PDA

View Full Version : Bill Nye booed in Texas for saying the moon reflects sunlight



Pages : 1 2 [3]

socratic
16th May 09, 07:46 AM
R U kwestinin the reluvunse uf JESUS boy?

It's pronounced HAY-ZEUS, puto.

nihilist
16th May 09, 08:14 AM
Only if you spend more time fondling a leaf blower than you do your wife, PUTA.

Cullion
16th May 09, 08:32 AM
in that case, I would question its relevance.

Why ?

EuropIan
16th May 09, 08:56 AM
Why?
unrepeatable, not reliable, effect and affect not directly measureable.


So basically you end up with an experience that is unrelated to the rest of the world.


It can be there, sure, but there's no need for that hypothesis

Cullion
16th May 09, 08:58 AM
Why?
unrepeatable, not reliable, effect and affect not directly measureable.


So basically you end up with an experience that is unrelated to the rest of the world.

That's not true either. You could have an experience that is related to the rest of the world, just not reliably repeatable. If it happened to you, would you just ignore it as irrelevant ?

EuropIan
16th May 09, 09:01 AM
if it wasn't repeatable and measurable, then no, no I didn't.

EuropIan
16th May 09, 09:08 AM
Also, your own, personal, observation is irrelevant for the rest of the world.

Cullion
16th May 09, 09:22 AM
So what you're saying is, if you observed something that wasn't repeatable, even if others directly observed it or its after-effects, you'd ignore it ?

EuropIan
16th May 09, 09:32 AM
If I observed such a thing it would be beyond precise description and thus pretty much irrelevant.

I am saying this from personal experience.

Cullion
16th May 09, 09:42 AM
If I observed such a thing it would be beyond precise description and thus pretty much irrelevant.

Not necessarily. For example, what if you observed a momentary, localised failure of the law of gravity which you couldn't repeat?



I am saying this from personal experience.

Now you've got me interested. How much can you describe ?

EuropIan
16th May 09, 09:47 AM
Not necessarily. For example, what if you observed a momentary, localised failure of the law of gravity which you couldn't repeat?



why would that imply magic?


Now you've got me interested. How much can you describe ?
Shadow people.

Cullion
16th May 09, 09:49 AM
why would that imply magic?

If it was an actual temporary, localised failure of the universe to obey physical law which couldn't be repeated by experiment, I would class it as magic.


Shadow people.

Do you believe that the shadow people were the result of something psychologically explicable, such as waking dreams or some other hallucinatory mechanism ?

nihilist
16th May 09, 09:52 AM
If it was an actual temporary, localised failure of the universe to obey physical law which couldn't be repeated by experiment, I would class it as magic.




So you are a religious man.

Cullion
16th May 09, 10:06 AM
So you are a religious man.

You're missing the point. I'm discussing the nature of proof.

nihilist
16th May 09, 10:16 AM
Perhaps first you should provide a detailed description of what your definition of "magic" encompasses.

nihilist
16th May 09, 10:18 AM
Because defining magic as something humans in their current state of science cannot reproduce is kind of silly.

Cullion
16th May 09, 10:21 AM
Magic would be an observed event which contravened the concept of immutable physical law. A man's arm growing back due to prayer, a monk levitating, wakeing up one morning to find that your mind now inhabited the body of a squirrel.

Absurd things that shouldn't be possible.

I'm not refering to 'things we do not yet understand, but which are still part of the imagined immutable, mathematically describable framework of the universe', but 'things which are evidence of that framework simply not working, if only for a moment in a small region'.

You're about to ask 'how would we tell them apart'?

Go on, ask.

nihilist
16th May 09, 10:23 AM
Why shouldn't they be possible? Many things were considered magic or witchcraft until they were proven otherwise.

nihilist
16th May 09, 10:26 AM
BTW, how would you know whether the arm grew back due to prayer?

That kind of belief goes to the very heart of religious conviction.

People in plane crashes always credit their praying for their survival.

Stupid.

Cullion
16th May 09, 10:31 AM
You miss the point. If you were to observe such an event, without knowing how it fit in to the metaphysical framework of your faith in the Invisible Machine God, you would have no way of knowing that it fit into your framework.

You'd accept it on faith. But you already know that the very framework you believe in is unprovable, so you'd be doing the opposite of science. You'd be trying to disprove that something could violate the framework by circular reasoning. You'd be saying 'this can't violate the framework because it violates the framework'. You would be acting from religious conviction without any rational foundation.

This is the point at which scientism, as DAYoung kindly named it for us, departs from science.

Can Ian's shadow people be fit into the framework ? sure. It was a hallucination.

Is this a proof that he hallucinated? no.

Alright, let's stretch the framework further whilst staying within it:-

There are beings that some people can sometimes see which aren't yet describable by our current state of knowledge, but which exist and will one day be described.

Now lets break the framework:-

What he saw is scientifically impossible, but sometimes scientific laws just don't work. They sometimes just flat out fail leaving the universe, and mans observation of it, open to chaotic, illogical things. They exist indpendently of subjective psychological states, but there's no way to analyse it in a lab.

It's like sociobiology. It's a post hoc rationalisation with no evidence. There isn't a logically complete and consistent means of distinguising between these explanations.

Now, here's the rub. Things like this are reported all the time.

nihilist
16th May 09, 11:06 AM
You miss the point. If you were to observe such an event, without knowing how it fit in to the metaphysical framework of your faith in the Invisible Machine God, you would have no way of knowing that it fit into your framework. Just as you would not know if it fit into your SKYYDADDY framework.


You'd accept it on faith. But you already know that the very framework you believe in is unprovable, so you'd be doing the opposite of science. You'd be trying to disprove that something could violate the framework by circular reasoning. You'd be saying 'this can't violate the framework because it violates the framework'. You would be acting from religious conviction without any rational foundation.
Why do you assume that I think this way? I asserted that it is currently unknowable.

I think you are missing the point.


This is the point at which scientism, as DAYoung kindly named it for us, departs from science.
As I said before, scientism is religion.



Can Ian's shadow people be fit into the framework ? sure. It was a hallucination.

Is this a proof that he hallucinated? no.

duh.

Alright, let's stretch the framework further whilst staying within it:-

There are beings that some people can sometimes see which aren't yet describable by our current state of knowledge, but which exist and will one day be described.

Now lets break the framework:-

What he saw is scientifically impossible, but sometimes scientific laws just don't work. They sometimes just flat out fail leaving the universe, and mans observation of it, open to chaotic, illogical things. They exist indpendently of subjective psychological states, but there's no way to analyse it in a lab.

The assumption that there are steadfast scientific laws is also religion.





Now, here's the rub. Things like this are reported all the time.

I had a girlfriend who claimed she played cards with ghosts along with her brother. Her brother swears by this story too. Both of them were dead serious.

God she was a fantastic lay.

EuropIan
16th May 09, 11:17 AM
If it was an actual temporary, localised failure of the universe to obey physical law which couldn't be repeated by experiment, I would class it as magic.


Magic also implies a will or agent of some sort..


Do you believe that the shadow people were the result of something psychologically explicable, such as waking dreams or some other hallucinatory mechanism ?
I can't make a judgement of the event since it has never happened again.

nihilist
16th May 09, 11:20 AM
It wus jebus.

EuropIan
16th May 09, 11:20 AM
or elyuns

nihilist
16th May 09, 11:22 AM
inbisibul mashin wuns.

EuropIan
16th May 09, 11:23 AM
shadoo leprecawns

Cullion
16th May 09, 11:53 AM
Just as you would not know if it fit into your SKYYDADDY framework.

I don't have a skydaddy framework, I just have what's been found to be repeatable experimentally, and the unknown.



Why do you assume that I think this way? I asserted that it is currently unknowable.

I think you are missing the point.


As I said before, scientism is religion.

Oh fuck you if you're not going to give me a good Saturday afternoon argument. Pics of the ghost-lay chick or GTFO.

nihilist
16th May 09, 12:45 PM
I don't have a skydaddy framework, I just have what's been found to be repeatable experimentally, and the unknown.
I think you know that I didn't mean you specifically.
BTW, you are the proud recipient of today's Rumsfeld Award (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html)



Oh fuck you if you're not going to give me a good Saturday afternoon argument. Pics of the ghost-lay chick or GTFO.

I am working on my yard today and don't have time to argue with someone that I fundamentally agree with. And to further add salt to the wounds, my ex girlfriend found and destroyed all my pics of ghostlay.

All I can tell you is that she looked like a cross between Salma Hayek and Linda ronstadt.

Cullion
16th May 09, 01:02 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ns75_SaGmsA/RsB5PQey1_I/AAAAAAAAAl4/g4RJW_bokUU/s400/jean.bmp

+

http://www.thefashioninsider.com/dat/articles/Photo_103_6567599194d6b365accf8569d8999103.JPG

Hmm... could be interesting.

nihilist
16th May 09, 01:38 PM
No, she was 18.

it was like this:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p272/moleculo_9000/linda_ronstadt_circa_1975.jpg

nihilist
16th May 09, 01:39 PM
I'm not even joking.

Cullion
16th May 09, 02:06 PM
Ouch. What went wrong ?

Cullion
16th May 09, 02:07 PM
She realised she could get her weed cheaper somewhere else, didn't she ?

nihilist
16th May 09, 02:18 PM
She came from a strong Catholic family and wanted to breed and protest abortion clinics.

I was double-dipping at the time and picked the atheist girl.

Talk about a dilemma.

f4n4n
16th May 09, 02:48 PM
http://lachschon.pcgames.de/slides/83058_faith.jpg

nihilist
16th May 09, 02:54 PM
God gave man the freewill to pop the pope.

Cullion
16th May 09, 03:02 PM
She came from a strong Catholic family and wanted to breed and protest abortion clinics.

I was double-dipping at the time and picked the atheist girl.

Talk about a dilemma.

Couldn't you have married the Catholic and carried on double dipping? It's not like the Atheist chick had a reason to care.

nihilist
16th May 09, 06:31 PM
I didn't want children at 25. Besides, the godless heathen was almost as hot as Salma Ronstadt

Zendetta
16th May 09, 07:48 PM
I didn't want 25 children.

lol, catholic

nihilist
16th May 09, 09:30 PM
^that^ She got married shortly after I dumped her and started spitting out replicas.

Cullion
17th May 09, 04:46 AM
Just how soon after you left her did she get married ?

socratic
17th May 09, 08:30 AM
The saddest thing here is that the Rumsfeld quote is pretty good epistemology, at least for a layman

nihilist
17th May 09, 12:03 PM
Just how soon after you left her did she get married ?

A couple years.

socratic
19th May 09, 07:54 AM
A couple years.

Wow, that's actually normal behaviour

Fearless Ukemi
19th May 09, 02:35 PM
Virus, what are your thoughts on free will?

Virus
19th May 09, 04:09 PM
Virus, what are your thoughts on free will?

We might have it, we might not. It's hard to tell.

Cullion
19th May 09, 04:17 PM
How would free will work in a mechanistic universe ?

Virus
19th May 09, 04:29 PM
Don't know. The universe is only mechanistic by approximation.

But what we've got is so close to free will we might as well operate on the assumption that we do.

Cullion
19th May 09, 04:31 PM
But, where would this 'freedom' come from?

Are you saying that humans have something like a soul which can influence physical matter ?

socratic
19th May 09, 11:06 PM
But, where would this 'freedom' come from?

Are you saying that humans have something like a soul which can influence physical matter ?

Put the Descartes down. Back away slowly with your hands above your head.

Virus
20th May 09, 05:06 AM
But, where would this 'freedom' come from?

Are you saying that humans have something like a soul which can influence physical matter ?

Why would I say something gh3y like that?

AAAhmed46
20th May 09, 12:41 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner%7Ey2009m4d22-Just-shoot-me



WTF. Bill Nye was one of my childhood heroes. If Bill Nye came to my school as a kid to teach me a science lesson, I would no doubt, have let him molest me.

Fuck these assholes.


Im not gay....but for bill nye.

Cullion
20th May 09, 01:22 PM
Why would I say something gh3y like that?

Well, how could free will exist in a universe entirely controlled by mathematical law?

Where would the 'freedom' come from?

Surely our consciousness is simply the experience of being a complex biological machine reacting to stimuli in its path to propogate the genes?

When a nerve signal travels down your arm from your brain to type, you're not suggesting it had it's origin somewhere other than the electro-chemistry of the soft matter in your skull, are you?

Where's the room for free-will in electro-chemistry? At what point does 'will' intervene in the reactions? Sounds like superstition to me.

rw4th
20th May 09, 02:03 PM
Man this thread has turned in some seriously coffee shop level ghey philosophizing. All this intellectual work trying to abstract things to such a high level that everything becomes meaningless is pointless and amounts to nothing more then intellectual masturbation. In the end the statement that the scientific/logical model is the only one that yields useful results for understanding and interacting with the world around us stands.


Where's the room for free-will in electro-chemistry? At what point does 'will' intervene in the reactions? Sounds like superstition to me.

Free will is a religious concept.

HappyOldGuy
20th May 09, 02:12 PM
In the end the statement that the scientific/logical model is the only one that yields useful results for understanding and interacting with the world around us stands.


Like a one legged man in the room where they oil up the ball bearings.

AAAhmed46
20th May 09, 02:45 PM
Socratic, your history-fu is weak, but that's not much of a surprise. Let me help you out.

Galileo did have enemies among the hard liners in the Church which contributed to his eventual conviction, but he also had many supporters among the higher officials, including the Pope (though Galileo did manage to piss him off in the end), who encouraged and were very interested in his work. He only really got into trouble when he started presenting the heliocentric model as fact instead of hypothesis. You see, the Copernican system worked mathematically, but so did the Ptolemaic (geocentric) system. At the time, science had not progressed to the point where either one could be conclusively proven as it was not known why the planets move as they do. In modern terms, we would say he was ignoring the scientific method. Charging him with heresy was a little overboard, though. That was the influence of the Inquisition. Turned out to be a dick move in the end, but it is not really a reflection of the Church striving to be an enemy to scientific progress.

Speaking of which, the Church was actually the primary force in promoting science and preserving knowledge in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. You know that classic image of monks dutifully copying manuscripts by candle light in their monasteries? Turns out that was actually important. In addition to preserving knowledge that would have been lost in the chaos of the Dark Ages, the Church also actively promoted science and learning throughout that period (pre-reformation) to include the establishment of the university and hospital systems.

Most of the valid criticisms of the Church (which are still often presented inaccurately) comes from its past attempts to wield political power. Not a good racket for any religion to get involved with, in my opinion.

The Church's record definitely isn't perfect, but at least open a book and inform your criticism with some actual knowledge instead of continuously vomiting the same tired, inaccurate statements into your posts that we have seen time and time again.


Lets not forget St. Thomas Aquiness and Albert Magnus, greatly devout xtians. As well as al-ghazalee and averos's(yeah spelling) and other dirty moslem philosophers and thinkers. influense(my c button is really fukked so ill spell things wierd)

Galileo and other great minds were all genius's yes, but he gained alot of his work on those who kame before him like Aquiness and other xtian and moslem thinkers

the inquesition sukked, but that blame kan be sent toward isabella and ferdinand as well.


kome on guys, as mukk as you may dislike xtianity and islam and judaism, you should give kredit where kredit is due in terms of the good they did.

Cullion
20th May 09, 05:00 PM
Isaac Newton was a Christian, sort of. Certainly not an atheist, anyway.

Zendetta
20th May 09, 07:07 PM
He was also an (aspiring) practitioner of Alchemy and Hermetic philosophy.

Virus
20th May 09, 07:32 PM
Well, how could free will exist in a universe entirely controlled by mathematical law?

Where would the 'freedom' come from?

Surely our consciousness is simply the experience of being a complex biological machine reacting to stimuli in its path to propogate the genes?

When a nerve signal travels down your arm from your brain to type, you're not suggesting it had it's origin somewhere other than the electro-chemistry of the soft matter in your skull, are you?

Where's the room for free-will in electro-chemistry? At what point does 'will' intervene in the reactions? Sounds like superstition to me.

Cullion we don't know enough about how the brain causes consciousness to know if we have free will. It doesn't really matter because we have something indistinguishable from free will anyway. My stab-in-the-dark is that the sheer complexity of the brain leads to something approaching free will.

bob
20th May 09, 07:45 PM
Newton may have been happier being an atheist. Then he may not have spent his whole life self flagellating about his love of the cock.

Virus
20th May 09, 07:47 PM
Was Newton an arse bandit?

bob
20th May 09, 07:50 PM
Oh yes.

Virus
20th May 09, 09:06 PM
He wasn't very well liked. A lot of people that met him wrote about what a dickfuck he was.

bob
20th May 09, 11:31 PM
He was possibly the greatest scientific mind ever born and no more blessed with a tolerance for fools than the average sociocide poster. Do the math.

MaverickZ
20th May 09, 11:32 PM
Well, how could free will exist in a universe entirely controlled by mathematical law?
A system that follows mathematical (physical is what I think you meant) laws is not necessarily set to one unchanging path. There are many real world examples of systems that follow physical laws and can be expressed in mathematical expressions but are in fact chaotic systems, Earth's atmosphere is one obvious example.