This should not be a puzzling question, but often it appears to be unnoticed or ignored in many threads on this forum.
What are the essential elements of standard scientific method and what is excluded? This guy has thoughts and there is a huge literature, but what is the collective wisdom here? Perhaps it would help to take a look at the tools we are each using in our shared scientific exploration.
The scientific method forgot to bring understanding... But mostly thats just humans fault...
The Scientific Method is a simple but powerful concept.
1) Make observations and record data
2) Create a hypothesis (guess/model) that explains the data
3) Use the hypothesis to make a prediction.
4) Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis
5) Once the hypothesis passes rigorous experimentation, it becomes a theory
6) The theory is only accepted as long as all new data fits into the theory. If new data contradicts the theory, go to step 2.
7) Ignore everything that magpies says.
1) Make observations and record data
2) Create a hypothesis (guess/model) that explains the data
3) Use the hypothesis to make a prediction.
4) Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis
5) Once the hypothesis passes rigorous experimentation, it becomes a theory
6) The theory is only accepted as long as all new data fits into the theory. If new data contradicts the theory, go to step 2.
7) Ignore everything that magpies says.
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 11 2009, 07:54 PM)
The scientific method forgot to bring understanding... But mostly thats just humans fault...
For all you and others that crisize science, you never offer anything better.
Spiritual attempts at knowledge have been going on for thousands of years.
For all you and others that crisize science, you never offer anything better.
Spiritual attempts at knowledge have been going on for thousands of years.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 11 2009, 03:41 PM)
For all you and others that crisize science, you never offer anything better.
Spiritual attempts at knowledge have been going on for thousands of years.
Without producing so much as a single useful advancement.
Science on the other hand, has given us modern medicine, genetically engineered crops and livestock, roadways, cities and the computers these idiots use to whine about science.
Spiritual attempts at knowledge have been going on for thousands of years.
Without producing so much as a single useful advancement.
Science on the other hand, has given us modern medicine, genetically engineered crops and livestock, roadways, cities and the computers these idiots use to whine about science.
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 11 2009, 07:54 PM)
The scientific method forgot to bring understanding... But mostly thats just humans fault...
Actually, it is your fault, as well as that of many who belong to your "free thinking" ilk.
You idiots disregard the scientific method and don't understand anything you ever get corrected on, yet you claim to be doing groundbreaking work of some sort.
Actually, it is your fault, as well as that of many who belong to your "free thinking" ilk.
You idiots disregard the scientific method and don't understand anything you ever get corrected on, yet you claim to be doing groundbreaking work of some sort.
I believe in God and science, and I am not an idiot that is foolish enough to think I know everything there is in either case. I don't force anything on anyone, I am more interested in sharing. This is why I utterly dislike the generalizations used about religion or spirituality from scientists that can't disprove a thing, and religion that can't prove a thing. Both prove what they think regardless of what they say, in their actions.
All white men are the devil and are racists. The arguments from the spiritual claims on science, and the scientific claims on religion are of the same exact level of self-centered-ignorant thinking. There are right and wrong ways to do every-thing. Stop focusing on what the wrong things done are, and start working on making the right one happens. Get over yourselves, you are both seeking a definition of truth that we are incapable of ever-fully understanding. The little things matter.
This is why I want to teach kids, not men. Men are made of the past, kids are made for the future.
(steps down from soap-box)
All white men are the devil and are racists. The arguments from the spiritual claims on science, and the scientific claims on religion are of the same exact level of self-centered-ignorant thinking. There are right and wrong ways to do every-thing. Stop focusing on what the wrong things done are, and start working on making the right one happens. Get over yourselves, you are both seeking a definition of truth that we are incapable of ever-fully understanding. The little things matter.
This is why I want to teach kids, not men. Men are made of the past, kids are made for the future.(steps down from soap-box)
"6) The theory is only accepted as long as all new data fits into the theory. If new data contradicts the theory, go to step 2."
Alternatively to 6 - revamp contradicting new data to fit the theory -
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 11 2009, 04:33 PM)
This is why I utterly dislike the generalizations used about religion or spirituality from scientists...
You do realize the difference between "science" and "scientists", right?
You do realize that scientists are allowed to have philosophical opinions and beliefs, right?
You do realize the difference between "science" and "scientists", right?
You do realize that scientists are allowed to have philosophical opinions and beliefs, right?
QUOTE
You do realize the difference between "science" and "scientists", right?
You do realize that scientists are allowed to have philosophical opinions and beliefs, right?
You do realize that scientists are allowed to have philosophical opinions and beliefs, right?
Validating proof of someone thinking they know everything.
1) Yes, do you realize it is a scientists job to discuss science, not god as his job, the other is what a philosopher does. Do you realize the difference?
2) Personal opinion or belief expressed in scientific work will result in a forced outcome on the experiment if not controlled.
Do you understand what that means? It's the Hawthorne effect for the scientist, not the subject.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 11 2009, 09:33 PM)
"6) The theory is only accepted as long as all new data fits into the theory. If new data contradicts the theory, go to step 2."
Alternatively to 6 - revamp contradicting new data to fit the theory -
True scientists are interested in accuracy not certainty.
Religious people want certainty.
If someone never says "I don't know" then don't trust what they claim to know.
Alternatively to 6 - revamp contradicting new data to fit the theory -
True scientists are interested in accuracy not certainty.
Religious people want certainty.
If someone never says "I don't know" then don't trust what they claim to know.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 11 2009, 05:06 PM)
Validating proof of someone thinking they know everything.
1) Yes, do you realize it is a scientists job to discuss science, not god as his job, the other is what a philosopher does. Do you realize the difference?
2) Personal opinion or belief expressed in scientific work will result in a forced outcome on the experiment if not controlled.
Do you understand what that means? It's the Hawthorne effect for the scientist, not the subject.
So, a scientist is not ever allowed to express his philosophical beliefs?
I see people bringing up Einstein's "beliefs" all the time (interestingly from both sides of the "god" argument) while failing to realize that his beliefs are totally irrelevant.
Is it his fault that people can't tell the difference?
QUOTE
So, a scientist is not ever allowed to express his philosophical beliefs?
Not in their work, no. Did Einstein say that the speed of light was proof of God in his work?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, a scientist is not ever allowed to express his philosophical beliefs? |
Not in their work, no. Did Einstein say that the speed of light was proof of God in his work?
I see people bringing up Einstein's "beliefs" all the time (interestingly from both sides of the "god" argument) while failing to realize that his beliefs are totally irrelevant.
Is it his fault that people can't tell the difference?
It is interesting considering you just did what you assert you don't do. I never mentioned him, you did, and proceeded to put a religious spin on scientific work. This is an error. One doesn't have to be a philosopher to have an opinion of it. You should however be one before offering theories of how it works.
Is it his fault people can't separate his work matters from private concerns?
What is everyone afraid of?
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 11 2009, 05:36 PM)
Not in their work, no. Did Einstein say that the speed of light was proof of God in his work?
It is interesting considering you just did what you assert you don't do. I never mentioned him, you did, and proceeded to put a religious spin on scientific work. This is an error. One doesn't have to be a philosopher to have an opinion of it. You should however be one before offering theories of how it works.
Is it his fault people can't separate his work matters from private concerns?
What is everyone afraid of?
The only religious spin on my post is in your mind.
I am adamant that people should keep their philosophical views (atheist or religious) out of the science class.
But I am also just as adamant that people should teach themselves enough about science to be able to tell the difference.
QUOTE
I see people bringing up Einstein's "beliefs" all the time (interestingly from both sides of the "god" argument) while failing to realize that his beliefs are totally irrelevant.
What is that? My delusion? Or your illusion of your truth?
It's "delusion".
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 11 2009, 06:49 PM)
What is that? My delusion? Or your illusion of your truth?
Incoherent...
Questions do not compute.
I am incoherent that you brought up Einstein and his religious beliefs, when you would have me think that I did?
Was he a priest, philosopher, or scientist? How is that relative to this conversation? Did I bring it up, or did you? I must not know anything, could you please teach me, not what there is to learn, but only what you know?
(edit)
Projection of an illusion, is not my delusion.
Was he a priest, philosopher, or scientist? How is that relative to this conversation? Did I bring it up, or did you? I must not know anything, could you please teach me, not what there is to learn, but only what you know?
(edit)
Projection of an illusion, is not my delusion.
QUOTE
Experiments led by Solomon Asch asked groups of students to participate in a "vision test." In reality, all but one of the participants were confederates of the experimenter, and the study was really about how the remaining student would react to the confederates' behavior.
Why do people think that they can learn more about the world by looking at numbers and data about numbers then trying to understand concepts like love?
Anyone who truely understands a thing like love will have the same understanding about the universe as someone who truely understands numbers. They are both a part of the system called the universe... If you understand any aspect of the universe fully you will understand every other aspect. You may not be good with numbers if you understand love but you will get the concepts of numbers. Just like you may not be good with love if you understand numbers but you will get the concepts of love.
So the question is can love or numbers be understood better and if so how much better? My answer is ones love for the world can always grow with understanding.
People that say only one way is right have clearly never tryed any other way.
Anyone who truely understands a thing like love will have the same understanding about the universe as someone who truely understands numbers. They are both a part of the system called the universe... If you understand any aspect of the universe fully you will understand every other aspect. You may not be good with numbers if you understand love but you will get the concepts of numbers. Just like you may not be good with love if you understand numbers but you will get the concepts of love.
So the question is can love or numbers be understood better and if so how much better? My answer is ones love for the world can always grow with understanding.
People that say only one way is right have clearly never tryed any other way.
QUOTE
People that say only one way is right have clearly never tryed any other way.
Says the ignoramus.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 11 2009, 07:08 PM)
I am incoherent that you brought up Einstein and his religious beliefs, when you would have me think that I did?
Was he a priest, philosopher, or scientist? How is that relative to this conversation? Did I bring it up, or did you? I must not know anything, could you please teach me, not what there is to learn, but only what you know?
(edit)
Projection of an illusion, is not my delusion.
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
In this post here
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416321
You brought up scientist's generalizations about religion.
I responded by pointing out that scientists are also humans and are entitled to "opinions". I also pointed out how people quote scientist's "opinions" about philosophical topics, and how it is totally irrelevant. I used Einstein as an example.
Here it is in a nutshell. Hopefully you can wrap your little mind around it.
Not only can science not prove or disprove the existence of "god", it is even trying. God is a different subject altogether about which science is neutral.
Was he a priest, philosopher, or scientist? How is that relative to this conversation? Did I bring it up, or did you? I must not know anything, could you please teach me, not what there is to learn, but only what you know?
(edit)
Projection of an illusion, is not my delusion.
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
In this post here
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416321
You brought up scientist's generalizations about religion.
I responded by pointing out that scientists are also humans and are entitled to "opinions". I also pointed out how people quote scientist's "opinions" about philosophical topics, and how it is totally irrelevant. I used Einstein as an example.
Here it is in a nutshell. Hopefully you can wrap your little mind around it.
Not only can science not prove or disprove the existence of "god", it is even trying. God is a different subject altogether about which science is neutral.
QUOTE
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
See, there I go again being dumb. I talked about what I thought, not Einstein, like you did in this thread.
You made an appeal to authority, not me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. |
See, there I go again being dumb. I talked about what I thought, not Einstein, like you did in this thread.
You made an appeal to authority, not me.
Without producing so much as a single useful advancement.
Science on the other hand, has given us modern medicine, genetically engineered crops and livestock, roadways, cities and the computers these idiots use to whine about science.
And to note historically, if it was not for the bible, the printing press would have not been invited when it was, there is one example for you.
I did not bring that up, I replied to it. My reading comprehension is bad? Do you know what that means?
QUOTE
Not only can science not prove or disprove the existence of "god", it is even trying. God is a different subject altogether about which science is neutral.
I would almost agree with that, but it seems we have to live with one another. Does going around disregarding what one says in sweeping generalizations or Einstein specific details, negatively force a positive outcome? Both are something we cannot fully define O's. So if we force a negative value, then guess what we have a negative value.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Not only can science not prove or disprove the existence of "god", it is even trying. God is a different subject altogether about which science is neutral. |
I would almost agree with that, but it seems we have to live with one another. Does going around disregarding what one says in sweeping generalizations or Einstein specific details, negatively force a positive outcome? Both are something we cannot fully define O's. So if we force a negative value, then guess what we have a negative value.
Here it is in a nutshell. Hopefully you can wrap your little mind around it.
How very eloquent of you, kind sir.
Comprehension is not
A: Monologue
1. a form of dramatic entertainment, comedic solo, or the like by a single speaker: a comedian's monologue.
2. a prolonged talk or discourse by a single speaker, esp. one dominating or monopolizing a conversation.
3. any composition, as a poem, in which a single person speaks alone.
4. a part of a drama in which a single actor speaks alone; soliloquy.
It is
B: Dialogue
1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.
4. a literary work in the form of a conversation: a dialogue of Plato.
That is the difference between context, and comprehension.
Context:
1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
Comprehension:
1. the act or process of comprehending.
2. the state of being comprehended.
3. perception or understanding: His comprehension of physics is amazing for a young student.
4. capacity of the mind to perceive and understand; power to grasp ideas; ability to know.
5. Logic. the connotation of a term.
6. inclusion.
7. comprehensiveness.
A: Monologue
1. a form of dramatic entertainment, comedic solo, or the like by a single speaker: a comedian's monologue.
2. a prolonged talk or discourse by a single speaker, esp. one dominating or monopolizing a conversation.
3. any composition, as a poem, in which a single person speaks alone.
4. a part of a drama in which a single actor speaks alone; soliloquy.
It is
B: Dialogue
1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.
4. a literary work in the form of a conversation: a dialogue of Plato.
That is the difference between context, and comprehension.
Context:
1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
Comprehension:
1. the act or process of comprehending.
2. the state of being comprehended.
3. perception or understanding: His comprehension of physics is amazing for a young student.
4. capacity of the mind to perceive and understand; power to grasp ideas; ability to know.
5. Logic. the connotation of a term.
6. inclusion.
7. comprehensiveness.
And just to touch on something from my perspective that occurred to me while standing in my backyard and looking up into the night sky at the stars.
Science, is a lot like spirituality, philosophy, medicine, and everything else ... it is based on the past-history. How many stars in the sky, does science take on "faith" as still being there? How many of them are out of the relative field of vision of our lifetime(s)? The recent Hubble "Blob" pictures are of something 12.9 billion light years away ... so how are we actually seeing it? As it was 12.9 billion years ago, or as it is now? How do we know what happened to this "blob" when it was (then)1--12.9 (now?) wouldn't it be 25.8 billion years old now if it is still existing in another state?? If its light took 12.9 billion light years to get here, and the universe is estimated to be 13.75 billion years old something doesn't seem to add up right to me, unless light from 12.9 billion years ago instantly got here.
All the rules of today's science and understanding are built up from things of the past that most people alive today never actually saw with their own eyes. If science doesn't take a leap of "faith," I am not sure anything does.
Science, is a lot like spirituality, philosophy, medicine, and everything else ... it is based on the past-history. How many stars in the sky, does science take on "faith" as still being there? How many of them are out of the relative field of vision of our lifetime(s)? The recent Hubble "Blob" pictures are of something 12.9 billion light years away ... so how are we actually seeing it? As it was 12.9 billion years ago, or as it is now? How do we know what happened to this "blob" when it was (then)1--12.9 (now?) wouldn't it be 25.8 billion years old now if it is still existing in another state?? If its light took 12.9 billion light years to get here, and the universe is estimated to be 13.75 billion years old something doesn't seem to add up right to me, unless light from 12.9 billion years ago instantly got here.
All the rules of today's science and understanding are built up from things of the past that most people alive today never actually saw with their own eyes. If science doesn't take a leap of "faith," I am not sure anything does.
QUOTE
And to note historically, if it was not for the bible, the printing press would have not been invited when it was, there is one example for you.
Incorrect.
QUOTE
Milestones:
888 The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, was the first dated example of block printing.
1041 Bi Sheng in China invented movable clay type
1423 Europeans use xylography (art of engraving on wood, block printing) to produce books.
1430 Gutenberg moved from his native town of Mainz to Strasburg
1436 Gutenberg begins work on his printing press.
1437 Gutenberg was sued for "breach of promise of marriage" by a young lady of Strasburg
1440 Gutenberg completed his wooden press which used movable metal type.
1440 Laurens Janszoon Koster (Coster) is credited, by some, with inventing movable metal type
1444 Gutenberg returns to Mainz and sets up a printing shop
1446 Gutenberg prints the "Poem of the Last Judgment"
1448 Gutenberg prints the "Calendar for 1448"
1450 Gutenberg' formed a partnership with the wealthy Johann Fust
1450 Gutenberg begins work on a Bible, the first is 40 lines per page.
1452 Gutenberg begins printing the 42-line Bible in two volumes.
1454 Gutenberg prints indulgences (notes sold to Christians by the Pope, pardoning their sins)
1455 First block-printed Bible, the Biblia Pauperum, published in Germany.
1455 Gutenberg completed work on what is estimated to be 200 copies of the Bible
1455 Gutenberg was effectively bankrupt. Investor Johann Faust gains control of print business
1457 First known color printing, a Psalter (a collection of Psalms for devotional use) by Faust.
1460 Gutenberg reestablished himself in the printing business with the aid of Conrad Humery
1461 Albrecht Pfister printed the first illustrated book Edelstein which featured a number of woodcuts.
1465 Gutenberg is appointed to the court of Archbishop Adolf of Nassau
1476 Two hundred woodcuts were used in a edition of Aesop's Fables
1476 First use of copper engravings instead of woodcuts for illustration
1476 William Caxton sets up his printing press in Westminster, England.
1499 Printing had become established in more than 2500 cities around Europe.
1499 An estimated 15 million books have been press printed, representing thirty thousand book titles
CAPs: Johannes Gutenberg, Johann Gutenberg, Bi Sheng, Laurens Janszoon Koster, Johann Faust, Peter Schoffer, Albrecht Pfister, Conrad Humery, Archbishop Adolf of Nassau, William Caxton, Gutenberg Bible, 42-line Bible, Mazarin Bible, Diamond Sutra, Poem of the Last Judgment, Calendar for 1448, Psalter, Aesop's Fables,
SIPs: printing press, movable type, xylography, metal type, indulgences, typography, letterpress printing, invention, history, inventor of, history of, who invented, invention of, fascinating facts.
888 The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, was the first dated example of block printing.
1041 Bi Sheng in China invented movable clay type
1423 Europeans use xylography (art of engraving on wood, block printing) to produce books.
1430 Gutenberg moved from his native town of Mainz to Strasburg
1436 Gutenberg begins work on his printing press.
1437 Gutenberg was sued for "breach of promise of marriage" by a young lady of Strasburg
1440 Gutenberg completed his wooden press which used movable metal type.
1440 Laurens Janszoon Koster (Coster) is credited, by some, with inventing movable metal type
1444 Gutenberg returns to Mainz and sets up a printing shop
1446 Gutenberg prints the "Poem of the Last Judgment"
1448 Gutenberg prints the "Calendar for 1448"
1450 Gutenberg' formed a partnership with the wealthy Johann Fust
1450 Gutenberg begins work on a Bible, the first is 40 lines per page.
1452 Gutenberg begins printing the 42-line Bible in two volumes.
1454 Gutenberg prints indulgences (notes sold to Christians by the Pope, pardoning their sins)
1455 First block-printed Bible, the Biblia Pauperum, published in Germany.
1455 Gutenberg completed work on what is estimated to be 200 copies of the Bible
1455 Gutenberg was effectively bankrupt. Investor Johann Faust gains control of print business
1457 First known color printing, a Psalter (a collection of Psalms for devotional use) by Faust.
1460 Gutenberg reestablished himself in the printing business with the aid of Conrad Humery
1461 Albrecht Pfister printed the first illustrated book Edelstein which featured a number of woodcuts.
1465 Gutenberg is appointed to the court of Archbishop Adolf of Nassau
1476 Two hundred woodcuts were used in a edition of Aesop's Fables
1476 First use of copper engravings instead of woodcuts for illustration
1476 William Caxton sets up his printing press in Westminster, England.
1499 Printing had become established in more than 2500 cities around Europe.
1499 An estimated 15 million books have been press printed, representing thirty thousand book titles
CAPs: Johannes Gutenberg, Johann Gutenberg, Bi Sheng, Laurens Janszoon Koster, Johann Faust, Peter Schoffer, Albrecht Pfister, Conrad Humery, Archbishop Adolf of Nassau, William Caxton, Gutenberg Bible, 42-line Bible, Mazarin Bible, Diamond Sutra, Poem of the Last Judgment, Calendar for 1448, Psalter, Aesop's Fables,
SIPs: printing press, movable type, xylography, metal type, indulgences, typography, letterpress printing, invention, history, inventor of, history of, who invented, invention of, fascinating facts.
Pardon?
Sigh.. even your example shows that you are wrong.
The printing press was not invented just because they wanted to print the bible. Gutenburg wanted to build his press in order to make any kind of printing cheaper and more accessible.
Note that even in your example, printing presses existed before Gutenberg, and even with Gutenberg, the bible was not the first thing printed.
The printing press was not invented just because they wanted to print the bible. Gutenburg wanted to build his press in order to make any kind of printing cheaper and more accessible.
Note that even in your example, printing presses existed before Gutenberg, and even with Gutenberg, the bible was not the first thing printed.
888 The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, was the first dated example of block printing.
Who's bible is that?
(edit)
And seriously, are you that afraid of anyone's religion?
Who's bible is that?
(edit)
And seriously, are you that afraid of anyone's religion?
No.. but your example is simply poor history.
If you want to talk about block printing in China that is one thing. Your post mentioned the printing press, which is another thing completely.
And seriously... I don't care about your religion or spirituality or anything of the sort. If you mix up facts or invent them, I won't agree. Period.
If you want to talk about block printing in China that is one thing. Your post mentioned the printing press, which is another thing completely.
And seriously... I don't care about your religion or spirituality or anything of the sort. If you mix up facts or invent them, I won't agree. Period.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 12 2009, 01:41 AM)
And to note historically, if it was not for the bible, the printing press would have not been invited [sic] when it was, there is one example for you.
There is a difference between invention and adoption of any new technology. The (movable type) printing press (probably) would have been invented regardless of the existence or lack thereof of the Bible.
But, given that the Church was the equivalent of "Big Business" back in the day, it would seem likely that the promise of advancing the Church's agenda served as a financial driver and made it possible for Gutenberg to secure the necessary loans to get his printing business going.
That said, based on a little research, it seems to me that the profit-making potential of printing Papal indulgences were far more responsible for getting the Printing Press off the ground than the desire to print the bible and exalt the greater glory of "Him."
Just one possible interpretation amongst many.
Best,
Raphie
There is a difference between invention and adoption of any new technology. The (movable type) printing press (probably) would have been invented regardless of the existence or lack thereof of the Bible.
But, given that the Church was the equivalent of "Big Business" back in the day, it would seem likely that the promise of advancing the Church's agenda served as a financial driver and made it possible for Gutenberg to secure the necessary loans to get his printing business going.
That said, based on a little research, it seems to me that the profit-making potential of printing Papal indulgences were far more responsible for getting the Printing Press off the ground than the desire to print the bible and exalt the greater glory of "Him."
Just one possible interpretation amongst many.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 11 2009, 08:41 PM)
You made an appeal to authority, not me.
Are you really this stupid or are you pretending?
Are you really this stupid or are you pretending?
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 12 2009, 01:41 AM)
And to note historically, if it was not for the bible, the printing press would have not been invited when it was, there is one example for you.
It was also heavily used for porn.
It was also heavily used for porn.
QUOTE
There is a difference between invention and adoption of any new technology. The (movable type) printing press (probably) would have been invented regardless of the existence or lack thereof of the Bible.
/--the printing press would have not been invited when it was
Which means that it would have happened ... but later than it did.
First examples of "printing" go back to 3000 b.c. and Mesopotamia.
See where people are taking what I am saying out of context is the problem. If one wants to go around brandishing religious types as a bunch of idiots, don't isolate them to any-one church, or any-one God, under any-one condition, or to any-one personality type, make broad sweeping generalizations that bend the truth. So, if you say all you and those people are idiots, then yes include Einstein ... not because anything he ever believed in specifically, period, but just for the simple fact that he accepted the concept of God on some sort of level. The man responsible for the way we view the universe, practically and theoretically, is a blistering idiot because of this one minor fact right?
No, "I" never said that, not about him ... but anyone else who isn't as smart as he was. Would you insult Einstein about his beliefs in God by making wide, generalized remarks, do you think he would keep talking to you, ... or would you talk to him about science? Lets just say, he was nothing more than a lucky Jew? So now you sound like Nazi scientists? Should I make the sweeping generalization?
Is it appropriate in the least?
QUOTE
There is a difference between invention and adoption of any new technology.
Explain that one very carefully to me. Please elaborate further. Because the way that sounds to me, nothing we make is based off of a history of anything else, that we simply pull new ideas out of the "hat."
Invention is imagination, adoption is adaptation.
(edit)
If you want to really put history under the microscope, do it, with an objective eye, not a subjective one with a personal view effecting what you see. If it were not churches (mostly-all of them) and religious men (insert religion/bible/belief here) spending years copying text by hand, the first elements and concepts that lead to the printing press would have not came around when they did, it would have came but later. Religious men spent their time trying to educate people, aristocratic men spent most of their time protecting their possessions ... when are we going to get out of the second dark-age ... suffering from role reversal?
QUOTE
If you want to really put history under the microscope, do it, with an objective eye, not a subjective one with a personal view effecting what you see.
I don't think you want to get into history & religion. I seem to recall something called the "Inquisition." I also seem to recall something else called the "Crusades."
My point is that comparing current entities/people to historical ones based on labels is pointless. If you want to compare ideologies and philosophies, go right on ahead.
So, for the record, Gutenberg = Capitalist, modern equivalent: Rupert Murdoch, a man who is perfectly willing to exploit religion for profit.
The keyword or term from my last post is, role-reversal.
Where in the first "dark-age" religious belief or opinion suppressed anything that wasn't, but now ... science belief seems to require the repression of anything spiritual, because if you do ... you're a damned-fool right?
The bright side of this view, is that the dark-age lead to the age of enlightenment, or the renaissance.
I just really wonder how many people learned anything from the history of science, politics, history, humanity of "earth" while they were in school. Or how many of them just tried to memorize data to past a test. What good is data if you don't know how to analyze it?
QUOTE
a circumstance wherein two people adopt the opposite role of their normal one or switch normal roles
Where in the first "dark-age" religious belief or opinion suppressed anything that wasn't, but now ... science belief seems to require the repression of anything spiritual, because if you do ... you're a damned-fool right?
The bright side of this view, is that the dark-age lead to the age of enlightenment, or the renaissance.
I just really wonder how many people learned anything from the history of science, politics, history, humanity of "earth" while they were in school. Or how many of them just tried to memorize data to past a test. What good is data if you don't know how to analyze it?
QUOTE
Where in the first "dark-age" religious belief or opinion suppressed anything that wasn't, but now ... science belief seems to require the repression of anything spiritual, because if you do ... you're a damned-fool right?
Are you being repressed? Are your rights being violated by scientists?
Scientists ignore spiritual matters because you can't do science experiments on spiritual matters.
Scientists, or scientist wanna-be's say that you are a fool for believing in something that cannot be proven or disproven. Just as in the example of Dawkins' interstellar teapot example, there are many things that you cannot prove or disprove, why does your god deserve more attention than fairies? That's not my view per-se, but that is the perspective. If you want to argue with scientists, leave out the non-scientific stuff.
QUOTE
I believe in God and science, and I am not an idiot that is foolish enough to think I know everything there is in either case. I don't force anything on anyone, I am more interested in sharing. This is why I utterly dislike the generalizations used about religion or spirituality from scientists that can't disprove a thing, and religion that can't prove a thing. Both prove what they think regardless of what they say, in their actions.
All white men are the devil and are racists. The arguments from the spiritual claims on science, and the scientific claims on religion are of the same exact level of self-centered-ignorant thinking. There are right and wrong ways to do every-thing. Stop focusing on what the wrong things done are, and start working on making the right one happens. Get over yourselves, you are both seeking a definition of truth that we are incapable of ever-fully understanding. The little things matter. This is why I want to teach kids, not men. Men are made of the past, kids are made for the future.
that is what I said from the beginning (generalized), I replied to the "other-stuff" being brought up ... look at my first post in this thread ... it was a reply on a observation. An invite if you would, not an interjection. I must be illiterate, because I think that's what I said from the "rip." Am I not allowed to be offended by crack-pot religious views? I think I have done my fair share of pushing back against "real" scientific crack-pots versus the views that are pushed on me ... but I honestly think, or have a small impression that most people probably don't hold myself to that initial knee-jerk rationale or sweeping generalization. I don't think "that problem" is "my problem" to begin with, because for the most part I have "thick skin." People are always asking, what's the problem ... I was trying to point it out, put your-self in someone else's shoes and maybe the view of the problem doesn't become such one sided monologue vs. dialogue. I know I have a moderate understanding of physics, because I understand relativity and reality. I am not trying to live the dream, I am trying to realize a dream. There's a huge difference."Living the dream." - superficial, self serving nonsense, fake, acceptance, lack of reason.
"Realizing the dream." -hard-work, determination, thought extending, learning/teaching, reasoning.
And to further get onto my point of erroneous enforcement of facts, or data.
It drives me absolutely nutty when people of either "general-sect" deny the the data for either.
Scientific data is more in favor of climate change than not. The largest element used against the thesis of climate change is, solar-cycle driven. The ice at polar caps is getting thinner and there is less of it. The solar sun-spot cycle was in a decline over the past decade when the temperatures and measurements that suggest climate change have been increasing ... We are about to enter an up-cycle in sun spot activity. Fact + data, it's going to get messier.
"Religious" (generalization-most-not all) people "claim" "God" is natural law, but they ignore these data sets observed in nature ... How does that work? I believe in God, but not nature? "Obey the laws of the land?" Read the book again, you missed something.
(insert here, Science or Religion) Cannot seem to decide whether or not we are a part of the natural cycle on this planet ... and no matter which one offers as their particular champion of truth ... in reality we are natural, so maybe we should pay attention to nature, and the laws of the natural world, that we cannot remove ourselves from without death. If someone claims they know how, maybe they should go to an astrology forum and put their ideas about astral projection ... or thought projection there.
It drives me absolutely nutty when people of either "general-sect" deny the the data for either.
Scientific data is more in favor of climate change than not. The largest element used against the thesis of climate change is, solar-cycle driven. The ice at polar caps is getting thinner and there is less of it. The solar sun-spot cycle was in a decline over the past decade when the temperatures and measurements that suggest climate change have been increasing ... We are about to enter an up-cycle in sun spot activity. Fact + data, it's going to get messier.
"Religious" (generalization-most-not all) people "claim" "God" is natural law, but they ignore these data sets observed in nature ...
How does that work? I believe in God, but not nature? "Obey the laws of the land?" Read the book again, you missed something.(insert here, Science or Religion) Cannot seem to decide whether or not we are a part of the natural cycle on this planet ... and no matter which one offers as their particular champion of truth ... in reality we are natural, so maybe we should pay attention to nature, and the laws of the natural world, that we cannot remove ourselves from without death. If someone claims they know how, maybe they should go to an astrology forum and put their ideas about astral projection ... or thought projection there.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 12 2009, 01:12 AM)
Pardon?
QUOTE
1440 Gutenberg completed his wooden press which used movable metal type.
1440 Laurens Janszoon Koster (Coster) is credited, by some, with inventing movable metal type
1444 Gutenberg returns to Mainz and sets up a printing shop
1446 Gutenberg prints the "Poem of the Last Judgment"
1448 Gutenberg prints the "Calendar for 1448"
1450 Gutenberg' formed a partnership with the wealthy Johann Fust
1450 Gutenberg begins work on a Bible, the first is 40 lines per page.
1440 Laurens Janszoon Koster (Coster) is credited, by some, with inventing movable metal type
1444 Gutenberg returns to Mainz and sets up a printing shop
1446 Gutenberg prints the "Poem of the Last Judgment"
1448 Gutenberg prints the "Calendar for 1448"
1450 Gutenberg' formed a partnership with the wealthy Johann Fust
1450 Gutenberg begins work on a Bible, the first is 40 lines per page.
Your own timeline shows that Gutenberg didn't print the bible until 10 years after he built his press. You might as well say Gutenberg invented the movable type press to print 'Poem of the Last Judgment".
He printed the Bible because the Bible was going to sell.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 12 2009, 12:39 AM)
All the rules of today's science and understanding are built up from things of the past that most people alive today never actually saw with their own eyes. If science doesn't take a leap of "faith," I am not sure anything does.
The 'leap of faith' being the assumption that things really exist, and that things that exist now have existed in the past?
And you want to keep driving the point and take what I showed from history out of context. What lead to printblock (monks) .... which lead to movable print block, which lead to, printing presses?
Did the printed word start in 1440?
The Internet is the newest version of the printing press, things change, and yet remain the same.
Did the printed word start in 1440?
The Internet is the newest version of the printing press, things change, and yet remain the same.
QUOTE
And you want to keep driving the point and take what I showed from history out of context. What lead to printblock (monks) .... which lead to movable print block, which lead to, printing presses?
Why are you still going on about this? I think you need to restate your point.
QUOTE
Why are you still going on about this? I think you need to restate your point.
My very first post in this thread. Nothing said in particular, I made generalizations, about both sides of the fence. People making "claim" that I brought up specifics on page 1, need to learn how to read. I responded, when pushed, to point specific stupidity when trying to only address it in general.
That is my point.
_______________________________________
I believe in God and science, and I am not an idiot that is foolish enough to think I know everything there is in either case. I don't force anything on anyone, I am more interested in sharing. This is why I utterly dislike the generalizations used about religion or spirituality from scientists that can't disprove a thing, and religion that can't prove a thing. Both prove what they think regardless of what they say, in their actions.
All white men are the devil and are racists. The arguments from the spiritual claims on science, and the scientific claims on religion are of the same exact level of self-centered-ignorant thinking. There are right and wrong ways to do every-thing. Stop focusing on what the wrong things done are, and start working on making the right one happens. Get over yourselves, you are both seeking a definition of truth that we are incapable of ever-fully understanding. The little things matter. This is why I want to teach kids, not men. Men are made of the past, kids are made for the future.
_______________________
3rd time is a charm, clear enough?
And I think any-one will be hard pressed to try and dig up any proof, of what I said about what I believe about any particular God or bible. I know how to keep it clean. I'm not here telling anyone what to believe about science, God (as in the concept - not whatever God any-one frightened to death of the word thinks I meant), the power of the mind, or philosophy. Are those some of the parts that make up my experience yes, am I promoting them, no.
Tell me what I have said about "God" specifically.
Tell me what I have said about "God" specifically.
I don't think that science does or can possibly completely exclude the possibility of god. But I don't think that science lends any support either. I think that the sources of this misconception are the members of the ID crowd who have consistently placed losing bets on whether science will explain any particular mystery. Every time science disproves an IDiot, people see that as science attacking religion.
I would recommend reading "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, if you haven't already.
I would recommend reading "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, if you haven't already.
In his particular thread, only one person kept their idiot specific comments ... specific. That would have been yourself. The ID crowd used that as an opportunity to make broad-sweeping comments rather than ... person-case specific. I did no take up for any idiot, and I am not too privy on being related to one of such "fine" caliber in any particular fashion, whether intentional or not. People need to think before they speak.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I wasn't comparing YOU to ID people, I just think that ID ruins the discussion for everyone else.
I personally am an atheist, but that has more to do with personal beliefs than it has to do with science.
The only reason that believers in god should be ridiculed is when they try to bring their beliefs into a science discussion.
Studies into the origin of the universe HAVE to remain secular because once you start claiming the supernatural intervention of a higher power, all logic goes out the window. You can't prove or argue god's intentions.
I personally am an atheist, but that has more to do with personal beliefs than it has to do with science.
The only reason that believers in god should be ridiculed is when they try to bring their beliefs into a science discussion.
Studies into the origin of the universe HAVE to remain secular because once you start claiming the supernatural intervention of a higher power, all logic goes out the window. You can't prove or argue god's intentions.
Or the universe for that mater. 
And by saying, you kept it specific, I meant before this thread somehow became about me saying, ease the noise. I was reffing to the idiocy of magpies, as you clearly defined.
And by saying, you kept it specific, I meant before this thread somehow became about me saying, ease the noise. I was reffing to the idiocy of magpies, as you clearly defined.
Wow, guys, four pages on scientific method and with a couple exceptions it would appear the basic theme is arguing.
Nary a word about crucial mundane stuff like the principle of comparison (reference data, control groups, etc), sampling (probability and confidence issues) and the purpose of a null hypothesis. What about the difference between verification and falsification?
There are other current scientific method issues, like do experiments on computer models assume the model is the same as the reality? (The researchers usually know, but many others don't.)
There is extensive discussion of religion on this forum, but little mention of the large body of data from the application of scientific method in the analysis of how ancient texts were written.
Nary a word about crucial mundane stuff like the principle of comparison (reference data, control groups, etc), sampling (probability and confidence issues) and the purpose of a null hypothesis. What about the difference between verification and falsification?
There are other current scientific method issues, like do experiments on computer models assume the model is the same as the reality? (The researchers usually know, but many others don't.)
There is extensive discussion of religion on this forum, but little mention of the large body of data from the application of scientific method in the analysis of how ancient texts were written.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.