Religion is contrived

[Pako]

No, not really. Certainly there is an idea in place in the hypothesis or else there's no point in conducting an experiment. The point of Famine's statement is that scientists do not let what they want to believe color the actual results.

If they do, then they are not good scientists, just like spiritual people always claim that capital-R Religion is not good religion (see Pako's post above, which many of you affirmed).

You think the guys who thought they discovered desktop fusion didn't WANT to believe it worked? Sure they did. But when the results didn't agree, they changed their hypothesis. That's the crucial difference.

Quantum Physics anyone? Depending on what your looking for, results can change based on how you test the experiment. Are you familiar with that Famine or Duke?

 

[Pako]

Ok, Then this statement should be slightly ammended then.



Edit: Because there is a preconceived idea before the testing. If there wasn't, why do the testing? That's all I'm saying.

Exactly! Unless you have a control group of testers doing the testing with no prior knowlege as to why they are testing. "give us results, fill it here on this form, thanks...don't call us, we'll call you."

 

[Danoff]

Quantum Physics anyone? Depending on what your looking for, results can change based on how you test the experiment. Are you familiar with that Famine or Duke?

Quantum Physics isn't necessary to see this. The results are almost always dependent on the test. The test is very important for that very reason. You have to test intelligently by understanding how your test influences the results.

 

[Famine]

Science doesn't test the hypothesis. Science tests the NULL hypothesis - that is "X is not caused by Y. If X happens it's by chance.". Results are tested, statistically and if the p value (probability) is less than 0.05 (5%), the null hypothesis is disproven. Thus NO wishes, desires or intentions get in the way of science.


Pako - Quantum Physics states that the act of observing changes that which is observed. Intent and method do not enter into it.

 

[Pako]

*snip*


Pako - Quantum Physics states that the act of observing changes that which is observed. Intent and method do not enter into it.

Thanks..that clears it up...

Quantum Physics states that the act of observing changes ........what which is observed.........what?

You have two holes in a vertical plane. You shoot a electron at the center of the two holes but the electron can only pass through one hole. You setup your detection instrument to detect the electron on the right hole, and guess what......it detects it going through the right hole. You do this, oh say a million times with the exact same result. Now we decide to see if we detect it on the left hole. Now with our prior results, we would assume or hypothesize that there wouldn't be any electron noticed passing through the left hole (remember the prior million tests, 100% to the right hole). Guess what..... The electron starts to move through the left hole now.

Is that what you're talking about?

 

[Swift]

Science doesn't test the hypothesis. Science tests the NULL hypothesis - that is "X is not caused by Y. If X happens it's by chance.". Results are tested, statistically and if the p value (probability) is less than 0.05 (5%), the null hypothesis is disproven. Thus NO wishes, desires or intentions get in the way of science.


Pako - Quantum Physics states that the act of observing changes that which is observed. Intent and method do not enter into it.

Yeah...but the hypothesis is part of the scientific method right? So, science itself my not be effected, but the process certainly does. If not, then there wouldn't be an experimenting or testing in the first place.

 

[Duke]

Well, why would you change the hypothesis? You can just say we were wrong and it turned out this way....

That's what I mean by "change the hypothesis". In other words, don't continue to act like your hypothesis is unshakable fact if it is not borne out by the results.

 

[Famine]

Thanks..that clears it up...

Quantum Physics states that the act of observing changes ........what which is observed.........what?

You have two holes in a vertical plane. You shoot a electron at the center of the two holes but the electron can only pass through one hole. You setup your detection instrument to detect the electron on the right hole, and guess what......it detects it going through the right hole. You do this, oh say a million times with the exact same result. Now we decide to see if we detect it on the left hole. Now with our prior results, we would assume or hypothesize that there wouldn't be any electron noticed passing through the left hole (remember the prior million tests, 100% to the right hole). Guess what..... The electron starts to move through the left hole now.

Is that what you're talking about?

No. In any case a TRUE scientist would have set the experiment up with detectors at both holes in the first place (experimental design 1.01 - don't make assumptions) AND run several positive and negative controls.

Electrons just aren't small enough anyway.

Quantum physics states that by observing something you change it at the quantum level.


Swift. No. You're out to test the null hypothesis - the probability that whatever it is you see just occurs by chance. You can prove or disprove it - if p>0.05 you prove the null hypothesis, or what you see is purely chance and not caused by whatever it is you're testing for. If p<0.05 you disprove the null hypothesis and there is a direct correlative link between the factor you are testing for and the observed outcome.

 

[DQuaN]

If I throw my pencil out of my 3rd floor office window, i reckon it will take 3 seconds to hit the ground.

brb..........

2.1 secs.

If I recreate this experiment, I now hypothesise that it will take roughly 2 seconds.

brb..........

2.3 secs

Might be wind resistance.

If I recreate this experiment, I reckon it will take between 2 and 2.3 seconds to hit the ground.




















Crap. I'm out of pencils.

 

[sicbeing]

well i feel like im in school again with all this science stuff, im gonna do an experiment, how many big words itll take to read b4 my head explodes

 

[Pako]

No. In any case a TRUE scientist would have set the experiment up with detectors at both holes in the first place (experimental design 1.01 - don't make assumptions) AND run several positive and negative controls.

Electrons just aren't small enough anyway.

Quantum physics states that by observing something you change it at the quantum level.


Swift. No. You're out to test the null hypothesis - the probability that whatever it is you see just occurs by chance. You can prove or disprove it - if p>0.05 you prove the null hypothesis, or what you see is purely chance and not caused by whatever it is you're testing for. If p<0.05 you disprove the null hypothesis and there is a direct correlative link between the factor you are testing for and the observed outcome.

Oh here's the cool part. When you're setup to monitor both holes, it will detect the electron passing through both holes. Cool huh?

 

[Famine]

I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about, or how it relates to science, Quantum mechanics or anything else.

 

[JParker]

As with all things built, manufactured, studied, etc by man, there are acceptable tolerances or acceptable percentages of error. There are acceptable levels in toxins in the things we eat, and drink. There are accepttable tolerances of error in the buildings we build. There acceptable levels of radiation one is exposed to in a nuclear plant etc etc. What is your acceptable percentage of error in your scientific experiments?
Mankind is naturally unable to perform to perfection. The same applies to religion. (no need to capitalize religion guys, only the types) it is simply a guideline to better yourself in the eyes of that religious group. That is why He forgives, just like we forgive. We forgive you for your imperfect studies, so why attack us with versus from our belief, when we make mistakes.
An experiment with a 99.99999% positive result still has that fraction of error. We get upset with someone or something and get accused of not "turning the other cheek". With some people, I want name any names, but if you turn the other cheek they would instantly slap that one too.

I'm sorry to ramble but I was up late last night playing GT, and haven't got enough coffee yet.

 

[James2097]

Danoff, I just found that we can talk about stuff like this on GTPlanet, its a good break from cars! Anyway, I have very much enjoyed reading this thread, your first post is EXACTLY the kind of smart arse thing I would say. It was funny, to the point and logically sound, in terms of the depth you've delved into it.

BTW, the meaning of life is 42.

This above statement has as much credibility as any religion for explaining how the world works. It just lacks a moral stance. In fact, saying "I am a JEDI" demonstrates a similar level of rationality as any religion, and contains morals also. Just because a religion is more "mainstream" it doesn't mean its any less nuts to believe in it, it just means it is better marketed than any other, and your all nuts together. And there's the real benefit of religion - the social aspect, it just gets people together and its great for that! But seriously you may aswell join the bowls club LOL!!!

"Christianity is the BEST MARKETED product in the history of the world, with the best bussiness plan! Just look at the wealth churches have." I like this statement. I might remember it to annoy some jehovas witnesses with when they come-a-knockin'!

Cya, James Hassall (aka James2097, aka Jimi H (when playing in my band))

Danoff, you took the words right outta my mouth in the first post.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I just found that we can talk about stuff like this on GTPlanet, its a good break from cars! Anyway, I have very much enjoyed reading this thread, your first post is EXACTLY the kind of smart arse thing I would say. It was funny, to the point and logically sound, in terms of the depth you've delved into it.

Glad you enjoyed it. Welcome to the opinons board.

 

[JParker]

This above statement has as much credibility as any religion for explaining how the world works. It just lacks a moral stance.

I stated my moral stance in an earlier post. The -above statement- IS credible. I work in the construction industry, I have friends in the medical field, the owner of my company is an architect, I have family in the manufacturing industry, I have read tons of information on various scientific studies, I watch Discovery channel. LOL. The things men do are imperfect. There ARE acceptable levels of error in the scientic field of study and any field of work.
A few here are attacked for any deviation of performing the beliefs of their, our, religion to perfection. Those few make statements that would try to lead you to believe scientific study is performed over and over to eliminate any error. I forgive their imperfection, they should forgive ours, and we could all "live happily ever after"

 

[Danoff]

We get upset with someone or something and get accused of not "turning the other cheek". With some people, I want name any names, but if you turn the other cheek they would instantly slap that one too.

So you're saying that the bible was wrong when it says turn the other cheek? You're pointing out a fundamental flaw in one of the bible's messages - and you're right.

 

[Swift]

So you're saying that the bible was wrong when it says turn the other cheek? You're pointing out a fundamental flaw in one of the bible's messages - and you're right.

Actually, your taking verses out of context. This was from the sermon on the mount. and Jesus was teaching of proper conduct in more then just one situation. Infact, the entire verse reads:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And to put it in better perspective...

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

What I'm saying is that Jesus was putting down the old law and moving us into grace. In the very same chapter he talks about loving your enemies. That is something Jews simply did not do.

So, what do I mean by all this? Well, simply that christians are to be longsuffering. We should not have short fuses. I know you're going to say, "YOu blew up at so and so a few pages ago! You're not a christrian!" Well, I'll let you know something right now. You can smack me around all day and I'll probably be cool with it. You mess with my God, my wife(soon to be) or my family and that's when I'm going to have the issue.

 

[JParker]

So you're saying that the bible was wrong when it says turn the other cheek? You're pointing out a fundamental flaw in one of the bible's messages - and you're right.

No I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. One should turn the other cheek. What I was saying is simply that, some people will take advantage of the opportunity to slap the other one. I respect the fact that some people have their opinions and do not "attack" them for it. If I did and they got upset I would understand. I have my opinion, if you attack mine should I turn the other cheek and say nothing while you continue to attack mine? I would not respond with another attack, but rather defend mine, in the same fashion of others here.

 

[Danoff]

So if Christians are all about turning the other cheek, you must be against all military action that isn't strictly defensive. I'll cite WWII and the Gulf Wars as examples.

 

[Swift]

So if Christians are all about turning the other cheek, you must be against all military action that isn't strictly defensive. I'll cite WWII and the Gulf Wars as examples.

WWII we got bombed at Perl harbor. The first gulf war was in defense of kuwait.

 

[JParker]

So if Christians are all about turning the other cheek, you must be against all military action that isn't strictly defensive. I'll cite WWII and the Gulf Wars as examples.

In both examples the opposition was not a power that was minding it's business. The Nazi's invaded the majority of Europe, Russia, and North Africa. Forgive me if I left someone out. We, among others helped free those invaded countries. In the Gulf wars, a ruthless government, led by a murderer, among other things, invaded another country, killed 10's of thousands of his own people, and was a threat to the entire world. We did not invade a country for personal benefit. We overthrew a government and are in the process of helping the country set up a new one.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Where is this thread going now...military conflicts?

So if Christians are all about turning the other cheek, you must be against all military action that isn't strictly defensive. I'll cite WWII and the Gulf Wars as examples.

I'd have used the Crusades as an example

Swift, of course you've heard of St George...patron Saint of England.
Do you know what the Dragon represents?

 

[Swift]

Where is this thread going now...military conflicts?


I'd have used the Crusades as an example

Swift, of course you've heard of St George...patron Saint of England.
Do you know what the Dragon represents?

Ok, I'm wondering why we have to go way back to all kinds of things that I had absolutely nothing to do with. Nor anyone that I know. I mean sheesh, the crusades were just plain stupid(as explained by Pako) so why are you using that as a point.

I like the fact that Danoff cited wars that happened recently and by the US. I'm not about to try to explain what some English guy did and justify it through christianity. I don't hold any person higher then another. No matter who they are, save Jesus.

Do I know what the dragon represents? Well, I know I'm a dragon on the Chinese zodiac. I always thought that was cool. Though I don't subscribe to astrology.

 

[JParker]

Do I know what the dragon represents? Well, I know I'm a dragon on the Chinese zodiac. I always thought that was cool. Though I don't subscribe to astrology.

Yea, the last time I was in a chinese resteraunt they had one of those zodiac things on the menu, and to my surprise, I'm a chicken. How uncool is that.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Ok, I'm wondering why we have to go way back to all kinds of things that I had absolutely nothing to do with. Nor anyone that I know. I mean sheesh, the crusades were just plain stupid(as explained by Pako) so why are you using that as a point.

...because it wasn't a defensive campaign

I like the fact that Danoff cited wars that happened recently and by the US. I'm not about to try to explain what some English guy did and justify it through christianity. I don't hold any person higher then another. No matter who they are, save Jesus.

He is quite famous

Do I know what the dragon represents? Well, I know I'm a dragon on the Chinese zodiac. I always thought that was cool. Though I don't subscribe to astrology.

The dragon represents the evil heathens who were slaughtered by the Knights Templar because they refused to accept Christianity...very nice

 

[sicbeing]

That quote ...

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Yea, from what I know, it was law for the romans that you could backhand a jew once, and if you hit them with your forhand and a second time, you get hung. I dont think jesus was saying be a pansy, he was saying "let the romans screw themselves over", that is why he was so smart, and the way he was trying to be the Sword of God and free the jews from the romans, if you look at his other teachings of the same concept and look up roman biblical times history in law, u might find other things

 

[Swift]

...because it wasn't a defensive campaign

He is quite famous

The dragon represents the evil heathens who were slaughtered by the Knights Templar because they refused to accept Christianity...very nice

Jesus is God. Whether you're a trinitarian or not. So, of course I hold him higher then anyone else.

About the dragon, well, I don't condone or understand why they would feel that people needed to be killed if they don't accept christ. By that standpoint, they will go to hell and YOU have condemmed them. So, that wouldn't be something that I even remotely enforce.

 

[James2097]

I stated my moral stance in an earlier post. The -above statement- IS credible. I work in the construction industry, I have friends in the medical field, the owner of my company is an architect, I have family in the manufacturing industry, I have read tons of information on various scientific studies, I watch Discovery channel. LOL. The things men do are imperfect. There ARE acceptable levels of error in the scientic field of study and any field of work.
A few here are attacked for any deviation of performing the beliefs of their, our, religion to perfection. Those few make statements that would try to lead you to believe scientific study is performed over and over to eliminate any error. I forgive their imperfection, they should forgive ours, and we could all "live happily ever after"

Wow back there JParker, you misunderstood my point. The 'above' statement I was reffering to was in fact only 'just' above that sentence. It was:

BTW, the meaning of life is 42.

and was just meant to be a funny way of showing the absurdity of religion by being intentionally absurd myself. I wasn't referencing your post, so its all cool! 👍

 

[Pako]

*snip*

BTW, the meaning of life is 42.

*snip*

And don't forget your hand towel.