I Still Think I'm Right

[Guest end3]

Ma'am, one reason science works is because people continue to ask questions... Questions that are not always dependent on something that is measurable. Inquiry and revision seem a necessity to move towards a more complete certainty. I would suggest you give this some thought and go seek a professor to revise your thoughts about science.

[bornagainathiest]

Ma'am, one reason science works is because people continue to ask questions... Questions that are not always dependent on something that is measurable. Inquiry and revision seem a necessity to move towards a more complete certainty. I would suggest you give this some thought and go seek a professor to revise your thoughts about science.

 

It is you who needs to revise your thoughts about science, End.

 

Science is never about complete certainty.

No matter how often you repeat that lie about it - that won't make your lie, the truth.

 

The questions people ask about what is un-measurable are, by definition, not questions that science can investigate.

And no matter how many times you repeat this lie - that won't make your lie, the truth.

.

.

.

Here's how you need to revise your thinking about science.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

 

On proof

In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature,^[10] law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation,^[11] and so on. A notable exception is mathematics, whose proofs are drawn from a mathematical world begun with axioms and further developed and enriched by theorems proved earlier.

Exactly what evidence is sufficient to prove something is also strongly area-dependent, usually with no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof.

.

.

Got it now?

 

Science obtains evidence from nature, not subjective opinion or faith.  

 

And...

 

Outside of math, there is no absolute threshold where evidence becomes proof.  

So science can never prove anything and is therefore never about complete certainty.  

Science only offers the best explanation of the observed natural phenomena.

 

Catch?

[Guest end3]

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

[StillLooking]

Ma'am, one reason science works is because people continue to ask questions... Questions that are not always dependent on something that is measurable. Inquiry and revision seem a necessity to move towards a more complete certainty. I would suggest you give this some thought and go seek a professor to revise your thoughts about science.

 

Yes science progresses because people continue to ask questions and sometimes it is something that is not DIRECTLY measurable but it will have parameters that are repeatable, measurable AND observable. Also there is nothing as complete certainty is science. Science works with evidence and "personal experience" is not evidence!

 

So again, my question to you... Where does the aspect of you seeing the Moses in the plasma that fit the criteria of science?

 

This will be a good read for you.

 

On the other hand, people should challenge scientific consensus when:

• The consensus is based on lore and tradition rather than published evidence and theory;

• The evidence on which the consensus is based was gathered by people whose motivations are financial or ideological; OR

• New evidence and theories have become available that undermine the consensus. (Note that it is a strength, not a weakness, of science that scientists change their minds as new evidence and theories become available.)

However, the following are NOT good reasons to challenge the scientific consensus:

• The challenges are based on reports on unreliable sources such as amateur blogs and websites;

• The challenges derive from theories based on poor evidence, such as astrology, naturopathy, homeopathy, etc.; 

• The challenges are based on vague "clinical experience" or personal intuitions; OR 

• The challenges are driven by financial or ideological motivations.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201003/challenging-scientific-consensus

 

 

By the way, I decided to make a public disclosure here. I have a master degree in an engineering field (I didn't have the perseverance to complete the doctorate level). I did research, wrote thesis and publications based on my findings. How did I come up with my thesis questions? Of course it was because I questioned a theory that was unclear! In the beginning I came up with thesis proposal and I had to show preliminary findings and my plan to do my research to my thesis committee consisting of 4 professors. They required me to back up all my assertions with evidence.

At my work, I have to show my proposals for changes or additions to upper management and those need to be backed up by evidence. They will throw me out for stating a need for change based only on my "personal experience".

So, I am extremely familiar with how research works.

[StillLooking]

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

[duderonomy]

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

 

 

I think End3 might be saying that science begins when people start asking questions, and that's also what pushes science forward.

 

You know, like if I ask a scientist, "If you can't know for certain, why do you keep looking for the explanation?"

[Justus]

This is the point of this exercise, you stated this yourself:

 

"... courts seemingly rely on testable evidence. But then guess what, if they don't have that, they rely on the subjective opinions of a group of people..."

 

You see, science works the same way. Science works on "testable evidence" or otherwise science "rely on the subjective opinions of a group of people"!

Now, do you see why "personal experience" cannot be used in science discussion?

The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on one's experience or observation.

 

Wikipedia explains "Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

 

Good one.  [LOL]  

[bornagainathiest]

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

 

 

What SL said, End.

 

Scientists are realists, not idealists.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

 

 

I think End3 might be saying that science begins when people start asking questions, and that's also what pushes science forward.

 

You know, like if I ask a scientist, "If you can't know for certain, why do you keep looking for the explanation?"

 

 

And the answer Dude, reads like this.

 

Because science is the best tool we have for explaining how the natural universe works.  

 

Therefore, we keep using it to look for explanations of nature.

 

Questions about the supernatural can't be answered by science.

 

So another, completely separate discipline is used.

 

That's religion.

[Guest end3]

Sl, I understand the testing part. Two things. You don't understand the comparison I am making of Moses glowing face being analogous to a sample being introduced to the plasma. Go read about ICP techniques and then we will attemp to talk again.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

There's no objective comparison to be made. 

 

SL's recent posts have been about how personal (subjective) experience has no role to play in science.

 

But you are making a subjective comparison between Moses and the plasma. 

 

And because your comparison is subjective, any conclusion you draw from it won't be...science.

.

.

.

Also, you don't compare any part of science (the natural) with any part of religion (the supernatural).

 

As shown by the links she and I have posted, science and religion are two separate and distinct disciplines.

 

Disciplined people don't do what they want, what they believe is so and what they feel is right.

 

They do what a particular discipline in question demands of them.

.

.

.

And science demands objectivity, not subjectivity.

[StillLooking]

 

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

 

 

I think End3 might be saying that science begins when people start asking questions, and that's also what pushes science forward.

 

You know, like if I ask a scientist, "If you can't know for certain, why do you keep looking for the explanation?"

 

Yes science begins when people start asking questions and questions also pushes science forward, that part is correct.

However, not all questions are equal. Questions like how does it happen, why does it happen or when does it happen is very likely drives science forward.

Some people are naturally curious and most scientists are curious bunch. We just want to figure out how something happens and we don't look for certainty.

 

When you have certainty as a goal then you impede scientific progress because sooner or later you will feel that you are close enough to that certain point. This way of thinking also (and religious motivation of course) gave birth to Intelligent Design as being pushed by Discovery Institute. It is the reason why scientists don't mention complete solution or certain solution but we like to say elegant solution or elegant equation. I hope you can see the difference and the distinction.

[StillLooking]

Sl, I understand the testing part. Two things. You don't understand the comparison I am making of Moses glowing face being analogous to a sample being introduced to the plasma. Go read about ICP techniques and then we will attemp to talk again.

 

I understand your comparison. You said you didn't see Moses face per se but you saw an image that made you think of Moses and felt like Moses. That, end3, is not science because it is not objective. Go take a biology, chemistry or physics high school textbook and read it again. Better yet, go to any community classes on science and enroll in it. I suggest community classes because those tend to be economical. You will do us a favor and most of all you will do yourself a favor.

[Guest end3]

No your description says that you know nothing about analyses via inductively coupled plasma. Don't pretend to tell me that you're engineering degree qualifies you for analytical chemistry. You are tragically missing the comparison I am making. Stop until you educate yourself

[StillLooking]

We are talking about science. Yes you know more about ICP but when you include your subjective religious personal experience into discussion of ICP, I am more than qualified to dismiss your assertion. That is science.

[bornagainathiest]

No your description says that you know nothing about analyses via inductively coupled plasma. Don't pretend to tell me that you're engineering degree qualifies you for analytical chemistry. You are tragically missing the comparison I am making. Stop until you educate yourself

 

End,

 

We know you have a very great personal need for absolute certainty in your life.  You've told us that.

 

But you cannot bring this subjective, personal need of yours into science.

 

You must try to check your biases in at the door and try to be as objective as possible.

 

When you make a comparison that is colored by your personal needs you are not being objective.

 

So neither SL or myself have to learn anything about ICP  - because what you are doing is invalid from get go.

 

Discipline and educate yourself to do the science correctly.

[StillLooking]

To reiterate again how you make a statement in science, I am presenting you with points here.

1. It needs to be able to be tested (testable) by different people in different situation as long as it meets the given parameters.

2. The more non-collaborate people corroborate on the results the better it is.

 

Your point of "seeing" Moses flaming image in ICP already fails point number 1.

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

 

 

I think End3 might be saying that science begins when people start asking questions, and that's also what pushes science forward.

 

You know, like if I ask a scientist, "If you can't know for certain, why do you keep looking for the explanation?"

 

 

And the answer Dude, reads like this.

 

Because science is the best tool we have for explaining how the natural universe works.  

 

Therefore, we keep using it to look for explanations of nature.

 

Questions about the supernatural can't be answered by science.

 

So another, completely separate discipline is used.

 

That's religion.

 

 

Can questions about any dark matterish supernatural not even supposed to exist until we asked questions about it things ever be explained by science?

Not if scientists don't ask the questions.

[Guest end3]

We are talking about science. Yes you know more about ICP but when you include your subjective religious personal experience into discussion of ICP, I am more than qualified to dismiss your assertion. That is science.

If you don't understand ICP techniques, then how can you possibly understand the comparison I am making. For some reason you keep saying I am seeing Moses face in the plasma. No, the plasma makes a shape that kind of looks like the fire coming out of a fighter jet engine......no Moses face, never claimed that.

 

We may ask any thing we wish and it may fall within scientific inquiry. It is not disqualified as "science" if we may not directly measure it.

 

I can ask about little green men on Mars and set up an experiment to collect data. That IS science.

 

But the point is, I am not proposing collecting data on something supernatural. I am saying that the when Moses was subjected to a higher energy,i.e., GOOOOOODDDDDD, he glowed. It's similar to what analytical chemists use to assay different elements in a sample....but the higher energy is not GGGGOOOOOOODDD, it's the plasma. NO Moses face in the plasma. TOTALLY different concept I am trying to describe.

 

And for some reason you wish to hold me in contempt for being a dumb Christian that doesn't understand what science is. I'm not that talented as a chemist, but my degree is in Chemistry, not engineering. You might want to look at your cards before you show your hand.

 

I'm guessing here, but it seems reasonable that many non-beliers cling to science much like a god resulting form the backlash of bad religion. You seem to fit this criteria....but I'm just guessing. We could "do science" on this question if you would like.

[Justus]

SlYou don't understand the comparison I am making of Moses glowing face being analogous to a sample being introduced to the plasma. Go read about ICP techniques and then we will attemp to talk again.

 

While I am not the personally aware of the ICP techniques you mentioned, yet in reference to the passage regarding the 'skin of his face shone' in Exodus 34:29, one has to keep in mind what was written in verse 28:

 

And he [Moses] was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Ex 34:29

 

While I am sure that the others members will disagree with anything I say, but I would suggest some truths are self-evident.   So while I am not saying your line of thought regarding  the skin of Moses's face 'shone' as being the result of Moses being in the presence of the LORD, but from my personal experience I believe that the maximum thermal range of 'plasma' pales in comparison to the thermal range of the Holy Ghost.  While I would think that the heat from 'plasma' can virtually disintegrate the flesh, you remember who Jesus said could not only destroy the flesh but the spiritual body as well?

 

However, I am not sure whether the glow you mention was one considered aesthetically appealing or repulsive since Moses appearance which is described as being such  "they were afraid to come nigh him".   Personally, it was my understanding that his appearance was not his presence before the LORD but rather from the events that occurred in the inn by the way when Moses attempted to return to Egypt after fleeing in fear of Pharaoh's rod after slaying the Egyptian.  

 

 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.  Exodus 2:15

 

I can still recall when archaeologists in Egypt found a mass grave of what was believed to been the remains of Egyptians that lived during the period of the Pharaoh's.  The skulls had round holes in them which they concluded as evidence that the Egyptians had advanced medical practices that allowed them to perform brain surgery.  If I recall correctly, they suspected that the operations were more than likely done for the purpose of treating headaches.  While I can't argue with the headache theory, I kinda suspect that the headache being cure by the procedure was Pharaoh's.

 

But in conclusion, I knew an absolute agnostic who refused to become an atheist because of his engineering background which allowed him to see in the scriptures where he said it describes the fundamental principle to make a capacitor, down to the material itself.  While it didn't convince him that there was a God, it proved to him that he didn't know enough to say in good conscience that there wasn't a supreme Being. So it might be a case it is something you are able to see that we just haven't reached that point yet. 

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

 

You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch?

No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science.

 

 

I think End3 might be saying that science begins when people start asking questions, and that's also what pushes science forward.

 

You know, like if I ask a scientist, "If you can't know for certain, why do you keep looking for the explanation?"

 

 

And the answer Dude, reads like this.

 

Because science is the best tool we have for explaining how the natural universe works.  

 

Therefore, we keep using it to look for explanations of nature.

 

Questions about the supernatural can't be answered by science.

 

So another, completely separate discipline is used.

 

That's religion.

 

 

Can questions about any dark matterish supernatural not even supposed to exist until we asked questions about it things ever be explained by science?

Not if scientists don't ask the questions.

 

I am not BAA but I am going to attempt to answer your question.

Supernatural by definition is not pertaining to our "natural" world hence cannot be measured by our current technology hence not science. In cosmology (BAA can correct me here) dark matter was introduced to explain a science phenomenon and who introduced it gave backed up calculation and data.

 

Again, not all questions are the same. I cannot question the existence of hurricane as an impact of someone exercising his telekinesis power right now. It is because I don't have supporting data for that claim. It will be different if I can supply data showing someone using telekinesis power to cause hurricane AND it is data that can be verified by other researchers.

[StillLooking]

 

We are talking about science. Yes you know more about ICP but when you include your subjective religious personal experience into discussion of ICP, I am more than qualified to dismiss your assertion. That is science.

If you don't understand ICP techniques, then how can you possibly understand the comparison I am making. For some reason you keep saying I am seeing Moses face in the plasma. No, the plasma makes a shape that kind of looks like the fire coming out of a fighter jet engine......no Moses face, never claimed that.

 

We may ask any thing we wish and it may fall within scientific inquiry. It is not disqualified as "science" if we may not directly measure it.

 

I can ask about little green men on Mars and set up an experiment to collect data. That IS science.

 

But the point is, I am not proposing collecting data on something supernatural. I am saying that the when Moses was subjected to a higher energy,i.e., GOOOOOODDDDDD, he glowed. It's similar to what analytical chemists use to assay different elements in a sample....but the higher energy is not GGGGOOOOOOODDD, it's the plasma. NO Moses face in the plasma. TOTALLY different concept I am trying to describe.

 

And for some reason you wish to hold me in contempt for being a dumb Christian that doesn't understand what science is. I'm not that talented as a chemist, but my degree is in Chemistry, not engineering. You might want to look at your cards before you show your hand.

 

I'm guessing here, but it seems reasonable that many non-beliers cling to science much like a god resulting form the backlash of bad religion. You seem to fit this criteria....but I'm just guessing. We could "do science" on this question if you would like.

 

No end3, we may not ask anything we wish and assume that it is a scientific inquiry. No, you cannot ask about little green men on Mars and set up an experiment to collect data and assume it is science. NOT UNTIL you show your data supporting little green men on Mars (foot prints on Mars? green corpses on Mars?). IF you have supporting evidence to make a claim of little green men on Mars then YES it is science to conduct such experiment.

 

I understood fine your point of ICP feels the same as glowing Moses albeit not the small detail. What I am trying to say it doesn't matter what you claim because it is by your faith by nature that you made that claim, it cannot be independently and objectively observed.

 

I am not making assertion that you are dumb. You are not ignorant but you are obstinate unwilling to think.

[bornagainathiest]

End3 wrote...

 

"If you don't understand ICP techniques, then how can you understand the comparison I'm making."

 

StillLooking doesn't have to understand any comparison anyone makes between any aspect of science and any aspect of religion, because nobody should be making these comparisons.  Such comparisons are outside of the remit of science, so there aren't two things to compare.  Science has nothing to say about religion or the supernatural.

 

Since you have degree in chemistry End, this tells us that you shouldn't be ignorant of how science works.

Thank you for that piece of personal information.  From this we can glean that you must be making the conscious and wilful decision not to abide by the rules by which science works and governs itself.  So our efforts to educate and enlighten you have been wasted.  It's not that you don't understand - it's that yours is a stonewall refusal to do the science correctly, as per it's globally accepted and objective rules.  Instead of agreeing to do the science objectively, you insist on bringing your personal agenda and bias into the mix. 

 

End3 also wrote...

 

"We may ask anything we wish and it may fall within scientific inquiry."

 

No.  That's incorrect.  We may not do that. 

Certain inquiries fall outside of science's remit.  A perfect example of this kind of unscientific inquiry is the very one you cite - Moses encounter with God on Mount Sinai.  The energy Moses was exposed to came from a supernatural source (God) and therefore, since science only investigates natural phenomenon, science can say nothing about it. 

 

The issue of whether something can or can't be measured is irrelevant.

By definition science measures only natural energies, observes natural mechanisms and tries to explain natural phenomenon.  So something supernatural (even if it is in our physical universe) is beyond the ability of science to investigate and explain.   

 

I agree, btw.

Collecting data on LGM on Mars IS science.  But not for the reason you gave.  Measurability isn't what makes studying them science.  If they originated in the natural universe, then by definition, they are natural phenomenon and so they fall within the remit of scientific inquiry.  If their origin were supernatural, then by the same definition, they would be supernatural phenomenon (like God) and therefore be outside of the remit of scientific inquiry. 

 

End3 wrote...

 

"But the point is, I'm not proposing collecting data on something supernatural."

 

Actually, Yes... you are doing exactly that.

Which is why your proposal is not science.  God (the source of the light) is supernatural, not natural.  The effect of that light on Moses' face was supernatural, not natural.  The light that Moses' face then gave off, which was seen by his fellow Israelites, was supernatural, not natural.  There is nothing in Moses' encounter with God that science can investigate.

 

If you really do understand science (as you claim) then you'll know this is so.

And taking you at your word End, seeing as you do understand that science can't investigate the supernatural, your stubborn insistence that it can, is excellent evidence that your scientific objectivity is compromised.  Therefore, any investigation proposed by you will be equally compromised and must be rejected as not meeting the necessary standards of objectivity and scientific rigor.  You call it science ...but it isn't.

 

Science has placed a 'wall' between the natural and the supernatural.

If this wall is tampered with, dismantled, tunnelled under, climbed over or evaded in any way, any investigation is hopelessly compromised and is automatically rejected as not being science.

 

You should know this. 

[bornagainathiest]

Oh and please note End,

 

StillLooking and I are actually in agreement about the LGM.

 

If you really do understand how science works, you'll know why that is.

 

So why don't you explain to us why she and I agree..?

 

That should demonstrate your prowess and knowledge of how science works.

 

Go for it!

[bornagainathiest]

Dude,

 

Hang in there, please.  I gotta run right now but I'll get back to you asap.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.