talkmagic.co.uk

Yes, she did. This woman calls herself a born again christian, she's one of the reasons I refuse to believe, what she did was evil actually.

Sophie wrote:Yes, she did. This woman calls herself a born again christian, she's one of the reasons I refuse to believe, what she did was evil actually.

Couldn't agree more. You have my sympathies.

I dont see this woman anymore, but one thing id like to have asked her is, why did she burn them, she could have just thrown them away, I dont undestand why she told me what she'd done either, it was as if she was doing me a favour

Robbie wrote:Some experiments have been done investigating mindset. For instance, people with strong political opinions who listen to a neutrally balanced lecture will selectively hear and remember the points favourable to their side, and forget opposing points.

Absolutely. In science, this effect is known as the 'Confirmation Bias'. This is why (good) scientific experiments are run using the 'random, double-blind' experimental methodology. These measures help to ensure that the Confirmation Bias has little or no effect on the outcome.

This is another area where the two different implimentations of the word 'faith' differ. Those of a theistic-bent tend to seek out only the evidence that supports their faith. The process of science actively seeks out evidence that will contradict (i.e falsify) established scientific knowledge, in order to improve and refine the model.

That's it, confirmation bias. Couldn't think of the words. I've got a stinking cold -- enhanced today by a migraine -- so the brain processes aren't really doing their thing.

Sophie, your crazy lady sounds... well, like a crazy lady. Religious delusions aren't the same as religious belief.

Sophie wrote:I dont see this woman anymore, but one thing id like to have asked her is, why did she burn them, she could have just thrown them away, I dont undestand why she told me what she'd done either, it was as if she was doing me a favour

It's simple - that woman is a complete nutter.

I know! she used to be a family member, but not anymore. The amount of smoke those videos gave off was...well not good for the environment shall we say. The rest of the Harry Potter's are in DVD, and i have them all apart frm the first and second.

I have heard other so called christians not wanting their kids to watch the Potter films simply because they think magic is evil. I dont understand that at all.

Equally simple, they aren't Christians. I've known a lot of Priests and the one non-religious thing they have in common is a sense of humour - you have to have one to deal with everyone else's woes and troubles. Theological colleges are rife with jokes which some might think are slightly on the rude side! Anyone who takes such a restricted view to destroy a person's property like that really needs to get counselling, IMHO.

Stuff like Harry Potter, Hitchhiker's Guide, Star Wars and so on are just escapist entertainment and are there to be enjoyed for what they are. Mind you, I knew one Priest who reckoned there was a lot of theology in Hitchhikers' Guide.... never knew whether he was kidding or not....

I remind us all of the most succinct and possibly best quote:

'A man of science is a poor philosopher'
Alberto Einstein

'I' do 'not' 'think' 'I' 'want' to 'cause' my'self' the trouble of giving 'evidence', 'proof', 'argument' or even saying that it's 'true' but my best advice is to read a few books about 'philosophy' and soon you will understand.

Before someone rebukes and tries to have me excommunicated from the church of science for questioning their ecclesiastical epistemological authority and daring to ask questions of it, I should point out that I believe he means a 'man of science' to be one of the members of the club of outspoken atheistic-types who actually knows very little about science or logic themselves but believe everything they are told and criticise those who disagree with them for doing the same. Or just ignorant, belligerent scientists who know an awful lot about their respective fields of materialistic sciences (Biology & Chemistry to some degree, less so contemporary physics) but are incredibly narrow minded. Cough. Cough. R. Dawk...ough.

Talking of computers- the developments in logic by mathematitians from Frege through to Turing, required much discovering of uncertainty. Alan Turing conjectured that there are problems which are impossible to solve for logic and that there can be incredibly difficult logical problems which can worked out but which you can never know when to stop working on.

As far as I understand of things, once you look into them with enough honesty you begin to become certain only of uncertainty.

And talking of maths' 'proofs' maths prooves nothing of any 'actual' world, but works entirley from definition and axioms and builds her edifice on the basis merley of definition. The line between pure mathematics and logic is incredibly thin and dare I say, quite beatiful.

Science is so popular because it provides answers and explanations- many a scientist will tell you of that propenstity in mankind. But it is nthing more than confirmation bias to ignore the fact that once it boils down and we take science as far as it can go it collapses into philosophy- as does maths at its core- as does logic. Because philosophy is simply questions about logic nobody has agreed on.

I am not a nihilist. I am not a non-inductivist. I believe that my computer is working because of various electrical circuits and so on. I trust that when you mix chemical element a with element b you'll get compound x. I believe in some respect the chemical explanations such as covalent bonds and ionisation have a degree of truth in them. I believe we 'evolved'. I accept that science works, for all practical purposes. But beyond practical purposes, everything becomes so much stranger.

With regard to science though, something about science has always amused me. Scientists make observations and conclude that these observations allow us to predict the future. A fairly valid observation of science would be that it has never remained constant. That theories always evolve and are adapted to survive new evidence and new enquiries. This dialectic is never static and rarley completley revolutionary- far more glacial. On this past observation one should really induce that current scientific models will evolve and change and adapt. If they are evolving, changing and adapting then presently it is not absolutley correct, is it? Perhaps it is allegorical and closer to the truth each time and with each increment of evolution- but it is not entirley true. Even if we have ended this series of dialectic, much like the solvable vs. incredibly difficult problem, we can never know if our theories are correct or just haven't been evolved further so far.

The only certain thing is uncertainty.

For this reason I believe very little of any of the science I study out of interest in it. The irony is, from this obervation of the evolution of science, I am forced to reject the theory evolution. But I have never been subservient to convention- the truth will rarley be popular and new ideas are usually rejected simply because they challenge the ego of certainty. It is a human paradox- we all innatley crave the truth. This craving for truth in us all creates biases which make us latch onto possible items of truth far too desparatley and with far too much faith. This desire for knowledge and subsequent desire for one's own beliefs to be true subsequently rejects the truth when it arrives because it threatens the ego of the 'truth searcher' within us all. It is difficult to accept then, that the best way towards finding truth is to not desire it.

But to continue, I am not a beleiver in the theory of evolution. I have too much faith in induction. The test of any observation is whether it can make predictions. I observe that science fluctuates. Therefore- I predict that, hopefully in my lifetime, some scientist will come along and challenge some aspect of it and it will be found Darwin was 'sort of right' and then we will all alter this conventional opinion a little bit so it is more in touch with the truth. On the basis of this prediction I arrive at my conclusion that evolution is not entirley true.

Of course this is the problem. I don't understand evolution enough and I don't have the evidence to disprove it. Therefore I am wrong and should be shot. But remember before you shoot me- 'It's not my job to prove a negative'.


But Sam, we have proved it.

So far. Just remember how Newton 'proved' so much and it was unanimously accepted so certainly. In fact, it resembles the truth so well that newtonian explanations are still used for practical purposes. Newton's theories are not 'disproved' per se, but 'evolved' and his theories are no longer entirley true.

I predict some will scorn at me. That's to be induced. I have questioned a religion. It is always so that dissidents are scorned at. There's another induction and another prediction which will test how well my induction works. But I am not bothered becauseeeee:

'It's just a ride'
Bill Hicks

I'm certainly not going to scorn you, but I do disagree on a few points.

As I've said several times; science doesn't claim to know everything, or even that accepted theories are absolute truths. I would like further information on your reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution; you say that you don't believe it because science is always evolving so it must eventually be shown that what we know now is not true (by whatever definition of true we are currently using; this is all getting rather confusing). What this stance seems to neglect as I see it, is that rather than accepted truths being shown to be wrong in every case, usually the progress is by increased understanding leading to refinement of the existing theory. You state that you hope that Darwin will be proved "sort of right" and, in fact, this has already happened; the theory which explains the observed evidence that lifeforms change over generations is very different now to that which Darwin understood.

Science has progressed through arrogant phases, including a widely held belief that physics was almost "solved" at one stage. These days I think things are a bit better and whilst we know, for example, what ionic and covalent bonding are, why they occur and can predict when they will occur in extremely complex systems we acknowledge that the ultimate cause for these phenomena are not completely understood (when you get beyond electron orbitals and quantum mechanics etc).

nickj wrote:I'm certainly not going to scorn you, but I do disagree on a few points.

As I've said several times; science doesn't claim to know everything, or even that accepted theories are absolute truths. I would like further information on your reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution; you say that you don't believe it because science is always evolving so it must eventually be shown that what we know now is not true (by whatever definition of true we are currently using; this is all getting rather confusing). What this stance seems to neglect as I see it, is that rather than accepted truths being shown to be wrong in every case, usually the progress is by increased understanding leading to refinement of the existing theory. You state that you hope that Darwin will be proved "sort of right" and, in fact, this has already happened; the theory which explains the observed evidence that lifeforms change over generations is very different now to that which Darwin understood.

Science has progressed through arrogant phases, including a widely held belief that physics was almost "solved" at one stage. These days I think things are a bit better and whilst we know, for example, what ionic and covalent bonding are, why they occur and can predict when they will occur in extremely complex systems we acknowledge that the ultimate cause for these phenomena are not completely understood (when you get beyond electron orbitals and quantum mechanics etc).

At the risk of sounding superfluously contentious, from what I have read, I'm not sure whether or not you are disagreeing with me.

I don't follow updates in Biology (or Chemistry) particularly keenly, upon seeing how baffled so many 'science types' are by such criticism of scientific method. In truth I love 'science' and 'knowledge' (I hope I won't regret opening that philosophical can o' worms) too much and it pains me that it is filled by so many dogmatic individuals. I realise that saying this may easily be mistaken as 'anti-sciencism' or similar. I am not at all anti science I simply believe that it is uncertain. Upon believing this, it does become irritating when this suggestion is as taboo for some as advocating nazism.

In honesty, I find most science incredibly interesting. I find most things interesting- disinterest is usually born of not understanding something.

But to clarify, I beleive that most sceintific models built upon empirical data are only built upon current empirical data. I beleieve Paradigims shift perpetually. I believe it is uncertain whether or not the present paradgim is the closest to this scientific ideal of 'truth' or whether it needs further refining. In fact I believe it is impossible to tell.

I am not 'anti-science' lest the thought be had. I'm just critical of most things and I find most people's beliefs quite spurious, simply because I am so unsure of anything.

My theory though, comits suicide. At some point, according to itself, it is due for a paradigm shift, so fear not. Although, if this happens... then surley that proves itself whilst simultaneously disproving itself.

More uncertaintly arrises.

So, please don't quote me too often. I wouldn't wish upon anything I had said to be condemned to eternity. Anyone who has an opinion worth listening to is rarley static and unchanging in thier views. And therein is my contention with science- that too many of it's opinions are worth listening to.

*P.S I use the general abiguous, scientific ideal of truth- usually that which refers to reality, which is an entirley new issue.
*I didn't say I hoped that evolution was disproved, I predicted that it would be refined and that I hoped this would happen within my lifetime.

[Edit; if you don't like reading, my points are nicely reproduced in image form in the next post]

I which case, I think my disagreement with you is based solely on the fact that you seem to have had far too much contact with belligerent semi-intellectuals who know some science but haven't really been much involved in doing it!

It seems that there are a few rules which govern the universe and the complexity around us stems from the interactions of these. Science does its best to describe what we are able to observe and it is continually being refined. To take evolution again; I understand that you don't wish it to be disproved, which is good because I don't think that is very likely to happen given the amount of refinement that has already occurred. For example, genetic evidence is some of the best there is for the theory, showing how traits are passed on in genes and revealing ancestry through the signs left behind by retroviruses amongst many other things, yet this entire field was only 'discovered' 60 or 70 years after Darwin published On The Origin of Species. The theory as it stands at the moment is one of the best there is amongst all scientific theories in terms of variety of evidence; people often say there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity, which is clearly nonsense but there probably is a greater range of different types of evidence for it.

I do think that, similarly to your perception of some parties idolising science and accepting no criticism, the elevation of our own thought processes and the assumption that our logic surpasses our ability to record what we are able to observe is rather pandering to the ego of those who do nothing but try to thing the word straight!

I will also freely admit (and this isn't a direct dig at you, Sam) that I do get annoyed, even angry, that people with little to no practical experience of science feel that they know enough to criticise the scientific method and think that they have some higher intellectual standpoint by doing so; I would hazard a guess that every single item within your view at the moment has benefited from the scientific method (or something similar) in its development and production, i.e. try something, if it doesn't work, try something slightly different, record your results and gain ground. Arguing whether or not that is a valid way of doing things may be mentally stimulating, but when it comes right down to it, the system works; maybe not perfectly, but it is better than just trying to think things into existence!

On a lighter note, since it is now stupid o'clock and I need to go to bed, here are some more xkcd comics which perfectly illustrate all of my points above.

http://www.xkcd.com/675/
http://www.xkcd.com/749/
http://www.xkcd.com/808/
http://xkcd.com/154/

Hope that helps!

I do find it quite interesting the more big words young Gurney uses the more spelling mistakes he makes. And the ironic thing is that it is not the big words he spells wrongly but the small everyday ones.

Sam, I hope your magic presentations communicate better than your overly-long and wordy posts