Free Will

[bornagainathiest]

 

So is it science by your standards?

 

 

A prime feature of bona fide science is precision.

 

Ask a precisely worded question and you'll get a precisely worded answer.

[bornagainathiest]

And with precision in mind, I note that one of the links I gave isn't working.

 

So, to find Peter Woit's blog, please Google the words, "Not Even Wrong".

 

Thank you.

[Neverlandrut]

 

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you? It's ok, you don't understand it. We all get your limitations.

It's sad really.

 

BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.

 

You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.

 

BAA:

"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****. It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again. Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science. Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

 

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

End3. What BAA described in that post is as objective as it gets! That description encompasses the very definition of objectivity! I ask you, if that is not objective (independently verifiable outside of one's self), then what is?

[florduh]

So, End, is your stress being relieved? I'd rather pop some bubble wrap, but it's your call how you like to relieve stress!

[bornagainathiest]

Hey End!

 

I've decided to drop my requirement (that you word your question about the multiverse precisely) and I'll go ahead and answer your question.  But first, there's something that needs dealing with.  This is going to stick in your craw, but that's just too bad.

 

 

You don't get that it's not by BAA's standards at all did you?  It's ok, you don't understand it.  We all get your limitations.
It's sad really.
 
BAA never once mentioned it's by his own standards, and yet you twist his words again.
 
You probably never will understand what he wrote, I hope you do someday, but it looks like that day's still far off.
 
BAA:
"It's not about any definitions YOU want to pull out of your ****.  It's about data that's tested, checked, re-checked, cross-checked and then checked again.  Only if it stands up to every test and every kind of scrutiny and can be independently verified and replicated time and again, does it become science.  Science isn't something you get to define to suit your religious agenda."

No Roz, if there is no objective end, then it's all make believe...suiting your "religious" beliefs.....I'm so tempted to call you a moron at this point...but I won't.

And I missed your answer in your diatribe...

 

 

Roz is exactly right.

 

I don't set the standards and definitions of what science is - I choose to abide by the ones that are already in place.

 

They are in place because they have been shown to work, time and time again.  

We know that they work because the technological applications of science are all around us.  They define the lives we lead.  Our global civilization is built on them.  We rely upon them every second of every minute of each day.  The working standards and definitions of science are as objective as we can make them, because objectivity is something all scientists (should) aspire to and subjectivity is something all scientists (should) try to eliminate from the scientific process, as much as possible.

 

Scientists agree to abide by standard practices and procedures and should do everything they can to eliminate subjectivity, bias, preference, human error and instrumental error from their work.  The aim is to be objective as possible at all times.  Some individuals are more prone to harbor subjective views than others, so the agreed method of 'weeding out' individual and subjective bias from the scientific process is for scientists to rigorously check each others work and test it as thoroughly as possible. This is the internationally-agreed system of peer review.

 

Now let's suppose that an astronomer called Bob wants to publish a scientific paper.

Before it can be published, his paper has to go thru the process of peer-review.   The scientists reviewing the work should have no ties or connections of any kind with Bob.  They should be entirely independent and should examine Bob's paper carefully so that it stands entirely on it's own merits.  They should also be sufficiently qualified and also work in the same branch of the sciences as Bob, so that they can review his work from a position of knowledge and expertise. There's little point in a neurologist, an entomologist and a organic chemist reviewing Bob's paper, if it's about the rings of the planet Saturn!

 

Anyway, let's suppose Bob's paper is accepted for publication.

Once that happens, it can be read by astronomers everywhere.  So, if Bob says in his paper that the color of the dust in the rings has a value of X, then other scientists should also register the value X, when they point their instruments at Saturn.  This value, X, isn't something subjective that Bob wants his fellow astronomers to accept from him on faith.  No.  Bob is certain that X is the objectively true (i.e., true for everyone, everywhere) value of that dust's color.  As a professional and hard-working scientist, he wants other astronomers to check his work as carefully as possible.  This is why the act of publishing his paper is an open invitation to the rest of the scientific community to check and verify that they can replicate the value of X with their instruments too.

 

If Bob's results can't be replicated by other scientists, then this immediately calls his work into doubt.

This is exactly the scenario I was addressing here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62672-big-bang-discovery-opens-doors-to-the-multiverse/#.U676svldVzM ... in posts # 8 and # 19.  (You'll notice End, that I made those posts weeks before this thread began, so I AM holding to a consistent line here.)

 

This is how science works objectively.

No trust should be placed in a scientist's work unless it can be independently replicated.  Which is why Einstein's work is held in such high esteem.  His work and his predictions has been replicated time and again and found to be exactly right to umpteen decimal places.  We now know, to a very high degree of confidence, that his work is as objectively true as is humanly possible.

 

Going back to Bob, what should he do if nobody else can verify the value X?

Should he... A, try to tough it out and call everyone else fools, liars and charlatans?

B, ask his colleagues to accept the value X from him on faith, even though they can't replicate X for themselves?

C, go back to his work, check it again and see if he's made an error? 

 

The professional and honest thing for Bob to do is C.

For your attention End, here is a worked example of how much scientists respect and admire one of their colleagues who has the integrity to admit that he was wrong and that he made a mistake.  This shows you how highly-prized objectivity is in the scientific community.  Please read the section entitled, 'Pulsar Planet?' 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_G._Lyne

.

.

.

Now, I can't claim to understand why you think science is all make believe.

Especially if it's been shown to work over and over again and especially in the light of what I've explained here - the relentless drive in science for objectivity at all costs.  So perhaps you could explain to me how Einstein, working in a rather dull office in Bern, Switzerland, between 1901 and 1908, was able to make ultra-precise predictions about cosmological phenomenon occurring billions of light-years away and billions of years ago?  

 

Or how was it possible for Alan Guth, working in his office in Stanford University in 1980/81 to make the most accurate prediction ever made in any branch of the sciences?  A prediction that has since been independently verified by three different satellites, in 1990, in 2003 and in 2013.  A prediction so accurate that the curve on the first graph of this Wiki page would have to be magnified 400x to see any deviation between Guth's prediction and the measured value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB

(This example is especially relevant, because Guth's theory of cosmic inflation also predicts the existence of a multiverse.)

 

Sorry End, but I just don't get it!

I've tried to show you that science is as objective as possible, that it works, that it make incredibly precise predictions, that it's testable, reproducible and reliable and that it's self-regulating and self-monitoring.  So could you please try and tell me why you think it's all make believe?  I'd really like to try and understand why you think this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

p.s.

I promise you, I will address your question about the multiverse.  But I'd like to give you a chance to respond to this post first, ok?

[bornagainathiest]

(snip!)

 

p.s.

I promise you, I will address your question about the multiverse.  But I'd like to give you a chance to respond to this post first, ok?

 

Would you like me to answer your question (is the multiverse science?) before you respond to me, End?

 

Or maybe you'd like me just to reply your question and then we can decide who goes next... once you've read my answer?

 

Or perhaps you'd like to wait until October or November, when there's due to be a definitive data release from the leading science team on this area of study?

.

.

.

I'll take my cue from you End.

Just let me me know when you want this thread to proceed.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm still waiting on you to tell me how you'd like this thread to proceed, End.

 

It's your call!

.

.

.

 

Fyi, I'll start PMing you about this fairly soon.  

Oh and I'll start keeping a watch on your profile page as well, to see if you've been active anywhere else in the forum.  

If you have, then it'll be easy for me to pop a polite reminder about this thread, wherever your 'footprints' show up.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[ironhorse]

Yes, lets us hear more about this idea of a multiverse....

 the idea of an infinite numbers of universe out there.

 

I remember watching Richard Dawkings in a conversation 

and his bottom line answer as to where life may have came from.....

 

....another universe was his answer.

[Ravenstar]

I've never read Dawkins.. and just kinda, sorta, barely understand the multiverse hypothesis. It's interesting

 

Life comes from chemistry, and the right environment… amino acids are floating through space, products of supernovae.(that's stars… dying) It's not all that difficult to comprehend, really.

 

There is no free will, not as we think of it… though there is a limited agency we have as creatures that can imagine a future us and choose how we wish to respond to that abstract possibility.

 

 

Science works… time and time again it has proven itself, or we wouldn't have electricity in our homes, jet planes, plastics, computers, enough food or modern medicine..or have robots/probes on Mars and orbiting Saturn. Our children would still be dying of Polio and Smallpox, and the Black Plague. I'll take the method that actually works.

[Roz]

To compound on what Ravenstar said:  Science works because it uses the exact opposite method of religion when searching for knowledge.

 

[WarriorPoet]

 

But "astronomical" is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.

Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.

Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.

 

http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html

IH, is this what you're referencing?  If so, than you have greatly misrepresented what he said. 

[Neverlandrut]

Richard Dawkins (I am a big fan, btw), gets quote mined a lot! He answers questions strait and in hypotheticals terms sometimes, then those hypothetical statement are used by theists who point to them and say, "Hey even your pall Dawkins believes this!". Many Christians are great at quote mining! They do it with the bible all the time.

[thereisnoperfect]

OK, let's talk multiverse. Let's say (though we don't know) that there's a infinite multiverse, with every possible universe out there somewhere. 

 

Ironhorse, that means that there's a universe out there where you are right now logged in to ex-christian.net, passionately arguing against christianity, because in that universe you are an ex-christian.

 

There are several universes where you are Muslim. At least one where you revere the gods of Roman mythology. Sometimes you're agnostic, sometimes Zoroastrian. In some of them you have flippers. In a lot of them, you're gay, or bisexual, or trans. In a few, you're intersexed.

 

In quite a few, you don't exist at all.

 

In most of them, you're completely convinced that you're right about your fundamental beliefs, even though in most of them those beliefs contradict everything you say here in this universe. In a few, you have doubts or confusion.

 

This is a fun game. Want to keep playing?

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, lets us hear more about this idea of a multiverse....

 the idea of an infinite numbers of universe out there.

 

I remember watching Richard Dawkings in a conversation 

and his bottom line answer as to where life may have came from.....

 

....another universe was his answer.

 

You and I have unfinished business elsewhere, Ironhorse.

 

If I talk about a multiverse in this thread, it'll be with End3, not you.

[Guest]

Yes, lets us hear more about this idea of a multiverse....

 the idea of an infinite numbers of universe out there.

 

I remember watching Richard Dawkings in a conversation 

and his bottom line answer as to where life may have came from.....

 

....another universe was his answer.

 

I doubt that greatly.  From what I understand, universes are self contained and can not interact with each other.  

[sdelsolray]

…

I remember watching Richard Dawkings in a conversation 

and his bottom line answer as to where life may have came from.....

 

....another universe was his answer.

You are either mistaken, disingenuous or lying.  Please provide actual evidence that Professor Dawkins ever said, anywhere or anytime, that "life may have come from another universe" (your words).

 

More likely than not, the "conversation" you saw was from the movie "Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed", that composite of creationist lies, misrepresentations and irrationality that was released in 2007.  Headlined by that little shit Ben Stein, many real scientists' interviews are in the movie.  Of course, the interviews are quote mined and edited with standard creationist duplicity.  Not surprisingly, the real scientists were lied to and duped to participate in the first place and complained about it bitterly once the ruse was discovered.  Ben Stein's interview and editing of Professor Dawkins interview is quite instructive of the depth to which creationist whores will go to to lie and cheat.  I would post links to the stories about this (there dozens and dozens) but you won't read them.  I could deconstruct further with actual quotes, rational analysis, etc., but you aren't worth my time.

 

Your credibility on this forum is approaching zero, as in:

 

You.  Have.  No.  Credibility.  None.  Whatsoever.

 

Keep it up.  It quite entertaining to watch a shallow, narrow, vacuous and empty theist "dance".

[Guest]

 

…

I remember watching Richard Dawkings in a conversation 

and his bottom line answer as to where life may have came from.....

 

....another universe was his answer.

You are either mistaken, disingenuous or lying.  Please provide actual evidence that Professor Dawkins ever said, anywhere or anytime, that "life may have come from another universe" (your words).

 

More likely than not, the "conversation" you saw was from the movie "Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed", that composite of creationist lies, misrepresentations and irrationality that was released in 2007.  Headlined by that little shit Ben Stein, many real scientists' interviews are in the movie.  Of course, the interviews are quote mined and edited with standard creationist duplicity.  Not surprisingly, the real scientists were lied to and duped to participate in the first place and complained about it bitterly once the ruse was discovered.  Ben Stein's interview and editing of Professor Dawkins interview is quite instructive of the depth to which creationist whores will go to to lie and cheat.  I would post links to the stories about this (there dozens and dozens) but you won't read them.  I could deconstruct further with actual quotes, rational analysis, etc., but you aren't worth my time.

 

Your credibility on this forum is approaching zero, as in:

 

You.  Have.  No.  Credibility.  None.  Whatsoever.

 

Keep it up.  It quite entertaining to watch a shallow, narrow, vacuous and empty theist "dance".

 

 

Oh, that makes a lot more sense now.  I wasn't aware of any of that, but I am no stranger to creationist lies.