SSM Plebiscite

[PaulP]

So categorised by a 3rd party or self-declared.

"Materialist scientists are scientists who believe in materialism" you won't find a more dogmatic definition.

What are the other scientists, or are there only materialistic scientists and "others"? When you give the label, you imply there is another category!

I don't know the proper labels. Whatever Sheldrake calls himself, or whatever David Bohm calls himself. The labels are inconsequential. I'm not arguing labels, I'm arguing belief.

[LP]

I don't know the proper labels. Whatever Sheldrake calls himself, or whatever David Bohm calls himself. The labels are inconsequential. I'm not arguing labels, I'm arguing belief.

There is no science that includes a belief, scientists following the scientific method never talk in absolutes, they only talk in probabilities. There may be references to probability which come across as an idea and a belief but they are foibles of language, they are not "beliefs" like religious faith!

It's the critics of science that make, imply or infer commentary about absolutes, beliefs and blind faith. Religion cannot have anything else but blind faith, it's the foundation of religion. That doesn't mean scientists cannot be religious, they can have a faith, but having faith doesn't mean they accept the world without question or resort to mysticalities to explain it or that faith becomes part of their work! If it does cross over to their work, they are no longer using the scientific method, and that is a foible of their humanity not a foible of science.

[PaulP]

There is no science that includes a belief, scientists following the scientific method never talk in absolutes only probabilities. There may be references to probability which come across as an idea and a belief but they are foibles of language, they are not "beliefs" like religious faith!

It's the critics of science that make, imply or infer commentary about absolutes, beliefs and blind faith. Religion cannot have anything else but blind faith, it's the foundation of religion. That doesn't mean scientists cannot be religious, they can have a faith, but having faith doesn't mean they accept the world without question or resort to mysticalities to explain it!

The scientific method cannot explain everything, and some of the things it cannot explain are very worthwhile indeed. The only way scientists can be religious is by compartmentalization. You don't think dark matter or dark energy or the multiverse are just guess work, without a shred of proof ?

"I believe in the multiverse."
"Prove it."
" I can't."
"Then I cannot accept your theory."
"But it comes from science."
"That's ok then."


"I believe in angels."
"Prove it."
" I can't."
"Then I cannot accept your theory."
"It comes from spirituality."
"It's a load of BS."

That's what the chattering classes will tell you.

[LP]

The scientific method cannot explain everything, and some of the things it cannot explain are very worthwhile indeed. The only way scientists can be religious is by compartmentalization. You don't think dark matter or dark energy or the multiverse are just guess work, without a shred of proof ?

"I believe in the multiverse."
"Prove it."
" I can't."
"Then I cannot accept your theory."
"But it comes from science."
"That's ok then."


"I believe in angels."
"Prove it."
" I can't."
"Then I cannot accept your theory."
"It comes from spirituality."
"It's a load of BS."

That's what the chattering classes will tell you.

The scientific method explains nothing, the scientific method is the process used by science to gather knowledge and it's that knowledge which is used to describes things.

In terms of science versus faith and belief, you have confused physical sciences with theoretical sciences and again have made a statement based on the wrong understanding of a theory and hypothesis.

Things like Multiverse or Brane are mathematical constructs, but there is no evidence they exist outside of mathematics and mathematics can be used to describe or model many things real or not. But they make testable predictions that have physical effects if those constructs are real, and experiments have been done to see if those predictions bear fruit and I'm sure they will continue to be tested, but they are not a theory just because the are proposed by theorists.

The substance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is hypothesised but not it's existence, it's existence regardless of what it may be is supported by physical evidence, testing and observation. It's existence needs no belief, because it can be observed and detected no matter what label humanity gives it.

It's a key difference between these things and an angel or demon!

[PaulP]

The only reason dark Matter and dark energy came into science is because in the 80's and 90's physicists discovered anomalies in the speed of rotation of certain galaxies and the rate of expansion of certain galaxies. In order to make the gravitational equations balance, they added in the required amount of matter and energy. We have been told for ages that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe doesn't change, yet we have seen a 20  fold increase in these things in our lifetime. And no one bats an eyelid. Neither dark energy or dark matter can be detected, seen, observed, analysed, measured or anything else. This dark energy and matter accounts for about 96% of the universe, and yet no one knows a thing about it.

[LP]

The only reason dark Matter and dark energy came into science is because in the 80's and 90's physicists discovered anomalies in the speed of rotation of certain galaxies and the rate of expansion of certain galaxies. In order to make the gravitational equations balance, they added in the required amount of matter and energy. We have been told for ages that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe doesn't change, yet we have seen a 20  fold increase in these things in our lifetime. And no one bats an eyelid. Neither dark energy or dark matter can be detected, seen, observed, analysed, measured or anything else. This dark energy and matter accounts for about 96% of the universe, and yet no one knows a thing about it.

No PaulP, that is a very rough and incorrect summary of events, you have misappropriated events and facts.

There were observations and data(evidence) of something going back to the 1930s long before hypothesis and eventually theory existed, it didn't require a belief, just someone asking a question based on the pre-existing evidence. The data from measurement and observation has since been refined by further and ongoing investigation. It wasn't a case of looking for the data after the idea was floated, the data already existed in the careful observations and measurements of greats like Zwicky and Rubin.

As you would know, the Standard Model had Einstein's cosmological constant removed as a mathematical absurdity. Once experimentation and observation provided the evidence it was scientists who determined the mathematics as derived from known physical constants was in fact correct(dark energy). Quantum Theory fell out of this field, and entanglement, to his death Einstein refused to believe in these things but even Einstein had allowed mysticism to replace his understanding because the things he denied have now been proven to ever higher degrees of accuracy and repeatability. Whatever device you use to type on this forum is one of many proofs!

Dark matter was labeled dark matter cynically, I think originally by Hubble, but it has always been observable in terms of it's indirect effects. The fact there was no explanation for it at the time did not demand a belief, because the data existed, the data wasn't invented by humans but it is labeled by humans.

Now some things like a Multiverse fall out of the models built on these theories, they are theories now because they have been tested to high levels of precision, they are typically beyond 5 sigma and modifications may still be detected to refine them further. Sometimes the models appear without coercion, at other times theoreticians may have to "tweak" fields in a Monte Carlo scenario to get a testable model. But the commonality in it all is that they must make a prediction that can be tested or observed or else it is not science, belief plays no part in it, and whatever these mathematical things may be, they exist in the math and data before a hypothesis or theory is formed!

[northernblue]

No PaulP, that is a very rough and incorrect summary of events, you have misappropriated events and facts.

There were observations and data(evidence) of something going back to the 1930s long before hypothesis and eventually theory existed, it didn't require a belief, just someone asking a question based on the pre-existing evidence. The data from measurement and observation has since been refined by further and ongoing investigation. It wasn't a case of looking for the data after the idea was floated, the data already existed in the careful observations and measurements of greats like Zwicky and Rubin.

As you would know, the Standard Model had Einstein's cosmological constant removed as a mathematical absurdity. Once experimentation and observation provided the evidence it was scientists who determined the mathematics as derived from known physical constants was in fact correct(dark energy). Quantum Theory fell out of this field, and entanglement, to his death Einstein refused to believe in these things but even Einstein had allowed mysticism to replace his understanding because the things he denied have no been proven to ever higher degrees of accuracy and repeatability. Whatever device you use to type on this forum is one of many proofs!

Dark matter was labeled dark matter cynically, I think originally by Hubble, but it has always been observable in terms of it's indirect effects. The fact there was no explanation for it at the time did not demand a belief, because the data existed, the data wasn't invented by humans but it is labeled by humans.

Now some things like a Multiverse fall out of the models built on these theories, they are theories now because they have been tested to high levels of precision, they are typically beyond 5 sigma and modifications may still be detected to refine them further. Sometimes the models appear without coercion, at other times theoreticians may have to "tweak" fields in a Monte Carlo scenario to get a testable model. But the commonality in it all is that they must make a prediction that can be tested or observed or else it is not science, belief plays no part in it, and whatever these mathematical things may be, they exist in the math and data before a hypothesis or theory is formed!

Very well written LP

[LP]

Very well written LP

Sorry for the phone typing, I'm still aquiver from the news about Doc.

[northernblue]

Sorry for the phone typing, I'm still a quiver from the news about Doc.

How many edits ?
I think I saw at least 3 ????

Terrible for Doc, I’d hate to think he could become another Neale Daniher, but someone has to grasp an opening in the starting 18 and make it theirs.

[LP]

How many edits ?
I think I saw at least 3 ????

I use a post like a backup, so I've nearly always posted well before I've finished, work keeps getting in the way! :o