The false theories that give birth to false philosophy

How can you imagine such stupid remarks count as evidence?

Because the evidence for the anthropic principle lies preciscely within those who believe in it. So it becomes easy to see the type of person who needs to believe in it...and the type of person who would categorically proclaim Feynman's remarks to be stupid.

No one can conclusively prove anything in life, science or nature friend. BUT it deserves respect and not silly childish remarks. I see you defend particles and the BB but you can no more prove them than discount a determined universe. All you do is simply tell me they are a concept for us simpletons. When debate looses respect then arguments begin, so bring it on.

No one can conclusively prove anything in life, science or nature friend.

Agreed.

BUT it deserves respect and not silly childish remarks.

Agreed. Since Feynman's remarks are neither childish nor silly, but in fact are a witty use of understatement to profound efect, I question your evaluative skills regarding wit, understatement, and profundity.

I see you defend particles and the BB but you can no more prove them than discount a determined universe.

Since my defense of particles and the Big Bang are specifically a defense of their scientific credibility, "proving" them is merely an evaluation of their current viability as models. In contrast, your standard of proof lies outside science and does not interest me in the context of this forum.


And because we are in a philosophy of science forum, I do indeed discount determinism in that context for the simple reason that it is no longer scientifically viable.

All you do is simply tell me they are a concept for us simpletons.

Show me where in this forum where I said any such thing. Can't find it?

When debate looses respect then arguments begin, so bring it on.

Arguing with dogmatists is pointless. My purpose is to the forum at large: to expose what you're trying to accomplish for what it is rather than what you claim it to be.

Xris:
Thanks for the YouTube link. I will have patience and wade through it and let you know what I think, if you're interested.

A Poster He Or I:
Thanks for that info on Fine Tuning. I'll have a look at it. I thought your Richard Feynman quote was very funny. He was a great and sadly missed advocate for common sense, physics and bongo playing. I really don't see why Xris has to get so angry about it! For goodness sake lighten up Xris. It's just a bit of amusing satire. What's wrong with making a point using humour?

Fanman:
Thank you very much for your comment. I critcised your earlier comments quite extensively but your reply is still magnanimous and good humoured. I have a great deal of respect for that.

---

Added after reading the most recent exchange between "A Poster He Or I" and Xris:

Agreed. Since Feynman's remarks are neither childish nor silly, but in fact are a witty use of understatement to profound efect, I question your evaluative skills regarding wit, understatement, and profundity.

I'm afraid I have to reluctantly agree with you APHOI. You have, in my opinion, earlier in this thread and others, made some good lucid attempts to explain how science works, which seem to have been largely ignored. But I think you do sometimes tend to rise to the bait a bit too much which results in a lot of what looks like bickering between you and Xris. Entertaining, but often resulting in more heat than light.

Hi Xris.

Having gone to the website you suggested I have spent the last couple of hours with plasma and electricity,[I hope my wife is not jealous}.
I have come away with the same opinion I had before.
We just don't know much!
Who is right? Who knows?
I certainly do not have the knowledge to judge one or the other when it comes to the universe, but I suspect there are many surprises waiting for science to unlock, and it is possible that 50 years from now people will be making fun of the ideas expressed at present.
I am glad I have stayed mainly neutral in this discussion, and I would suggest all participating not to take themselves so seriously.

Regards, John.

Thank you Steve3007, and you are of course correct that the bickering brings more heat than light. I am gratified that the poster who knows most about physics on this forum, yourself, should also prove to be its best example of a gentleman. In respect for your objectivity and keen sense of tact, I will defer from further engagement of this issue. I see that it is not productive.

Hi Xris.

Having gone to the website you suggested I have spent the last couple of hours with plasma and electricity,[I hope my wife is not jealous}.
I have come away with the same opinion I had before.
We just don't know much!
Who is right? Who knows?
I certainly do not have the knowledge to judge one or the other when it comes to the universe, but I suspect there are many surprises waiting for science to unlock, and it is possible that 50 years from now people will be making fun of the ideas expressed at present.
I am glad I have stayed mainly neutral in this discussion, and I would suggest all participating not to take themselves so seriously.

Regards, John.

Hi Clogs,Thanks for taking the time to watch those vids., not sure if they enlightened you or not? I am sorry when debates become arguments, so I will appologise for my part while still maintaining my views on the subjects in question.

Xris:

I've started looking at the YouTube video. It's interesting. Haven't finished yet and have had to break away to do some reading about Halton Arp, what he said, what his allies say, and what his critics say. The main thrust of his argument seems for a long time to have been his proposition that quasars are nowhere near as far away and luminous as their red-shifts would suggest. Apart from the scientific arguments there is in addition his claims as to how he and his findings have been treated by the astronomical "establishment".

I'll look into it as far as I can (because it's interesting) but I suspect, as far as the raw scientific data and analysis is concerned, I'll eventually conclude something similar to Wooden Shoe. I just don't have enough specialist knowledge in the field to make a definite decision one way or the other.

In theory, us non-specialists should have a better chance of deciding who is "right" and "wrong" with regard to the more human side of the story. i.e. has he been treated, generally, in good faith by the scientific community or has there been a systematic attempt to suppress his discoveries and conclusions because people have vested interests in particular scientific paradigms that override their desire to follow the evidence wherever it takes them? In other words: has the system of open debate, open sharing of evidence, peer review etc which is supposed to safeguard the search for knowledge failed in this case, and maybe in others? Has the strong human tendency to pledge allegiance to a large powerful group and follow it blindly broken this system?

In practice, I suspect I won't find enough objective evidence to make a clear decision on this either! But, again, it's still interesting to look.

A Poster He Or I:

Thanks. I'm no expert though! Just an average degree in physics, some experience as a high school physics teacher and writing educational physics software. As I've said before, the cumulative nature of knowledge means that, by the early 21st Century, the "cutting edge" of a subject like astrophysics has moved a long long way from being accessible in all its detail by the general non-specialist public. And that includes me! I see no way around this problem if we want knowledge to accumulate from one generation to the next. We inevitably live in a world of specialists with greater and greater distances between them.

Anyway, I wouldn't want you to retire from the debate! I'm sure you still have much to contribute.

Xris:

I've started looking at the YouTube video. It's interesting. Haven't finished yet and have had to break away to do some reading about Halton Arp, what he said, what his allies say, and what his critics say. The main thrust of his argument seems for a long time to have been his proposition that quasars are nowhere near as far away and luminous as their red-shifts would suggest. Apart from the scientific arguments there is in addition his claims as to how he and his findings have been treated by the astronomical "establishment".

I'll look into it as far as I can (because it's interesting) but I suspect, as far as the raw scientific data and analysis is concerned, I'll eventually conclude something similar to Wooden Shoe. I just don't have enough specialist knowledge in the field to make a definite decision one way or the other.

In theory, us non-specialists should have a better chance of deciding who is "right" and "wrong" with regard to the more human side of the story. i.e. has he been treated, generally, in good faith by the scientific community or has there been a systematic attempt to suppress his discoveries and conclusions because people have vested interests in particular scientific paradigms that override their desire to follow the evidence wherever it takes them? In other words: has the system of open debate, open sharing of evidence, peer review etc which is supposed to safeguard the search for knowledge failed in this case, and maybe in others? Has the strong human tendency to pledge allegiance to a large powerful group and follow it blindly broken this system?

In practice, I suspect I won't find enough objective evidence to make a clear decision on this either! But, again, it's still interesting to look.

Thanks for taking the time to watch Steve. I think you need to watch them all before you coming to any conclusion. I found them compelling but then I did arrive with a bias.xris

Hi Steve3007,

I think that you are correct, the description that I gave of empathy does define what empathy causes us to do. But I also think that it works as a definition of what empathy is, i.e. - empathy “is” putting God first and loving our neighbour as we love ourselves. The origin of empathy I believe is God, the first cause - as all causes and effects originate from what he initially set in motion. Which, with regards to our discussion, I believe is the creation of the universe and life. I don't think that science defines or can define what the origin of empathy is, because it is a metaphysical subject, best dealt with by philosophy (as you have similarly stated). However, science can recognise the pattern that humans do express empathy?


I think that with regards to the Big Bang leading to evolution, that you are perhaps taking an anecdotal approach? The reason I have chosen to discuss them in context to one another is because the two are linked in the sense that they are both thought to be responsible for life: The Big Bang for the creation of the solar system and evolution for life in our solar system. I just think that it is too much of a coincidence / chance happening, that the universe spawned our solar system, which in turn spawned evolution, leading to intelligent life on our planet. Why was earth so 'lucky?' Why hasn't the same thing happened again on any of the other planets in our solar system? Perhaps, because they are not designed to support life?

Fanman as a matter of interest have you watched the videos on YouTube, I posted a link? If anyone feels the need to support the concept of the BB or use it as a philosophical tool, they do really need to watch them so they can understand my objections. Nothing in science is certain so it becomes very dangerous trying to prove one concept when refering to another inconclusive concept. Be careful when building any structure what the foundations are based on.

Hi Xris,

I haven't looked yet, will do now.

-- Updated February 18th, 2012, 10:55 am to add the following --

Hi Xris,

After watching up to part 5 of the videos, to me it seems to be a patttern - that when a person gets close to, or finds evidence that the universe is not expanding or that the Big Bang did not occur, their work becomes unacceptable to the their peers and superiors. I would suspect, that with a theory as embedded in science as the Big Bang, to the point where it is an institution of science, there would be those who would resist any proofs which discount it - due to the fall out of the theory of the Big Bang collapsing. If it is proven one day that the Big Bang did not occur I wonder what new theory would replace it?

There is no such animal as a False Theory;

A Theory is a Concept, a Conjecture, Speculation, not a perception.

Theory is not Fact, is not True, is not Reality, is simply a Theory.

It is the thought that a Theory is True, Fact, a Reality, that is False,
not the Theory itself.

If you can consider Theory to be the Knowledge of a Reality, your Knowleddge of Reality is Absolutely Bad Knowledge,
Absolutely Bad Knowledge having a Dual Quality, being Duplicitous, deceptive, Guileful, is False Knowledge, Absolutely Bad Knowledge believed to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.

Theory works in reverse; theoretically speaking you find a known fact, Empirical evidence of Reality, and then Create a Theory as to the cause, the Cause not being a know fact, being a conjecture, Speculation, being a Creation, being an original product of the mind; Theory being born of Pure Reason, meaning Reason alone without having any Empirical Evidence of any actual cause; Theory being born of Reason alone is a Creation, an original product of the Mind, is pure conjecture, speculation, if simply born of the Imagination, the actual, true, cause being unknown.

Theoretically speaking a Theorist is grasping at straws, using his imagination, reason alone in his attempt to find a cause for some known fact, empirical reality.

The Idea that the Universe that the Reality of Everything, is made up of a Single Thing is
not a new Theory, is an ancient Concept.

Know this for sure, Theory as created, is not believed to be a fact, the Truth, a Reality, by the Theorist that created the Theory.

The real problem with the Theory of the Big Bang is that the evidence offered up as proof
of the Big Bang is itself based upon the Theory of the Expanding Universe.

Red Shift (known fact), the Theoretical Cause of Red shift being an Expanding Universe, an expanding Universe being pure Speculation, being born of Reason alone, being a product of the Mind, being a Creation, has been Randomly Generated by the Imagination.

The Theory of the Big Bang alone with the Theory of an Expanding Universe is an abomination, is pure Hog Wash.

Hi Fanman,

I have no objection to you believing that the origin of empathy is God. I disagree, but it's probably not going to get us anywhere trying to argue over it so it's probably best just to agree to differ!

I will just say, though, that I don't think the concept of empathy is metaphysical. To me, it simply means the ability to put oneself in another's place and, in some sense, feel their feelings. And, as I've said, I see good reasons for the evolution of this trait and good evidence for its evolutionary origin in its characteristics. For example, the tendency to empathise more with those who are genetically similar to us. (Fellow humans and other mammals.)

This doesn't necessarily mean that science (or, more generally, human enquiry) can fully understand it, or any other aspect of human emotions. But this doesn't have to be because it is metaphysical. It could simply be that, like other aspects of the human brain, it is immensely complex. Some things could simply be too complex for us to understand. Like chimpanzees trying to understand Quantum Mechanics. That doesn't necessarily make those things metaphysical or spiritual. It just makes them complex.

I think that with regards to the Big Bang leading to evolution, that you are perhaps taking an anecdotal approach? The reason I have chosen to discuss them in context to one another is because the two are linked in the sense that they are both thought to be responsible for life: The Big Bang for the creation of the solar system and evolution for life in our solar system.

I don't know what you mean by anecdotal in this context. But I'd just refer you back to what I've said before. If you define the Big Bang as "the beginning of the Universe", as you seem to be doing, then clearly nothing in the Universe, including life, could exist without it. Etc. I've covered this so won't continue.

I just think that it is too much of a coincidence / chance happening, that the universe spawned our solar system, which in turn spawned evolution, leading to intelligent life on our planet. Why was earth so 'lucky?' Why hasn't the same thing happened again on any of the other planets in our solar system? Perhaps, because they are not designed to support life?

And I did deal with this, quite thoroughly I thought, in my previous post. What are your objections to the arguments I gave in that post?

For a possible answer to the question "why was the Earth so lucky?" refer back to the passage about a million planets in the Universe, million to one chance, lottery winner, leaf falling in my garden etc.

As for: "why hasn't the same thing happened again?". Again, I covered this already. What are your objections to my arguments?

How do you know it hasn't happened again? Even in our little solar system there could well be primitive life in the subsurface water of Mars, in the liquid water oceans of Europa, etc. And more complex life could have arisen on Mars in the past. Evidence from the rovers on the surface and from various Mars orbiters suggests that there was almost certainly liquid water on Mars in the past for long periods of time. And this is just one of 100,000,000,000 stella systems in our galaxy alone. How do you know what other life does or doesn't exist?

Hi Steve3007,

I think that your definition of empathy is correct, why I described empathy as metaphysical, is because I believe that it is one of the ways that God communicates with us. And that it is through empathy with Jesus Christ, that we are able to be born again Christians. I also think that without empathy, we are not able to understand our fellow man. I don't think that empathy is too complex for us to understand, I think that if we have empathy then we understand what it is, because of how it causes us to feel, and what it causes us to do.

The reason that I said you were taking an anecdotal approach, is because in your previous post you approached me linking the Big Bang to evolution quite jovially - that's the feeling I got anyway.

I agree that you have covered those points which you refer to. My objection to your arguments is only that I believe the universe was created by God, without chance or coincidence. My argument is that coincidence and chance cannot be demonstrated to create anything. And that creation implies design, and design implies a designer.

I don't define the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, i'm just quoting the theory itself. I don't know if life exists on other planets in the universe; the universe is just too vast to say that we are the only intelligent life residing in it.

A pleasure debating with you.

To think about things is to look for a point. To search for a direction. Thus the theory. Nothing stable and nothing proven. It is philosophy that searches for possibillities and impossibillities. Therefore. One doesn't have a false philsophie. But an unanswerd question. Which does not have to proven right or rong. It is just a search for what might be right or wrong. The same for theories. None of these are facts. And that is a fact.