Is Religion Doing More Harm Than Good These Days?(OT)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 961 - 980 of total 1050 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 06:25pm PT

So that was autocorrect, mv-1, it should read hear hear, lol!

...

Hilarious! And I posted even before reading your post, lol!

If it's any consolation, mv-1, I still like you! 😄

WBraun

climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 06:29pm PT

He's a lot smarter and intelligent than you'll ever be HFCS .....

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 24, 2017 - 06:30pm PT

actually most navigation is done today and depends on general relativity, that navigation wouldn't work without it... most planes make use of that navigation, and especially more and more on approach and landing.

the "standard model" of particle physics was never intended to explain everything, and we knew that when we built it, and almost immediately started discussing physics "beyond the standard model."

what the physics of BSM was and is an open question... and many people had many good ideas, and none of them have succeeded. All of them had very good reasons to work on their ideas, that's how physics progresses.

more and more engineering depends on the results of fundamental physics, and more and more you depend on the "truth" of that physics in your daily life.

but as you say, philosophy teaches us that we cannot verify a physical theory, only falsify it, yet you verify physics every day... to you it may be just as valid as magic... how could you tell the difference?

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 06:32pm PT

re Wb comment... Consider the source.

...

"and more and more depends on the "truth" of that physics in your daily life."

Thank you.

"Truth" and "belief" are not bad words. It is time some scientists stopped treating them as such. Religion doesn't own these words, it is time some scientists and others stopped treating them as though it does.

That is, if you want to maximally encourage science (as opposed to minimally encourage science) in the public eye.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 06:45pm PT

Regarding Mv-1's post and MikeL's post, is it any Wonder that academic philosophy in recent times has fallen out of favor - usefulness wise? productivity wise? Not to my thinking.

No offense intended, just candid dialoguing here.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

Jun 24, 2017 - 06:59pm PT

"Regarding Mv-1's post and MikeL's posts, is it any Wonder that academic philosophy in recent times has fallen out of favor - usefulness wise? productivity wise? Not to my thinking.'

Maybe going the way of Latin. :-)

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:01pm PT

"He's a lot smarter and intelligent than you'll ever be HFCS ....."

If the duck says it, it must be true...not.

On another note, I'll plug my new book, Boulder Canyon Rock Climbs, third edition. Just got one in the mail, should be in the stores in a few weeks.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:07pm PT

yet you verify physics every day... to you it may be just as valid as magic... how could you tell the difference?

False.

Nobody's arguing that engineering doesn't "work," and to the limited extent that engineering's results emerge "from" theoretical physics, nobody's denying that physics doesn't "work."

But "the theory works" is not the same thing as "the theory is true."

No physical theory has been "verified." Even Newton's "works" in its sphere, but it's false. General relativity is not an "extension" or "refinement" of Newton; it's a falsification of it. The universe is NOT the universe of Newton's theory. It's just a "reasonably good approximation that's close enough for rock and roll most of the time." So, it's still "useful," even though it's false.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:08pm PT

Wonder that academic philosophy in recent times has fallen out of favor - usefulness wise? productivity wise? Not to my thinking.

LOL... you use philosophical methods every time you post; you just do it badly.

To my way of thinking.

No offense.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:13pm PT

Bob, congratulations! I didn't know.
Third edition, too. That's mighty cool!

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:19pm PT

Look, MB1... If academic philosophy... that is, philosophy in academia, had been truly on the ball any time in the last 200 years, it would not have rested, it would not have invested so much in "theist philosophy"... it would've divined the tea leaves, formed a more intimate relation with science (in the manner of Uncle Dennett) and last but not least, would have, given the poverty of language, invented a term for the "philosophy of life" to distinguish this important branch of philos from others. But did it? No. So it deserves to get what it's earned. IMO.

Succinctly, does academic philosophy have a term for "the philosophy of life" or "the philosophy of living" or "the wisdom of living" or "the school of living" to distinguish this important subject matter from other forms? and to give it fresh blood in these challenging 21st century times. No, it does not.

So it's up to others, those outside academic philosophy, to invent such a term, to flesh it out, to give it meaning, to give it structure and form. Poor "academic philosophy" - it lost its opportunity. Sad.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:24pm PT

What philosophy can, right now, predict is that whatever science does come up with will remain incomplete and unverifiable. "Dreams of a Final Theory" will forever remain unrealized dreams. The more you "discover," the more you will realize you don't know and can't explain.

You will forever have "more" "predictive power" without having any more reason than you had before to "believe" that your then-present theory is "true."

if my theory predicts the outcome of experiment, I will use that theory in a positive way, that is, I will "believe" the theory is "true" and use it to calculate...

is General Relativity "true" well, we don't have a quantum theory for it, so there are aspects of the theory we know will change once we understand it as a quantum theory.

but GR has passed many tests, and now even in the dynamic domain of the theory as observed in the various black-hole mergers observed by the LIGO collaboration..

predictions that turn out to be true are confirmatory of any theory.

fortunately there is no metaphysical domain, as far as I know, from philosophy, there are reasons to believe there may be a metaphysics, and reasons to believe there is no metaphysics, and they are good reasons, there is no way to confirm or falsify those those reasons.

Philosophy is not empirical as currently practiced, but the idea that geometry, and other mathematics is not is still an open question in science at least, and good physical reasons to believe that they may be empirical.

I know you wouldn't agree, and you might have really good reasons.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:35pm PT

No physical theory has been "verified." Even Newton's "works" in its sphere, but it's false. General relativity is not an "extension" or "refinement" of Newton; it's a falsification of it. The universe is NOT the universe of Newton's theory. It's just a "reasonably good approximation that's close enough for rock and roll most of the time." So, it's still "useful," even though it's false.

while a compelling historic narrative, this is an absurd statement, especially for a philosopher to make.

what aspect of Newtonian physics was falsified? It was not by General Relativity but Special Relativity. As a test of elementary physics, which of Newton's "laws" is a statement of relativity? and how was it "falsified"?

this is an important point that you are making, you should use a bit more precision in your argument.

As for GR vs. Newtonian Gravity, one can extend NG in ways to explain general relativistic effects, in so called post-Newtonian gravitational theories. Physicists prefer GR because it provides a coherent physical explanation for the various calculations, many of which could be viewed as perturbations on NG. The problem with adopting PNG is that the perturbations appear ad-hoc, with no reason in the theory for them to be included.

However, we totally understand the domain of application of NG, and use it with confidence in those domains, and not only that, but NG can be derived from GR as a limiting case. How does your "falsification" jibe with that? if NG were "false" then so would be GR... so there must be something much more sophisticated going on that you have not understood.

I hope you are a better philosopher than a physicist.

Fortunately, physicists don't require a philosophical affirmation for all this, and do make progress in understanding the universe, I don't think that is in question at all.

Norton

Social climber

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:43pm PT

ouch

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:45pm PT

Poor "academic philosophy" - it lost its opportunity. Sad.

LOL. What a dream world you live in.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:46pm PT

predictions that turn out to be true are confirmatory of any theory.

Either you are simply mistaken, or you are using "confirmation" in a non-standard way, like your sometimes use of "truth."

No point in arguing. It's now clear what the nature of the paradigms are, which I all I was trying to accomplish.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:51pm PT

yes, in philosophy, apparently, you believe what you think...

I.I. Rabi once told me he saw physics as a conversation with nature. And a physicist had to listen carefully to what nature was saying.

That isn't a problem for your philosophy, you seem to have conversations with yourself.

I'll ask again, what does madbolter1 know?

this is a serious question.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:56pm PT

what aspect of Newtonian physics was falsified? It was not by General Relativity but Special Relativity. As a test of elementary physics, which of Newton's "laws" is a statement of relativity? and how was it "falsified"?

I'll answer your question with a simple question: Do you believe (since Einstein) that gravity is an "attractive force" or a distortion of space/time? Newton claimed the former. Einstein "proved" the latter. (Right?)

I could get into more Newtonian problems, but we've been talking about gravity, so let's stick with that one issue. What "gravity" IS is very different in Newton's theory and Einstein's theory. The two notions of gravity are not "the same," nor are they compatible. The falsehood of Newton's account of gravity becomes more and more obvious as one approaches the speed of light.

It's not that Newton's theory becomes "less accurate" or "less applicable" as one approaches the speed of light. It's that the ERROR in Newton's entire mechanics become more and more obvious as one approaches the speed of light.

this is an important point that you are making, you should use a bit more precision in your argument.

Well, how much "precision" do you expect in a simple statement of fact? Newton's mechanics is not referring to "the same" forces or entities as are Einstein's, despite using "the same" terms (like "gravity"). You can make this as "complicated" as you wish, but the fact remains the same. Newton is "useful" at low velocities, but his mechanics can be and has been entirely supplanted by Einstein. The fact that Newton's mechanics are still useful in "coarse-grained" ways (because at low velocities the calculations are easier) does not make the theory true.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2017 - 07:59pm PT

I hope you are a better philosopher than a physicist.

I hope you are a better physicist than philosopher.

You see, the difference is that I don't claim to be a physicist. But you (and other physicists) perpetually use philosophy and act like philosophers. Again, you guys do it badly, as you perpetually help yourselves to the very issues that are in question.