The Cosmic Perspective - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Humanity, Intelligent Design + Science

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 05:41 PM

The Cosmic Perspective - Neil De Grasse Tyson - Humanity, Intelligent Design + Science

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Intelligent design is real, but we are the intelligent designers, is the argument he is making in a roundabout way. "Religion is the philosophy of ignorance. Science is the philosophy of knowledge." - Tyson

Ends with one of the best questions i've heard asked, for the context he gave it in especially.

If you have not watched the whole 40 minute talk then please don't comment from ignorance or knee-jerk reactions to the text in this post.

Opinions?

All the best,
Z

DC · 27th June 2012, 06:19 PM

is there any research or interviews that would show why those 15% still believe in a personal god?

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by DC

is there any research or interviews that would show why those 15% still believe in a personal god?

This talk was made this year, but im sure that a few of this 15% will be able to articulate their views. They have in the past [one such quote below].

Related:
Epigenetics
Similar thread.

"The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency."
Proff Sir Anston Winston.

The above is more an individual quote than research, but I could likely find similar quotes from top scientific experts if you want. But this sort of research is not science. Its epi-science, the kind of which we currently dont understand.

DC · 27th June 2012, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238577
Epigenetics

Similar thread.

"The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency."
Proff Sir Anston Winston.

Is more an individual quote than research, but could find hundreds of similar quotes from top scientific experts if you want. But this sort of research is not science. Its episcience, as we currently (dont)understand it.

i was more interested in the reasoning behind the beliefs of top scientists in a pesonal god.

like my favorite TV astrophysicist. In a show where he was a guest he was asked if he beliefs in a god. he said yes, because for him the self assambling universe is a sign that there must be something more. as far i remember. but its not an intervening personal god.
aslong no evidence is ignored, like it is with him, i think that is good reasoning to belief in a god.

Lowpro · 27th June 2012, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

This talk was made this year, but im sure that a few of this 15% will be able to articulate their views. They have in the past [one such quote below].

Related:
Epigenetics
Similar thread.

"The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency."
Proff Sir Anston Winston.

The above is more an individual quote than research, but I could likely find similar quotes from top scientific experts if you want. But this sort of research is not science. Its epi-science, the kind of which we currently dont understand.

I think Anton Winston is philosophizing a bit too much and isn't making a valid argument.

What you need to understand Zeuzzz is that the arrival to a conclusion is not nearly as relevant as the evidence that gets you there. Creationists have undeserving zeal. They make a bad conclusion and for that, they deserve a bitchslap. Geneticists often do not make a decent conclusion, especially in epigenetics which is a growing field that I've worked in for the past year studying miRNA and I'll be damned if there's a great conclusion in most of it, at least from an "ought" perspective. But what should Sir Winston's position be if he's told he's a liar, charlatan, and fraud and demonstrably shown to be as such? He should accept the rebuke with all due humility.

not_so_new · 27th June 2012, 07:43 PM

Thank you VERY much for posting this. I love Tyson and this is a great talk.

Thanks again

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I think Anton Winston is philosophizing a bit too much and isn't making a valid argument.

What you need to understand Zeuzzz is that the arrival to a conclusion is not nearly as relevant as the evidence that gets you there. Creationists have

Anton Winston is not a creationist ... he's a very well educated scientist.

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Thank you VERY much for posting this. I love Tyson and this is a great talk.

Thanks again

Careful, two thanks will go to my head.

Actually, no; my ego.

Lowpro · 27th June 2012, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Anton Winston is not a creationist ... he's a very well educated scientist.

I didn't say he was, I said he was philosophizing and it wasn't a valid critique. He's angry that two people are giving him conclusions and calls it a crusade. The problem he doesn't address is that one of those conclusions is terrible (the religious one) which has no evidence, whereas the other conclusion, that he's a liar, charlatan blah de blah from materialists is true IF there is demonstrable evidence that he is in fact a liar and charlatan.

That's the point I'm trying to make, that you can't be mad that people are getting mad at you unless you critique the evidence for why they say it.

Winston has yet to address it, he just makes a philosophical statement with nothing to back it. He is articulate but he may also be wrong and articulate. I don't think you've considered that.

You Zeuzzz pasted a quote, you don't have the context for it, nor have you actually tried to interpret it. It's useless to me in this context and maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it means.

Also, who actually said it because I can't determine that it was Sir Anston Winston. The only hits I find on Google are from you at ATS and here. I tried googling the quote and I found Sir Robert Anton Wilson but I cannot find the quote being attributed to him.

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I didn't say he was, I said he was philosophizing and it wasn't a valid critique. He's angry that two people are giving him conclusions and calls it a crusade. The problem he doesn't address is that one of those conclusions is terrible (the religious one) which has no evidence, whereas the other conclusion, that he's a liar, charlatan blah de blah from materialists is true IF there is demonstrable evidence that he is in fact a liar and charlatan.

That's the point I'm trying to make, that you can't be mad that people are getting mad at you unless you critique the evidence for why they say it.

Winston has yet to address it, he just makes a philosophical statement with nothing to back it. He is articulate but he may also be wrong and articulate. I don't think you've considered that.

You Zeuzzz pasted a quote, you don't have the context for it, nor have you actually tried to interpret it. It's useless to me in this context and maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it means.

Also, who actually said it because I can't determine that it was Sir Anston Winston. The only hits I find on Google are from you at ATS and here. I tried googling the quote and I found Sir Robert Anton Wilson but I cannot find the quote being attributed to him.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390

This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth.

Well this person might be an ignoramous.
But he might not.
He might have published a paper on removing acetyl groups from DNA to increase chromatin, and thus has issues with Dawkins theory of evolution based on well thought out scientific opinion. Which could either be an extension of theory in support of it, or something he sees as evidence to the contrary. I don't know the details.

In fact, that entire talk is very good, I edited the url to get you to the exact part.

An open mind meets a (hopefully) opening one.

Quote:

Join critically-acclaimed author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and world-renowned theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss as they discuss biology, cosmology, religion, and a host of other topics.

The authors will also discuss their new books. Dawkins recently published The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, an exploration of the magic of discovery embodied in the practice of science. Written for all age groups, the book moves forward from historical examples of supernatural explanations of natural phenomena to focus on the actual science behind how the world works.

Krauss's latest book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, explains the scientific advances that provide insight into how the universe formed. Krauss tackles the age-old assumption that something cannot arise from nothing by arguing that not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing.

Founded in 2008, the ASU Origins Project is a university-wide transdisciplinary initiative aimed at facilitating cutting edge research and inquiry about origins questions, enhancing public science literacy, and improving science education. Since its inception, the Origins Project has brought the world's leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, to Tempe to explore origins questions. The Origins Project has hosted workshops and public events that have focused on questions as fundamental as the origin of the universe, how life began, the origins of human uniqueness, and the origins of morality.

As for that quote from Winston, I likewise can not find it in science journals or directly attributable to him, but it has been quoted online rather a lot. I've watched a BBC documentary (The enemies of reason ?) where Sir winston pretty much says exactly that. It may be another documentary, but i'm 99.9% sure he would agree with the quote.

PixyMisa · 27th June 2012, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390

This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool".

What arrogance?

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

What arrogance?

Thanks for pointing out the lack of explanation I gave for that.

I edited, re-read

DC · 28th June 2012, 12:09 AM

Quote:

This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth.

yeah it comes accross very arrogant, but the scientific evidence is on his side that is why he can be so sure, and it is extremely unlikely that new evidence will falsify the theory.

i hear that often from people dealing in pseudo science like homeopathy or plasma cosmology. the mainstream scientists are so arrogant, they think they figured out everything and are so sure of their knowledge.

knowing the evidence and having the evidence on your side and no competing theory around make you very sure and might make you sound arrogant.

i on the other hand find it extremely arrogant that people that have some pictures of some plasma "sparks" and say hey look that looks like an asteroid and then assume that debunks the whole cosmology and they will replace it with their plasma pictures.
Many layman seem to believe they might be the next Galileo without doing any real research.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thanks for pointing out the lack of explanation I gave for that.

I edited, re-read

Okay.

You completely mischaracterise his position.

It's not "his theory", it's the unifying theory of the biological sciences, including medicine, rigorously tested for a century and a half.

A doctor who doesn't accept the theory of evolution is like an architect who doesn't accept the theory of gravity: He is an incompetent clown who is going to kill people some day.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

A doctor who doesn't accept the theory of evolution is like an architect who doesn't accept the theory of gravity: He is an incompetent clown who is going to kill people some day.

If he practises this, or preaches this, then 100% agreed.

Evolution is one of the few theories that is nearly beyond repute as it stands.

Unfalsifiable?

There's a difference between a theory as strong as evolution as a concept and the specific molecular details of the mechanisms that govern it, we might* discover in the future can better explain how it occurs. Epigenetics seems to be moving in the right direction for a deeper understanding.

*Will.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If he practises this, or preaches this, then 100% agreed.

Evolution is one of the few theories that is nearly beyond repute as it stands.

Right.

So, again, what arrogance?

Quote:

Unfalsifiable?

No. It's eminently falsifiable. It's just not false.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 12:39 AM

Well we are in agreement then.

I used arrogance in the wrong way there.

Scientific arrogance is when you don't even bother to try to explain yourself to lesser people. Dawkins actually does a fine job of explaining his scientific view. Even if he's a provocateur when he speaks down to people of faith.

Lowpro · 28th June 2012, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390

This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth.

I'm sorry but if you find his arrogance appalling you're in for a rough ride. People who disagree with his conclusion I can understand, but not his science. I've read his book, and he's not even onto anything new. All Krauss did was write what the consequence is of quantum physics and the observations of our universe, including CMBR data from the WMAP and I assume will follow up with the Planck satellite data (in other words, it's not his theory...). If you think it's appalling that he has the arrogance to say what everyone else can analyze, then...sucks to be you; this is generally how science goes by the way. It's not arrogance to have the data to tell when someone is correct or incorrect.

Oh Zeuzzz I'll bet my avatar epigenetics will barely cause a ripple in the understanding of evolution and deeper understanding of it. Epigenetics isn't really inheritable and is more a consequence of biochemistry, including miRNA and DNA methylation (with miRNA being the possibly more important factor, but not by much as its inheritability isn't direct)

EDIT: caught up on you and Pixy's exchange and true to his form Pixy said everything I just said with all expected pithy

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 03:48 AM

So we are all in agreement then?

Since I don't think Dawkins is at all arrogant.

I redefined Dawkins actions above as a provocative mis use of science as truth, when he should be teaching the public its not truth but the honourable quest for it.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 06:42 AM

And you were wrong.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 07:29 AM

I hope your not like this interaction we have had over the last few days with people you meet in real life.
Also fellow scientists you meet that have a different views to yours
Also your friends with religious beliefs.
I also hope you have some friends.

And did you watch the talk?

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I hope your not like this interaction we have had over the last few days with people you meet in real life.

You mean, telling people they're wrong when they're wrong? Yes, I do that.

Quote:

Also fellow scientists you meet that have a different views to yours

Different views are fine. Nonsense, however, is nonsense.

Quote:

And did you watch the talk?

The whole thing, it's a good talk. And you're still wrong.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 09:10 AM

By my criteria for a scientist pixy your not looking too good : /

Quote:

Religion fails to work as it says other religions are wrong and they are the truth.
Its a philosophy of ignorance, (wrong/right true/false us/them)

Science works as it assumes the other disciplines are reasonably on track, knows its constantly proved totally wrong yet redevelops; and it tries to find truth, but never proclaims it.
Its a philosophy of knowledge.

Some scientists have failed to realise the difference between the quest for knowledge and their personal scientific truth, and how this comes across to people who base their life on a philosophy of ignorance; it comes across as a personal attack, as a challenge to their truth.

Scientists should not deal in truths and absolutes, and the scientists that do, often show the exact emotional traits of the philosophy of ignorance known as religion.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

By my criteria for a scientist pixy your not looking too good : /

You're still wrong.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 09:32 AM

^ You just made my point. Thanks

Perpetual Student · 28th June 2012, 09:32 AM

Science is evidence based. Religion is mindless. Other than that they are quite similar.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Science is evidence based. Religion is mindless. Other than that they are quite similar.

Correction: Science is evidence based. Religion is not. Other than that they are quite similar.

Zeuzzz · 28th June 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Correction: Science is evidence based. Religion is not. Other than that they are quite similar.

Correction2: Science is evidence based. Religion is not.

not_so_new · 28th June 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Careful, two thanks will go to my head.

Actually, no; my ego.

Funny, I opened the link just to see what was going on and figured I would watch it later. I ended up getting sucked in and watched the whole thing.

GO NEIL!

He makes really interesting points as always. Although not exactly this point here is what I get out of it.

Liberals and conservatives have a really strong reason to come together on this issue. In general, liberals feel science is beneficial for society and conservatives feel science drives growth and prosperity.

There is a real reason to have a middle ground here on science related issues and it would be in the best interest of both sides to stand up against the fundimantalist Christian anti-science agenda.

Now, neither side will see it this way and there is way too much animosity for them to even attempt to come together here. But if cooler heads could prevail it is in the mutual best interest of both sides (and the country as a whole) to stop this downward spiral of ignorance.

Roboramma · 28th June 2012, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Religion fails to work as it says other religions are wrong and they are the truth.
Its a philosophy of ignorance, (wrong/right true/false us/them)

That's close. Religion fails to work for a lot of reasons. It puts too much trust in authorities, for instance, and so, on those occasions when the authorities turn out to be wrong, it is very difficult to recognise that. It treats evidence as not particularly important, which again means that when it makes mistakes, those mistakes are very difficult to correct.

None of this has to do with a philosophical idea of truth/falsehood. The idea that some things are true and some things are false doesn't necessarily hold back progress: rather it's the methodology used to differentiate between those things that's important.

Quote:

Science works as it assumes the other disciplines are reasonably on track, knows its constantly proved totally wrong yet redevelops; and it tries to find truth, but never proclaims it.
Its a philosophy of knowledge.

Science doesn't "[assume] the other disciplines are reasonably on track", but rather those who work in one field are able to analyze the findings of other fields and determine for themselves if they are valid or not, and thus in cases where it's useful to take the findings of one field and apply them to another that's possible, not because members of other fields are treated as authorities, but because they are able to apply the scientific method to any data.

Science is also not "constantly proved totally wrong". See my sig.

Perpetual Student · 28th June 2012, 09:19 PM

My take:
Religion and superstition were mankind's early attempts to deal with their baffling and mysterious world. Science has made that need obsolete, but sadly, science seems to be beyond the reach of billions of people so religion and superstition persist. Those scientists who believe in some form of deity or paranormal phenomena are either deficient in their grasp of science or are suffering from a childhood infliction.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

^ You just made my point. Thanks

You're still wrong.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Correction: Science is evidence based. Religion is not. Other than that they are quite similar.

Baseballs are white and elephants are grey. Other than they, they are quite similar.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Science is also not "constantly proved totally wrong". See my sig.

Yes, The Relativity of Wrong, classic Asimov. The full text of the essay is available online if you search for the title, but I won't link to it directly because I'm not sure of the copyright status.

Acleron · 29th June 2012, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If he practises this, or preaches this, then 100% agreed.

Evolution is one of the few theories that is nearly beyond repute as it stands.

Unfalsifiable?

There's a difference between a theory as strong as evolution as a concept and the specific molecular details of the mechanisms that govern it, we might* discover in the future can better explain how it occurs. Epigenetics seems to be moving in the right direction for a deeper understanding.

*Will.

Evolution is a fact. We can see it happened in the fossil record, we can see it happening now in various species and we can see it happening in laboratories.

The Theory of Evolution or as some prefer Evolutionary Theory is all about the mechanism. Epigenetics is but one small area of a large field of genetics and while it can explain some peculiar transgenerational phenomena it does not explain the majority of inheritable characteristics.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 08:18 AM

Pixy your like the Jerome da gnome of the dark side.

Come over to the light side and stop taking everything so seriously

Or at east stop using absolutes like your wrong. Or true. Which are not scientific words. They are arrogant words.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Evolution is a fact. We can see it happened in the fossil record, we can see it happening now in various species and we can see it happening in laboratories.

Didn't say otherwise.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

My take:
Religion and superstition were mankind's early attempts to deal with their baffling and mysterious world. Science has made that need obsolete, but sadly, science seems to be beyond the reach of billions of people so religion and superstition persist. Those scientists who believe in some form of deity or paranormal phenomena are either deficient in their grasp of science or are suffering from a childhood infliction.

You really think we're approaching the end of science soon and we will have worked everything out soon?

It's amazing how people can watch the exact same video and come to totally separate conclusions.

His point was that science is not a replacement for religion or spiritual beliefs.

I really thought we had outgrown this intellectual arrogance.

Even Dawkins came round to having respect for other peoples beliefs in a deity by the end of this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8#at=3300

Perpetual Student · 29th June 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Such arrogance.

An honest evaluation is not arrogance.

Quote:

Zeuzzz
You sound like Hitchens. You really think we've approaching the end of science soon and we will have worked everything out soon?

"Working everything out soon" is not the point. Is it very likely we will never do that. Science and scientific methods are an extension of logic and are the only tools we have for understanding the universe. Religion and superstition abandon logic; consequently, scientists who believe in deities are embracing something that is counter to science. So, as I said:

Quote:

Those scientists who believe in some form of deity or paranormal phenomena are either deficient in their grasp of science or are suffering from a childhood infliction.

That's not arrogance; it's logical.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 09:09 AM

Re-read the post. I got rid of that word. I don't want an argument. Watch the link and comment. Dawkins lack of self awareness of what he ends up saying is hilarious.

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Or at east stop using absolutes like your wrong. Or true. Which are not scientific words. They are arrogant words.

Wrong.

Look up The Relativity of Wrong on Google. As I said, the full text of Asimov's essay (originally published in The Skeptical Inquirer) is available online, though I'm not sure of the copyright status so I won't link it directly.

Read it, for it contains much wisdom.

27th June 2012, 06:19 PM	#2
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,646	is there any research or interviews that would show why those 15% still believe in a personal god?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

27th June 2012, 06:26 PM	#3
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by DC is there any research or interviews that would show why those 15% still believe in a personal god? This talk was made this year, but im sure that a few of this 15% will be able to articulate their views. They have in the past [one such quote below]. Related: Epigenetics Similar thread. "The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency." Proff Sir Anston Winston. The above is more an individual quote than research, but I could likely find similar quotes from top scientific experts if you want. But this sort of research is not science. Its epi-science, the kind of which we currently dont understand.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 27th June 2012 at 06:47 PM.

27th June 2012, 06:44 PM	#4
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,646	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238577 Epigenetics Similar thread. "The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency." Proff Sir Anston Winston. Is more an individual quote than research, but could find hundreds of similar quotes from top scientific experts if you want. But this sort of research is not science. Its episcience, as we currently (dont)understand it. i was more interested in the reasoning behind the beliefs of top scientists in a pesonal god. like my favorite TV astrophysicist. In a show where he was a guest he was asked if he beliefs in a god. he said yes, because for him the self assambling universe is a sign that there must be something more. as far i remember. but its not an intervening personal god. aslong no evidence is ignored, like it is with him, i think that is good reasoning to belief in a god.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

27th June 2012, 07:28 PM	#5
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz This talk was made this year, but im sure that a few of this 15% will be able to articulate their views. They have in the past [one such quote below]. Related: Epigenetics Similar thread. "The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency." Proff Sir Anston Winston. The above is more an individual quote than research, but I could likely find similar quotes from top scientific experts if you want. But this sort of research is not science. Its epi-science, the kind of which we currently dont understand. I think Anton Winston is philosophizing a bit too much and isn't making a valid argument. What you need to understand Zeuzzz is that the arrival to a conclusion is not nearly as relevant as the evidence that gets you there. Creationists have undeserving zeal. They make a bad conclusion and for that, they deserve a bitchslap. Geneticists often do not make a decent conclusion, especially in epigenetics which is a growing field that I've worked in for the past year studying miRNA and I'll be damned if there's a great conclusion in most of it, at least from an "ought" perspective. But what should Sir Winston's position be if he's told he's a liar, charlatan, and fraud and demonstrably shown to be as such? He should accept the rebuke with all due humility.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 27th June 2012 at 07:30 PM.

27th June 2012, 09:10 PM	#7
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Lowpro I think Anton Winston is philosophizing a bit too much and isn't making a valid argument. What you need to understand Zeuzzz is that the arrival to a conclusion is not nearly as relevant as the evidence that gets you there. Creationists have Anton Winston is *not* a creationist ... he's a very well educated scientist.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

27th June 2012, 07:43 PM	#6
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	Thank you VERY much for posting this. I love Tyson and this is a great talk. Thanks again

27th June 2012, 09:28 PM	#8
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by not_so_new Thank you VERY much for posting this. I love Tyson and this is a great talk. Thanks again Careful, two thanks will go to my head. Actually, no; my ego.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 27th June 2012 at 10:42 PM.

27th June 2012, 09:33 PM	#9
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Anton Winston is *not* a creationist ... he's a very well educated scientist. I didn't say he was, I said he was philosophizing and it wasn't a valid critique. He's angry that two people are giving him conclusions and calls it a crusade. The problem he doesn't address is that one of those conclusions is terrible (the religious one) which has no evidence, whereas the other conclusion, that he's a liar, charlatan blah de blah from materialists is true IF there is demonstrable evidence that he is in fact a liar and charlatan. That's the point I'm trying to make, that you can't be mad that people are getting mad at you unless you critique the evidence for why they say it. Winston has yet to address it, he just makes a philosophical statement with nothing to back it. He is articulate but he may also be wrong and articulate. I don't think you've considered that. You Zeuzzz pasted a quote, you don't have the context for it, nor have you actually tried to interpret it. It's useless to me in this context and maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it means. Also, who actually said it because I can't determine that it was Sir Anston Winston. The only hits I find on Google are from you at ATS and here. I tried googling the quote and I found Sir Robert Anton Wilson but I cannot find the quote being attributed to him.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 27th June 2012 at 09:45 PM.

27th June 2012, 11:07 PM	#10
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Lowpro I didn't say he was, I said he was philosophizing and it wasn't a valid critique. He's angry that two people are giving him conclusions and calls it a crusade. The problem he doesn't address is that one of those conclusions is terrible (the religious one) which has no evidence, whereas the other conclusion, that he's a liar, charlatan blah de blah from materialists is true IF there is demonstrable evidence that he is in fact a liar and charlatan. That's the point I'm trying to make, that you can't be mad that people are getting mad at you unless you critique the evidence for why they say it. Winston has yet to address it, he just makes a philosophical statement with nothing to back it. He is articulate but he may also be wrong and articulate. I don't think you've considered that. You Zeuzzz pasted a quote, you don't have the context for it, nor have you actually tried to interpret it. It's useless to me in this context and maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it means. Also, who actually said it because I can't determine that it was Sir Anston Winston. The only hits I find on Google are from you at ATS and here. I tried googling the quote and I found Sir Robert Anton Wilson but I cannot find the quote being attributed to him. SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390 This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth. Well this person might be an ignoramous. But he might not. He might have published a paper on removing acetyl groups from DNA to increase chromatin, and thus has issues with Dawkins theory of evolution based on well thought out scientific opinion. Which could either be an extension of theory in support of it, or something he sees as evidence to the contrary. I don't know the details. In fact, that entire talk is very good, I edited the url to get you to the exact part. An open mind meets a (hopefully) opening one. Quote: Join critically-acclaimed author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and world-renowned theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss as they discuss biology, cosmology, religion, and a host of other topics. The authors will also discuss their new books. Dawkins recently published The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, an exploration of the magic of discovery embodied in the practice of science. Written for all age groups, the book moves forward from historical examples of supernatural explanations of natural phenomena to focus on the actual science behind how the world works. Krauss's latest book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, explains the scientific advances that provide insight into how the universe formed. Krauss tackles the age-old assumption that something cannot arise from nothing by arguing that not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing. Founded in 2008, the ASU Origins Project is a university-wide transdisciplinary initiative aimed at facilitating cutting edge research and inquiry about origins questions, enhancing public science literacy, and improving science education. Since its inception, the Origins Project has brought the world's leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, to Tempe to explore origins questions. The Origins Project has hosted workshops and public events that have focused on questions as fundamental as the origin of the universe, how life began, the origins of human uniqueness, and the origins of morality. As for that quote from Winston, I likewise can not find it in science journals or directly attributable to him, but it has been quoted online rather a lot. I've watched a BBC documentary (The enemies of reason ?) where Sir winston pretty much says exactly that. It may be another documentary, but i'm 99.9% sure he would agree with the quote.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th June 2012 at 12:13 AM.

27th June 2012, 11:33 PM	#11
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390 This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool". What arrogance?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

27th June 2012, 11:58 PM	#12
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa What arrogance? Thanks for pointing out the lack of explanation I gave for that. I edited, re-read
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th June 2012, 12:09 AM	#13
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,646	Quote: This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth. yeah it comes accross very arrogant, but the scientific evidence is on his side that is why he can be so sure, and it is extremely unlikely that new evidence will falsify the theory. i hear that often from people dealing in pseudo science like homeopathy or plasma cosmology. the mainstream scientists are so arrogant, they think they figured out everything and are so sure of their knowledge. knowing the evidence and having the evidence on your side and no competing theory around make you very sure and might make you sound arrogant. i on the other hand find it extremely arrogant that people that have some pictures of some plasma "sparks" and say hey look that looks like an asteroid and then assume that debunks the whole cosmology and they will replace it with their plasma pictures. Many layman seem to believe they might be the next Galileo without doing any real research.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

28th June 2012, 12:21 AM	#14
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Thanks for pointing out the lack of explanation I gave for that. I edited, re-read Okay. You completely mischaracterise his position. It's not "his theory", it's the unifying theory of the biological sciences, including medicine, rigorously tested for a century and a half. A doctor who doesn't accept the theory of evolution is like an architect who doesn't accept the theory of gravity: He is an incompetent clown who is going to kill people some day.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 12:23 AM	#15
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa A doctor who doesn't accept the theory of evolution is like an architect who doesn't accept the theory of gravity: He is an incompetent clown who is going to kill people some day. If he practises this, or preaches this, then 100% agreed. Evolution is one of the few theories that is nearly beyond repute as it stands. Unfalsifiable? There's a difference between a theory as strong as evolution as a concept and the specific molecular details of the mechanisms that govern it, we might* discover in the future can better explain how it occurs. Epigenetics seems to be moving in the right direction for a deeper understanding. *Will.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th June 2012 at 12:36 AM.

28th June 2012, 12:31 AM	#16
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz If he practises this, or preaches this, then 100% agreed. Evolution is one of the few theories that is nearly beyond repute as it stands. Right. So, again, what arrogance? Quote: Unfalsifiable? No. It's eminently falsifiable. It's just not false.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 12:39 AM	#17
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Well we are in agreement then. I used arrogance in the wrong way there. Scientific arrogance is when you don't even bother to try to explain yourself to lesser people. Dawkins actually does a fine job of explaining his scientific view. Even if he's a provocateur when he speaks down to people of faith.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th June 2012 at 01:11 AM.

28th June 2012, 02:47 AM	#18
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390 This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth. I'm sorry but if you find his arrogance appalling you're in for a rough ride. People who disagree with his conclusion I can understand, but not his science. I've read his book, and he's not even onto anything new. All Krauss did was write what the consequence is of quantum physics and the observations of our universe, including CMBR data from the WMAP and I assume will follow up with the Planck satellite data (in other words, it's not his theory...). If you think it's appalling that he has the arrogance to say what everyone else can analyze, then...sucks to be you; this is generally how science goes by the way. It's not arrogance to have the data to tell when someone is correct or incorrect. Oh Zeuzzz I'll bet my avatar epigenetics will barely cause a ripple in the understanding of evolution and deeper understanding of it. Epigenetics isn't really inheritable and is more a consequence of biochemistry, including miRNA and DNA methylation (with miRNA being the possibly more important factor, but not by much as its inheritability isn't direct) EDIT: caught up on you and Pixy's exchange and true to his form Pixy said everything I just said with all expected pithy
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 28th June 2012 at 02:55 AM.

28th June 2012, 03:48 AM	#19
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	So we are all in agreement then? Since I don't think Dawkins is at all arrogant. I redefined Dawkins actions above as a provocative mis use of science as truth, when he should be teaching the public its not truth but the honourable quest for it.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th June 2012, 06:42 AM	#20
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	And you were wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 07:29 AM	#21
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I hope your not like this interaction we have had over the last few days with people you meet in real life. Also fellow scientists you meet that have a different views to yours Also your friends with religious beliefs. I also hope you have some friends. And did you watch the talk?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th June 2012 at 07:44 AM.

28th June 2012, 08:42 AM	#22
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I hope your not like this interaction we have had over the last few days with people you meet in real life. You mean, telling people they're wrong when they're wrong? Yes, I do that. Quote: Also fellow scientists you meet that have a different views to yours Different views are fine. Nonsense, however, is nonsense. Quote: And did you watch the talk? The whole thing, it's a good talk. And you're still wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 09:10 AM	#23
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	By my criteria for a scientist pixy your not looking too good : / Quote: Religion fails to work as it says other religions are wrong and they are the truth. Its a philosophy of ignorance, (wrong/right true/false us/them) Science works as it assumes the other disciplines are reasonably on track, knows its constantly proved totally wrong yet redevelops; and it tries to find truth, but never proclaims it. Its a philosophy of knowledge. Some scientists have failed to realise the difference between the quest for knowledge and their personal scientific *truth, and how this comes across to people who base their life on a philosophy of ignorance*; it comes across as a personal attack, as a challenge to their truth. Scientists should not deal in truths and absolutes, and the scientists that do, often show the exact emotional traits of the philosophy of ignorance known as religion.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th June 2012 at 09:22 AM.

28th June 2012, 09:25 AM	#24
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz By my criteria for a scientist pixy your not looking too good : / You're still wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 09:32 AM	#25
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	^ You just made my point. Thanks
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th June 2012, 09:32 AM	#26
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,709	Science is evidence based. Religion is mindless. Other than that they are quite similar.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

28th June 2012, 09:37 AM	#27
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Science is evidence based. Religion is mindless. Other than that they are quite similar. Correction: Science is evidence based. Religion is not. Other than that they are quite similar.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th June 2012, 01:13 PM	#28
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Correction: Science is evidence based. Religion is not. Other than that they are quite similar. Correction2: Science is evidence based. Religion is not.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th June 2012, 01:43 PM	#29
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Careful, two thanks will go to my head. Actually, no; my ego. Funny, I opened the link just to see what was going on and figured I would watch it later. I ended up getting sucked in and watched the whole thing. GO NEIL! He makes really interesting points as always. Although not exactly this point here is what I get out of it. Liberals and conservatives have a really strong reason to come together on this issue. In general, liberals feel science is beneficial for society and conservatives feel science drives growth and prosperity. There is a real reason to have a middle ground here on science related issues and it would be in the best interest of both sides to stand up against the fundimantalist Christian anti-science agenda. Now, neither side will see it this way and there is way too much animosity for them to even attempt to come together here. But if cooler heads could prevail it is in the mutual best interest of both sides (and the country as a whole) to stop this downward spiral of ignorance.

28th June 2012, 05:18 PM	#30
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,095	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Religion fails to work as it says other religions are wrong and they are the truth. Its a philosophy of ignorance, (wrong/right true/false us/them) That's close. Religion fails to work for a lot of reasons. It puts too much trust in authorities, for instance, and so, on those occasions when the authorities turn out to be wrong, it is very difficult to recognise that. It treats evidence as not particularly important, which again means that when it makes mistakes, those mistakes are very difficult to correct. None of this has to do with a philosophical idea of truth/falsehood. The idea that some things are true and some things are false doesn't necessarily hold back progress: rather it's the methodology used to differentiate between those things that's important. Quote: Science works as it assumes the other disciplines are reasonably on track, knows its constantly proved totally wrong yet redevelops; and it tries to find truth, but never proclaims it. Its a philosophy of knowledge. Science doesn't "[assume] the other disciplines are reasonably on track", but rather those who work in one field are able to analyze the findings of other fields and determine for themselves if they are valid or not, and thus in cases where it's useful to take the findings of one field and apply them to another that's possible, not because members of other fields are treated as authorities, but because they are able to apply the scientific method to any data. Science is also not "constantly proved totally wrong". See my sig.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

28th June 2012, 09:19 PM	#31
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,709	My take: Religion and superstition were mankind's early attempts to deal with their baffling and mysterious world. Science has made that need obsolete, but sadly, science seems to be beyond the reach of billions of people so religion and superstition persist. Those scientists who believe in some form of deity or paranormal phenomena are either deficient in their grasp of science or are suffering from a childhood infliction.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

28th June 2012, 10:22 PM	#32
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz ^ You just made my point. Thanks You're still wrong. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Correction: Science is evidence based. Religion is not. Other than that they are quite similar. Baseballs are white and elephants are grey. Other than they, they are quite similar.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 10:35 PM	#33
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,909	Originally Posted by Roboramma Science is also not "constantly proved totally wrong". See my sig. Yes, The Relativity of Wrong, classic Asimov. The full text of the essay is available online if you search for the title, but I won't link to it directly because I'm not sure of the copyright status.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 03:26 AM	#34
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,929	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz If he practises this, or preaches this, then 100% agreed. Evolution is one of the few theories that is nearly beyond repute as it stands. Unfalsifiable? There's a difference between a theory as strong as evolution as a concept and the specific molecular details of the mechanisms that govern it, we might* discover in the future can better explain how it occurs. Epigenetics seems to be moving in the right direction for a deeper understanding. *Will. Evolution is a fact. We can see it happened in the fossil record, we can see it happening now in various species and we can see it happening in laboratories. The Theory of Evolution or as some prefer Evolutionary Theory is all about the mechanism. Epigenetics is but one small area of a large field of genetics and while it can explain some peculiar transgenerational phenomena it does not explain the majority of inheritable characteristics.

29th June 2012, 08:18 AM	#35
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Pixy your like the Jerome da gnome of the dark side. Come over to the light side and stop taking everything so seriously Or at east stop using absolutes like your wrong. Or true. Which are not scientific words. They are arrogant words.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 29th June 2012 at 08:20 AM.

29th June 2012, 08:19 AM	#36
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Acleron Evolution is a fact. We can see it happened in the fossil record, we can see it happening now in various species and we can see it happening in laboratories. Didn't say otherwise.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241