-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?
- Thread starter tuga
- Start date
Given that religion is one of the out-of-bounds topics on this forum an 'intelligent creator' creator belief is safe here.
Some religions have no problem with Darwin's work and its evolvement.
Last edited:
Guarantee, you're not going to get any guarantees on recreational drug use. LOL
"You buy your ticket and you take your ride" as the saying goes.
I've never read any reviews of the effects of trippin on the 70+ year old brain, could be interesting.
Maybe you could start a new column at Stereophile?
Records To Trip By or some such thing.
Chicago in the 60s-80s was a lot of fun too.
Things are looking up
Not to win an argument, but I put in very specific answers about temperature and you responded with “you don’t understand “ and absolutely zero facts. Yes I won the argument.
Now if you want to quote my statements and explain why humans will all die when the temperature goes up another 1 degree Celsius, or prove that the temperature has never been hotter during human existence, I’m interested in learning and then I can stop using NASA and the Smithsonian as climate resources.
If you are a reader of Stereophile, you realize that there are other writers who are clearly more amenable than I am to such suggestions.Guarantee, you're not going to get any guarantees on recreational drug use. LOL
"You buy your ticket and you take your ride" as the saying goes.
I've never read any reviews of the effects of trippin on the 70+ year old brain, could be interesting.
Maybe you could start a new column at Stereophile?
Records To Trip By or some such thing.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
I think that underlines a lot (if not most) of the controversy we see these days. The hardship of mentally visualizing really, really big numbers.
Modern science deals with numbers that, when put on a scale, makes the total amount of sand grains on Planet Earth look like practically zero.
When you have to visualize that, most people simply short circuit (who can really blame them?) and fall back on what seems more manageable to them. But like is pointed out above, the natural world doesn't change depending on whether or not you understand it.
We have no way of knowing precisely when life began on Earth, but ~3.8 billion years ago is our best guess at the moment.
That's a sersious amount of time
Adding two cents to the acid sidebar-
Last time was August, 1977. Went to see the first Star Wars film at the Coronet theater in San Francisco. I can remember being completely absorbed by the film to the point that we were ducking laser blasts coming out of the screen. Afterward we wandered aimlessly around the city trying to decide which twinkle in the sky might be the Death Star. When the sun came up the next morning it was time to find the car. Turned out we were so far we had to take a trolley. It was late the next day before I finally fell asleep.
The reason that was the last time- Toward the end, I became paranoid the buzz was never going to end (with shakes). Also realized we were lucky to not get mugged.
Last time was August, 1977. Went to see the first Star Wars film at the Coronet theater in San Francisco. I can remember being completely absorbed by the film to the point that we were ducking laser blasts coming out of the screen. Afterward we wandered aimlessly around the city trying to decide which twinkle in the sky might be the Death Star. When the sun came up the next morning it was time to find the car. Turned out we were so far we had to take a trolley. It was late the next day before I finally fell asleep.
The reason that was the last time- Toward the end, I became paranoid the buzz was never going to end (with shakes). Also realized we were lucky to not get mugged.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
That's a sersious amount of time
Then you get into things like Red Dwarf stars with projected lifespans in the Trillions of years. It's hard to feel terribly significant in any big picture...
This New York Times bestseller documented said effects on that of a 63 year old’s:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Change_Your_Mind
I had an astronomy professor who began our first class with “If you want to feel big and powerful take a biology class, this class isn’t for you.”
They obviously hadn’t taken biology at graduate level or they’d have realised that being of a species that has been domesticated by wheat any student would have been making a grave parochial error to assume that they were big and powerful
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,847
- Likes
- 37,798
Unfortunately, this was a serious on going concern and question to Mr. Dick.
Maybe that's an interesting question, or maybe not. The reason that some people ask this question is that they are predisposed to believe that all of the different species on the planet in the present era were here from the start. This had been the standing assumption throughout most of history, but natural philosophers began to suspect otherwise at least a century before before Darwin came along.
A century or two before Darwin, natural philosophers had begun to earnestly consider the question of whether the present life forms had descended from earlier forms. A major impetus for the debate was that the fossil record had left no doubt as to the fact that the life forms that walked the earth in an earlier era were not at all the same as the life forms walking the planet in the present day. This conclusion had become inescapable, and how was it to be explained, except by supposing that earlier life forms had slowly evolved into the life forms found in the present day? No doubt there were people who proposed that some great cataclysm had occurred that wiped out all the earlier life forms, after which there had been a sort of intervention wherein the life forms found today were newly introduced. But not many natural philosophers would have taken this idea seriously unless there were good evidence for it in the fossil record.
And there were other reasons. Studies of geologic processes indicated that the planet was vastly older than people had previously imagined. The commonality of life forms across the continents was mostly limited to species found on the major northern hemisphere continents. It had become apparent that this commonality was more the exception than the rule, especially when looking at isolated islands in the southern hemisphere, Australia being just one of many examples. Species adapted to extremely cold climates were different for the north pole vs. the south pole. Penguins at the south pole but not at the north pole. Polar bears at the north pole but not at the south pole. A number of similar examples within birds. There were also the embryological studies that suggested that mammals, reptiles and birds shared a common amphibian-like ancestor.
All in all, a century or two before Darwin, there was already a preponderance of reasons for natural philosophers to conclude that the present life forms had evolved from the earlier life forms found in the fossil record. To suggest what you seem to be suggesting (unless you are playing the straw man for reasons of your own), that the process of evolution isn't able to produce new species from earlier species, amounts to saying that the thing that very obviously happened didn't happen. You're saying in essence that because we have no way to prove that random mutations and natural selection can result in entirely new species emerging from established species, that it would be reasonable for us to doubt that evolution can occur beyond the extent of microevolution, and to doubt that present day species had evolved gradually and naturally from the species seen in the earlier era. And yet, there is clearly a preponderance of evidence and reasoning by which no reasonable person can reasonably deny that present day species have in fact evolved gradually and naturally from the species that existed at an earlier time period. Given this preponderance of evidence and reasoning, how would it make good sense for anyone to say that in order for there to be adequate justification to believe that it had happened, that it should first be necessary for someone to prove, in a laboratory experiment of some sort, that it is possible for an existing species to evolve into a completely new species? How would it be reasonable for anyone to insist on proof of this sort, before they would accept the reality of this thing that no reasonable person could deny, because to deny it would be to deny all of the things I briefly mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs? How could any reasonable person deny all of that? The answer is that no reasonable person could.
EDIT: After writing this I realized that you might not be advocating the anti-evolution position but were only mentioning something that you thought worth mentioning. If so, then please don't take this as being directed at you specifically.
Politics and religion, two sure fire topics to start an argument.
Lets move on from this please.
Politics and religion, two sure fire topics to start an argument.
Lets move on from this please.
We do like to skate around the edges...
Yes, let's not let this escalate to that bad place.
Stairway to heaven, escalator to hell?
And a lot less pollutants like sulphur, and particles in general. Coal is one big mess.
Helicopter
Major Contributor
And heavy metals if you don't use scrubbers. I am not sure how widespread the dirty processes are today, but they have not gone away.
This problem is well-known to petrologists, who tend to see, and describe in flowery language, colours most other people perceive as shades of grey
. Not quite fifty, but we’re getting there.
Last edited:
