a bun fight, with no real deep understanding of the issues... many on here who argue the 'science' side do not realise that they are behaving in a religious manner. I find that amusing.

 

[sten_super]

I just find it amusing that when people like you decant the whole science vs religion thing into a bun fight, with no real deep understanding of the issues... many on here who argue the 'science' side do not realise that they are behaving in a religious manner. I find that amusing.

I still don't understand what you are getting at here.

Fundamentally, on a personal level, we take a lot on 'faith' or 'belief'. I don't have a detailed understanding of relativity, but I trust that it is correct when I use my sat nav. I don't have a full understanding of how a cell in my body works, but I believe that it is true because my observations make sense in the context of what little I understand. I don't know in detail how aeroplanes fly, but I'll still get in one while it propels itself across the sky and takes me to my destination. The question, I suppose, is what level of proof one demands, and how each person uses that to corroborate (or otherwise) what they observe or believe to be true.

I believe that science provides a framework for our understanding of the world in which we live - and that which I'm able to observe supports that supposition. You, seemingly, don't believe that science provides a framework for understanding of the consciousness (or, phrased differently, believe that something else provides a framework for conciousness). It's all swings and roundabouts.

Where I'd argue the difference with religion comes is that my understanding of science is reinforced by my own observations (that gravity exists/works, that my sat nav works, that my body heals, etc. etc.). I don't personally see how that 'reinforcement by observation' can apply to the vast majority of people when it comes to religion.

 

[Dub-67]

I still don't understand what you are getting at here.

Fundamentally, on a personal level, we take a lot on 'faith' or 'belief'. I don't have a detailed understanding of relativity, but I trust that it is correct when I use my sat nav. I don't have a full understanding of how a cell in my body works, but I believe that it is true because my observations make sense in the context of what little I understand. I don't know in detail how aeroplanes fly, but I'll still get in one while it propels itself across the sky and takes me to my destination. The question, I suppose, is what level of proof one demands, and how each person uses that to corroborate (or otherwise) what they observe or believe to be true.

I believe that science provides a framework for our understanding of the world in which we live - and that which I'm able to observe supports that supposition. You, seemingly, don't believe that science provides a framework for understanding of the consciousness (or, phrased differently, believe that something else provides a framework for conciousness). It's all swings and roundabouts.

Where I'd argue the difference with religion comes is that my understanding of science is reinforced by my own observations (that gravity exists/works, that my sat nav works, that my body heals, etc. etc.). I don't personally see how that 'reinforcement by observation' can apply to the vast majority of people when it comes to religion.

I'm talking about the big questions... The most fundamental questions. Science as you point out describes and understands many many physical and chemical processes and can turn that knowledge to all sorts of magnificent machines. Because it can do this, it unwittingly maybe, presents itself as knowing everything.. or being very close to knowing everything. Maybe real scientists dont think this, but the followers of science certainly do. On this thread it has been stated by the science boys that eventually, all will be understood.

I dont belive this is true. I think there are some things that it will be impossible for science to describe.

How is consciousness produced?
Why do we have subjective experience?

Seeing as your only perspective on the world is through your subjective experience, I'd say this was quite an important question.

Other questions spring to mind.

What is life?
Science can put all the chemicals together in dishes and shake them up and add electricity but it cant create life. Even Richard Dawkins jumps over this in his 'selfish gene' book. He makes no attempt at all to describe how DNA erupted from a chemical soup.

What is a photon? Scince cant tell you this.. Its a wave.. its a particle.. its a rabbit in a hat..

The people who believe that science has all the answers, or will have all the answers, have 'faith' in science. They 'believe' in Science.. They dont understand or accept that science has limits. I think they are behaving in a religious manner.

 

[sten_super]

The people who believe that science has all the answers, or will have all the answers, have 'faith' in science. They 'believe' in Science.. They dont understand or accept that science has limits. I think they are behaving in a religious manner.

I can see that I'm banging my head against a brick wall, so this'll be my last input - but for me you haven't (because you can't) distinguished between a belief that science will explain everything and a belief that it will not. To present one as belief and one as understanding is completely misplaced - given our inability to know the future I cannot tell you with certainty that science will be able to explain the existence of conciousness with any degree of certainty and you cannot tell me with certainty that science will not ever be able to.

 

[Dub-67]

I can see that I'm banging my head against a brick wall, so this'll be my last input - but for me you haven't (because you can't) distinguished between a belief that science will explain everything and a belief that it will not. To present one as belief and one as understanding is completely misplaced - given our inability to know the future I cannot tell you with certainty that science will be able to explain the existence of conciousness with any degree of certainty and you cannot tell me with certainty that science will not ever be able to.

mate how hard is it for you to understand this ? all I can think is that your faith in science has blinded you to logic!

I have no belief that Science will bridge all the explanatory gaps I mentioned. I have NO belief... Do you get it. I am looking at the facts as they are NOW. I dont need belief, because its evident science doesnt know the answers to the fundamental questions.

That is not the same as someone who DOES have a belief that something that does not exist now.. will happen in the future.. that IS belief.

I'm leaving this thread now, football and philosophy DO go hand in hand, but I cant take this ridiculous science vs religion argument. As in all diametric arguments there is never one completely right nor one completely wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle as I have tried to point out. But if you boys who purport to be men of science cannot accept that there are fundamental unknowns, that science does not.. right now.. understand, then I cant help.
You 'believe' these questions will be answered by science. That is 'faith'. end of story. You are not so different as the religious people you dog on here. Over and OUT

 

[beorhthelm]

What is a photon? Scince cant tell you this.. Its a wave.. its a particle.. its a rabbit in a hat..

its a quantum of light. science tells us its size, mass, energy, polarisation, how it will some property depending on its frequency and energy, how it will interact with other particles, how it will behave at different scales and, again, that it is both a wave and a particle and how and when this attribute is relevant. what else do you want to know? is that all there is, science doesnt know for sure and some will continue to examine the subject for more insight. since the existing understanding allows us to make advanced lights, TVs, sunglasses, photovoltaic solar panels, lasers, photolithography, all manner of other technologies, this tells us we know what light is, for all intents and purposes. a breakthrough of understanding might lead to more technology in the future, but we're fine for now. no faith, no belief, we have this knowledge and it works.

do we know how consciousness works? no and no one said we do, but we do know how to measure for it and some parameters around it, like it manifests from the brain. will we ever know? maybe, who knows right now - its an unknown unknown. does this mean we dont understand how photons work to create a laser? no, its got sweet fa to do with it. stop applying one mans concepts around one subject to the whole of the rest of science. all you are doing is showing faith in one persons view that explantory gaps exist and will exist, that some things are not know able.

 

[Dub-67]

its a quantum of light. science tells us its size, mass, energy, polarisation, how it will some property depending on its frequency and energy, how it will interact with other particles, how it will behave at different scales and, again, that it is both a wave and a particle and how and when this attribute is relevant. what else do you want to know? is that all there is, science doesnt know for sure and some will continue to examine the subject for more insight. since the existing understanding allows us to make advanced lights, TVs, sunglasses, photovoltaic solar panels, lasers, photolithography, all manner of other technologies, this tells us we know what light is, for all intents and purposes. a breakthrough of understanding might lead to more technology in the future, but we're fine for now. no faith, no belief, we have this knowledge and it works.

do we know how consciousness works? no and no one said we do, but we do know how to measure for it and some parameters around it, like it manifests from the brain. will we ever know? maybe, who knows right now - its an unknown unknown. does this mean we dont understand how photons work to create a laser? no, its got sweet fa to do with it. stop applying one mans concepts around one subject to the whole of the rest of science. all you are doing is showing faith in one persons view that explantory gaps exist and will exist, that some things are not know able.

you say "its a quantum of light. science tells us its mass...."
Does it ? Is your understanding as deep as you think ? Does a photon have mass ?? What is its mass then ? Please tell me, that should be simple for you to do if science knows.

And you are happy to accept that a photon is, as you say; "both a wave and a particle" ? Despite that being totally illogical and a paradox.

and yet I'm sure you take the piss out of those who 'believe' in a virgin birth or a holy trinity?

I'm afraid there are many more explanatory gaps than you think.

Plus what you say about consciousness is not correct either.
>>but we do know how to measure for it and some parameters around it, like it manifests from the brain.
There is no evidence that consciousness manifests from the brain, despite that seeming probable.. there is simply no proof that is the case.

 

[Dub-67]

describing how photons behave and making lasers work is not the same as understanding what a photon actually is.

 

[beorhthelm]

And you are happy to accept that a photon is, as you say; "both a wave and a particle" ? Despite that being totally illogical and a paradox.

and yet I'm sure you take the piss out of those who 'believe' in a virgin birth or a holy trinity?

despite its apparent paradox the difference is that it is observable and repeatable through experimentation. theres no question about it, it behaves as a particle in one configuration of an experiment and like a wave in another. virgin births and holy trinities are myths and legends not observed by anyone other than the alledged parties, who we hear of through a second hand account (more 10th hand). do you believe in unicorns?

>>but we do know how to measure for it and some parameters around it, like it manifests from the brain.
There is no evidence that consciousness manifests from the brain, despite that seeming probable.. there is simply no proof that is the case.

its quite easy to prove, cut off a head and see if evidence of consciousness continues. it doesn't. does consciousness exist beyond the brain... ah now that would be a interesting question that is more difficult to prove or disprove, shame you didnt have the forsight to make this point.

describing how photons behave and making lasers work is not the same as understanding what a photon actually is.

they didnt just accidently invent it oneday, the laser is the product of current understanding of quantum physics.

 

[Dub-67]

despite its apparent paradox the difference is that it is observable and repeatable through experimentation. theres no question about it, it behaves as a particle in one configuration of an experiment and like a wave in another. virgin births and holy trinities are myths and legends not observed by anyone other than the alledged parties, who we hear of through a second hand account (more 10th hand). do you believe in unicorns?

the fact that it is indeed 'observable' make no difference, in fact that just substantiates my claim. That science has no understanding of what it actually is.

its quite easy to prove, cut off a head and see if evidence of consciousness continues. it doesn't. does consciousness exist beyond the brain... ah now that would be a interesting question that is more difficult to prove or disprove, shame you didnt have the forsight to make this point.

Not so easy I'm afraid. Starfish for exapmle have no brain, but they move and hunt and have awareness of their suroundings.. Same goes for mould (recent article on bbc website) which has a 'memory' but no brain or nervous system.

they didnt just accidently invent it oneday, the laser is the product of current understanding of quantum physics.

so this understanding.. care to answer the question in my previous post.. where you said science knows the mass of photons.. can you tell me what that is please?
Please also tell me what a photon is, if it can be both a wave and a particle?

Honestly, you ask if I believe in Unicorns I'm the only one on here who isnt a believer of some kind !

 

[T.G]

Doesn't evolution relate to adapting to the environment rather moving towards 'perfection'?

Kind of but there is a sense that evolution also 'improves' on what proceeded it...I know this is vague but it is a tricky idea to get your head around because evolution is basically a blind process of adaptation to environmental constraints. However what blows the God theory for me is that if he 'designed' animals he royally f*** up with some to the extent that he ranks with Clive Sinclaire in the design stakes...the legendary Panda's thumbs, pretty much sums it up...and he does not exist (God not Sir Clive)