Stage Collapses At Godstock

[Not a robought]

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/423052.html

The Christian music festival Godstock was cancelled after a fast-moving storm destroyed the stage in Comstock, Nebraska Saturday night. Two people were injured.

Thunderstorms and winds up to 70 mph blew through the area around 8:30 p.m. while some 30 people were on stage. The band Pillar and crewmembers had just finished their set and had been off only one minute when the wind hit and the stage collapsed. "To look at that stage, it is just totally amazing not a soul was lost," said Henry Nuxoll, co-organizer of the weekend concert. "The entire thing is a pile of rubble," said concertgoer Peter Tighe of North Platte. "It bucked and collapsed. All the speakers and monitors were knocked over." Damage to the stage and sound and lighting equipment was estimated at more than $300,000.

One person suffered a sprained ankle, another was hit in the head by flying debris. Power was knocked out for a short time.

----------------------------------------------------------
on edit:

Gee, the last time there was a stage collapse, it was an overhead beam that almost hit Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the freepers were coming out saying it was a signal from God after the Supreme Court's decision regarding sodomy laws.

I wonder what the freep freaks would say now? God prefers drum 'n' bass?

WWJLT (What would Jesus listen to?)

[wellstone_democrat]

1. Does this mean God likes Big Band music better?

Seriously, good that no one was seriously injured. Sounds like a mess.

[Warpy]

4. I think it means god has taken

...aim on all those Paulist blasphemers and is starting to send lightning bolts after them.

It's about bloody time, don't you think?

[Northwind]

31. Hey!

You stole my term! "Paulist" is mine! I copyrighted it and everything! ARGH! :mad:

[polmaven]

6. Nope

Harps and bugles.

[LibInternationalist]

2. oh, the irony...

... at least no one was hurt badly

[IndianaGreen]

11. If that had been a Dixie Chicks concert, the Freepers...

If that had been a Dixie Chicks concert, the Freepers would have said that Gawd was punishing them for their lack of faith in our Annointed Messiah.

Since shit happens thanks to random chance, and there is no Divine intervention, this is just an unfortunate accident.

[PsychoDad]

37. Maybe IG, maybe

:silly:

I'm glad no one was seriously hurt. But it does seem that we are hearing more and more stories of storms and lightining hitting ministers, bushites and christian concerts :silly:

[sujan]

3. did they forget to check the weather forcast?

dumbasses

Shun science and it will bite your butt.

[Guaranteed]

16. Hey, I don't believe in science any more than the Bible...

It's a bunch of inductive garbage. The theoretical stuff is INSANE. Atoms! LOL!

[Trajan]

22. I would think ....

That those who feel a strong urge to discredit knowledge gained through scientific means, for the sake of intellectual honesty, would renounce the benefits and use of ALL objects,devices, mechanisms and materials derived specifically and exclusively from scientific knowledge .....

That you would remove from your lives ALL things created by science .....

THAT would be the proper and honest thing to do, considering scientific belief is unworthy of your acceptance ....

[Guaranteed]

32. Hey, I'm not Amish...

Like I said, I don't believe in the Bible, either. And, it's not that I have an ethical volition against technology...whatever works, works. It's just that I don't believe scientists when they talk theoretically about things, when they draw conclusions about things they can't observe directly. And, as much as people would like to think that scientists CAN observe atoms and quarks and tachyons (HA! tachyons.....there goes one now!) directly, they can't. By definition. It's a great story they've made up (although the story changes all the time), but, ultimately, it's no better than the Son of God dying on the cross or even microscopic little green men running around with sledge hammers turning the gears of chemistry.

[iam]

33. Right trajan

Religious hypocrites live their daily lives according to cause and effect. Every day putting to good use tools created by human beings using the scientific method. But when it comes to their fears and beliefs they become irrational and take the easy path. They declare their faith and allegiance to god in oder to avoid the fate of an eternity of fire. For myself, I find eternal torture to be the abdication of thought and reason.

[Guaranteed]

35. There's no such thing as cause and effect...

In the sense that most people think of it. All knowledge must either be classified as a priori (necessary knowledge derived from simple thinking, i.e. logic and math) or a posteriori (observed, empirical knowledge that could conceivably be otherwise) and this rule of cause and effect is neither when taken in, like I said before, the common way people tend think of it.

[treepig]

40. ok, since you believe in math

christian science is obviously the thing for you! (considering that a basic mathematical principle is that when you combine two negatives, you have a positive)

[Guaranteed]

45. Actually, that's logic...

The precursor to math. But, no, I don't see how I could be a Christian anything considering that I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. Hell, I'm not even sure if the guy really existed or not. Historians say he did, but, damn, that was 2,000 years ago. He could have just been some story someone made up.
Look, you guys, I know you hate thinking it, but the truth is that theoretical science is a bunch of garbage. The "truth" changes all the time (depending on the interpretations of the scientists debating each other, much like monks would debate in the Middle Ages over what God wanted everyone to do), and none of it, by definition, is observable in such a manner as to ever be able to prove any of it to be empirically true. Much has turned out to be useful when it happens to coincide with empirical data, but the majority of it has turned out to be garbage, when it DOESN'T coincide. They're making up a great story, but, ultimately, they're just flailing. It's the nature of what they're trying to do...explain the observable through the unobservable, because they don't understand that the observable is unexplainable. They'll never get it down to a story that never changes or everyone can agree with. Which just goes to show ya that, again, it's a bunch of garbage.

[enki23]

85. seems you forgot part

"this sceptical doubt, both with respect to reason and the senses, is a malady, which can never be radically cured, but must return upon us every moment, however we may chase it away, and sometimes may seem entirely free from it...Carelessness and inattention alone can afford us any remedy." (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature)

All that aside, however, I'm thinking you're all caught up Rousseau-like flight of fancy and lost sight of what science actually says. Induction, in science, actually says, as Bertrand Russell put it, "if A has been found very often accompanied or followed by B, and no instance is known of A not being accompanied or followed by B, then it is probable that on the next occasion on which A is observed it will be accompanied or followed by B. If the priinciple is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must make the probability not far short of certainty."

Science doesn't provide certainty, even if any given scientist might say it does. Statistics is the language of science. Absolute proof of causation is both impossible, and unnecessary.

Further, and on a completely different tangent. The atoms in your head, or in your textbook, might not exist, much like the map on my wall isn't the world it depicts. But that the empirical world reacts in a way the idea of atoms describes seems well established. And so saying atoms exist is every bit as rational as saying the world exists. Both are as true as anything can, or needs to be.

[Guaranteed]

86. Right....

And then Kant goes ahead, after being "awakened" by Hume, and redefines causation into a feasible a priori idea. In actuality, causation is a real part of our mind.
But, he redefines it as simple "succession" in time. He loses the constant conjunction.
Anyway...I think I just really wanted to show that science is subject to the same refutations as theism. That's really all I had or wanted to say. This just got out of control.

[gristy]

87. I do commend your effort.

I really do! :)

[Guaranteed]

88. And I 'preciate your recognition ;) n/t

[Trajan]

96. There is a huge difference ....

Between the proposed 'truths' of science, ( which may or may NOT be actually 'true' ), and the absolute 'truth' of the revealed word ....

Lets not try to confuse the issue: ...

Science makes no demands on conformance: you are under NO obligation or threat of physical harm if you deny the assertions of science ...

Yet in MANY theological schools: these threats form the basis of religious instruction .... BOTH christianity AND Islam demand PERFECT adherence to their respective theological tenets, at the threat the torture of eternal damnation ....

EVEN if BOTH science and theology are formed of speculation:

One speculative cause leads to fear and hostility ..

The other speculative cause leads to safer toasters, kewl computer games and lightweight emergency blankets and stuff like that ...

Like I said: ... feel free to discount them by denying their utility ....

[Atlant]

41. Yeah. 'Shame that the Atomic Force Microscope has taken "pictures"

Yeah. Atoms were a pretty funny concept, at least until scientists
at IBM used a Scanning Tunneling Microscope (invented by IBM) to
take actual "photographs" of silicon atoms (well, of the force
exerted by their electron outermost shells, at least) as well as
a bunch of other things. And there they are, with bumps
organized in a nice grid-like array, just as theory predicted!

Rutherford would be so proud!


Carbon Monoxide molecules on copper. Full details at:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nanotechnology/7842/7842government.html

http://www.asu.edu/clas/csss/IAP/page4.html

http://www.bell-labs.com/news/2000/april/17/1.html

Atlant

[Guaranteed]

42. Oh, right!

So, you think you're looking at atoms, eh? Actually, you're just looking at a picture of something. It's hilarious when people look at a TV screen or a picture and say they're looking at an atom. It's only a representation of whatever you think you're looking at. Who knows what's really going on in there, and what happens to the reality of the image between its initial pickup and subsequent transference through the wires and picture tube? No one, and anyone that says they do is making the same errors as the people who say they talk to God.
Yeah...electron microscopes....these scientists shoot theoretical particles at a theoretical atom, and supposedly some doo-dad is supposed to pick up these particles and transfer it all somehow to a TV screen to be gazed at as if they're actually looking at something real. You're looking at something alright, but no one can prove what it is. It's all built on the same garbage assumptions that can't be made in the first place, and it's all circular.

[MadHound]

44. Rather ironic BGL, in light of your anti-science rant

That you are using a variation of the Heisenberg(sp?) Uncertainity Principle to prove it. Just a thought.

[Guaranteed]

46. Actually, it's David Hume ;) n/t

[MadHound]

48. David Hume? He didn't develop the uncertainity principle.

Sorry, don't know who the fellow is, thus don't get the humor:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

49. He was an 18th century philosopher...

...a hardcore empiricist, and atheist. Immanuel Kant credited him with awakening Kant from his "dogmatic slumber." His arguments refuting attempts to prove the existence of God (particular those by St. Thomas Aquinas, who used causation in his theist proofs) still stand to this day and can be equally applied to theoretical science in that they show how one can not deductively infer knowledge of the unobservable from the observable.

[MadHound]

50. Ah, did the quick google on Hume

While that might have been what you were basing your post on, what you are describing is the Uncertainity Principle(the act of measuring itself affects the measurement, yada yada yada). Oh well, we've totally drained this wittisism of all it's humor.

[Abaques]

53. Technology from 60 years ago proves that your point is invalid...

The very fact we can generate electricity from the process of nuclear fission proves that something is going on. It also seems rather convient that the math and physics used to build those nuclear reactors is the math and physics that describes the behavior of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

After taking a course on introductory quantum mechanics I can tell you that the math is there to prove it. Its not pretty math, but it does make sense when you keep in mind that things like nuclear power, microwaves and your tv would simply not work if the basic rules for quantum mechanics were not true.

Read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene if you really want to know more about how the universe works. It descibes reletivity and quantum mechanics very well using mostly layman's terms.

Sure it can be fun to come up with thought-games about how the world really isn't what we've been told, but the fact is that science isn't some make-believe game, and denying information that has been practically used to make everyday technology is pointless.

[Guaranteed]

55. The point is that it could be an entirely different set of principles...

....leading to the same empirical results and data. Like I said before, just in theory, it could be a bunch of sub-atomic little green men going around with saws and sledgehammers which lead to the results that are observable. Of course that's ridiculous, but the point is that you just can't tell what's happening, even when the data seem to coincide. AND, the fact is that the data quite often does NOT coincide. Thus, the ongoing arguments between scientists....
Gimme a second and lemme think of an example to illustrate these causal relations...
Hmmmm.....
Gimme a few minutes to think on it...I'll get back to ya.

[Guaranteed]

56. Alright....really weird example here, but just bear with me...

Let's say you've got a sock drawer with a troll living in it, and the troll hands you your socks out through a hole in the side of your bureau before work every morning. Now, you have two colors of socks, white and black. And you line the pairs of socks up in the drawer when you do laundry in alternating fashion, white, black, white, black (and lots and lots of pairs). Now, one morning you ask the troll for a pair of socks, and he hands a pair of black socks out to you through the hole. So, you think, huh, how did the troll decide on the black socks? Well, I'll just have to wait until tomorrow morning and get more information...
So, the next morning you ask the troll again for socks, and again he hands you a pair of black socks through the hole. Huh...well there's a number of explanations for this. Maybe he just likes black socks. Or, on the other hand, maybe he's handing out every other pair of socks.
So, you do your laundry again, and you replace the black and white socks with blue and red socks. Blue, red, blue, red....
When you ask him for a pair the next morning, he hands you a pair of red socks.
Alright, so now you've come to the conclusion that the color prolly has nothing to do with it. It's the ordering of the socks. It looks like he's giving you every other pair....
Only, the thing is, while you think he's giving you every other pair, he's really giving you every FOURTH pair.


I know this is a wacky example, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point that when you're trying to explain things without observation, it's very easy for there to be alternative explanations. It's the same concept when people back in the Middle Ages tried to explain everything with God. We just use geometry and math, now, but the mechanisms are all just as hypothetical. We just don't know.

[Abaques]

59. You are still missing the point...

While I understand what you are trying to explain in your sock-troll narrative, it does not do anything to make what we know about how the universe works change.

Now, bear with me, I've got three major points I want to get across...

First, science is constantly evolving as technology allows. You alluded to the fact that you conceded that things viewed from a optical-microscope were real. But there was a time a century or two ago when optical-microscopes did not exist when many people would have thought that the idea of biological cells being the basis of animals and plants was ludacris. Technology advanced and microscopes became accepted means of observation. People now accept that cells are the building blocks of organisms (as you have stated).

Back in the days of Plato, the great Greek philosophers thought that the universe was made up of only 4 or 5 elements mixed together in various compsitions. It was wrong, but at the time the technology did not exist to prove them so.

Today there are two accepted theories as to how the universe works. Einstein's general theory of relativity describes how large things (mass wise) behave. Quantum mechanics describes how things on the atomic scale work. Both theories work very well in their given environments but do not work when applied to their opposite areas.

There are a couple of theories that are under development that unite relativity and quantum mechanics into a universal theory. String theory is one of those theories. Most of the math has been done, but we do not have a suitable particle accelorator to actually test the theory. So to test string theory we have to develop new technology. Not so different then developing an optical microscope.

All this means is that science is continuing to evolve. Its the way science works.



Second, You are also failing to grasp the concept of building off of past experience. The reason that we can rely on evidence collected from a particle accelorator is that scientists verified the information that they collected from the first particle accellorators based on what they knew from before they had a particle accellorator. And then so on and so forth until you get back to the optical-microscope, which they were able to verify by simply looking at things with their naked eyes. That is why we can have a strong degree of certainty that the information aquired from a particle accelorator or a volt-meter is correct.



Thirdly, you are also missing that fact that quantum theory and the theory of relativity have held up to an amazing amount of scrutiny and have behaved the same in every single circumstance. (*NOTE: when applied to their respective domains) The fact that you are typing this on the internet means that quantum mechanics have been tested trillions of times and passed each one.

If you really want to be the sceptic, thats fine, but unless you have some compelling reason why observed behavior is wrong or you have a plausible alternative theory, then you accomplish nothing positive.



*I'm not trying to flame you or anything like that, but when people question the validity of the science that they live their lives upon it does very much annoy me. Don't get me started on creationism....

[Guaranteed]

67. Alright....my response....(deep breath)

#1 Yes, I totally agree that science has evolved and continues to evolve. It seems that there is no foreseeable end to the evolution.
And it also seem strange to me that quantum theory and general relativity do not coincide well. String theory, which I'm only remotely familiar with because I went to UCSB, where the theory was formulated (I understand they won the Nobel Prize for it), seems even more odd in that it describes an eleven-dimensional universe (an extremely wacky conclusion- oh I know I'm not supposed to say that because cells were wacky. But, STILL.). I have NO clue as to how that could ever be empirically verified. In fact, I feel pretty safe in calling it impossible.
If this is the way science works, maybe we need to start over. They're not going to figure it out in any conclusive way. And, if you're looking for an alternative methodology, maybe we should stick to what can be verified through observation. It seems that we're trudging through the muck of metaphysics on the way to nowhere. Yes, the new technologies occassionally built off these theories are quite useful, but who's to say the very same technologies could not be discovered using simple, observable phenomena? (In fact I tend to believe that the discoveries are often made first, contributing to the theory, as opposed to the other way around- gunpowder was made well before chemistry became a science.) And, even if this is the quickest way to new technology, I do believe more emphasis should be put on the fact that these ideas are just models used on the way to a desired technological and empirical outcomes. A looser interpretation of these theories might lead to more creativity and an even faster evolution.

#2 A quick Yahoo search on microscopes shows that there is a jump somewhere between 3 and 4 orders of magnitude between the magnifications of optical microscopes and electron microscopes. That's too far. There's no way to reference between the two with that big of a jump.

#3 That's an inductive proof- not deductive. Of course, all of science is based on induction. However, if induction works for science, it should also work for St. Thomas Aquinas- who used induction to prove the existence of God:

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

In fact, his "third way" was nearly deductive. It would have been, if David Hume hadn't come along and refuted it with an argument very similar to the lines seen here. It is merely inductive, if one takes away the "law" of causation, which Hume did....
Here's the proof itself:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8160/aquin.htm

All I'm saying is that induction is a double-edged sword. Thankfully, Hume pointed out that just because something happened one way many times in the past it doesn't mean it has to happen the same way in the future. If you wanna go with induction, you gotta give Aquinas his "purely actual, immutable, timeless, one and uncaused" being.
And while I believe in God, as a philosopher, I don't think it can be proved.

Now for your last comment. I'm not stirring shit up for the sake of it. As far as I'm concerned, ALL knowledge that we believe to have should be able to stand up to the most stinging, strenuous attacks- otherwise, it should fall and cease to be knowledge. That's what it means to search for the truth.
Science is obviously useful, but the theoretical stuff that we use to get to the useful stuff is at best incomplete and seemingly endless....at worst it's all made up by theoretical scientists who've turned it into a modern-day religion and are just collecting grant money for their wacky stories. I personally believe something in between the two.

[Abaques]

76. Philosophy is not science....

I think you've taken a few too many philosophy classes, or perhaps just not enough.

It is entirely possible to justify that the world we live in is the matrix from the Keanu Reeves movie. Does that make it so? Nope.

First off, nothing is ever proven in science or life for that matter. Science is pretty up front about that. From what you've posted, I don't beleive that you have a firm grasp of what real science is....


Read this.


It should clear up your understanding of the basic idea of science.


And so you are aware, physics uses math to model the universe. If you can refute the math or find some other theory that math also supports, then we should use the models of the universe that science finds the most accurate.

You are just wasting your time and everyone else's by trying to suggest that we not accept the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics as being useful and fairly accurate models of the universe. If I am understanding you correctly, we should base all of our knowledge off of what we can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. Well, sorry, but that just doesn't cut it anymore when I can cook food in a microwave that wouldn't work at all unless a good portion of relativity and quantum mechanics just didn't work.

Basically your argument has no practical point and I find the meme you are trying to spread dangerous. We need more math and science taught in our classrooms, and I believe that your argument leads to that not happening.

I am done with this, as I'm sure that you will respond with some philosophical word-play of some sort. If you haven't grasped my points by now then I'm not going to waste my time explaining any more.

If you are trully interested in string theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics, then I would highly recomend that you read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It describes everything very well using mostly layman's termonology.

You should also probably look into some of the works of Thomas Kuhn, I haven't read him, but he is highly regarded for his explanations of what science is and how it works.

[Guaranteed]

81. Scientists...formerly known as "natural philosophers"

Philosophy is the mother of ALL science.

[gristy]

83. I'd say "the scientific method"

is the mother of all science.

[Guaranteed]

84. Formulated by philosophers...

And based on induction.

[Abaques]

93. Gah!

Answer the substance of my post, don't flame the subject, which may have been mistitled.

[Guaranteed]

94. Okey, flaming the text now...

"I think you've taken a few too many philosophy classes, or perhaps just not enough."

Alright.

"It is entirely possible to justify that the world we live in is the matrix from the Keanu Reeves movie. Does that make it so? Nope. "

This is a Cartesian argument that can be lumped in as garbage along with theoretical science. It does prove a point though, epistemologically- that we need to be very careful about what we think we know. That was what he was trying to get at. Of course he didn't believe what he was selling.

"First off, nothing is ever proven in science or life for that matter. Science is pretty up front about that. From what you've posted, I don't beleive that you have a firm grasp of what real science is...."

That's not true. I know the sky is blue during the daytime, given good weather. I know I exist, of course (another Cartesian argument), and it can even be proven that the inside angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. You're missing that the point is about drawing conclusions about things you can't observe. I'm not saying you can't know anything. You're lumping me in with crazy people. This is, in fact, legitimate philosophy routinely discussed in classrooms.

"Read this."

Read it. I especially liked this part:

"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. Science presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work. It assumes that these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is."

Yes, agreed. They presuppose the Uniformity of Nature principle (which isn't unreasonable- REALLY). However, assuming there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work- well, I guess that too is a safe assumption, just knowing that our senses are limited. But you're going to have an awful hard time getting to the bottom of it considering that you're already saying that you can't observe this stuff. It's like trying to lick your elbow.

"It should clear up your understanding of the basic idea of science."

Nothing new there.

"And so you are aware, physics uses math to model the universe. If you can refute the math or find some other theory that math also supports, then we should use the models of the universe that science finds the most accurate."

Of course physics uses math. It's not the math I have a problem with. It's not even the equations. All equations do are relate empirical data to each other. Nothing wrong there.
But then you start talking about wavey things flying through the air and my body....Man why you gotta do that? Yeah yeah predictions. But you already had the equations, man.

"You are just wasting your time and everyone else's by trying to suggest that we not accept the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics as being useful and fairly accurate models of the universe."

I don't know why you insist on me responding to you if I'm just wasting your time.

"If I am understanding you correctly, we should base all of our knowledge off of what we can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste."

Actually, I'm not sure I'm saying what Hume would say, but what he said is that we DO base our knowledge off of that. Whether you like it or not (I actually disagree with him...I think there's legitimate a priori knowledge out there). And, actually, I'm with Feynman, to a certain extent, in believing that models are a good thing to be used to discover new things. But they should be used as aides, and not be spoken of as if they were God's truth. Cuz they're not. At all.

"Well, sorry, but that just doesn't cut it anymore when I can cook food in a microwave that wouldn't work at all unless a good portion of relativity and quantum mechanics just didn't work."

Not sure I understood that. I think you're saying that we wouldn't have microwave ovens without the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. So I guess I have to start throwing out appliances if I don't believe the story they used to discover microwaves? Microwaves- the existence of which I actually dispute in the way that they are described. All I know is that I put the burrito in the microwave oven, turn it on, and it gets heated up. I don't see any "microwaves" going into it.
Oh right. They're invisible. LOL
So's God!
And, you know, things really can be discovered just on hunches. You can see patterns in things just by observing. If something doesn't work, oh well, try something else. And things very often get discovered by accident. Some of our most significant discoveries have happened that way.
Hell, I even fixed my laptop computer with no training whatsoever. I just used a little intuition.

"Basically your argument has no practical point and I find the meme you are trying to spread dangerous. We need more math and science taught in our classrooms, and I believe that your argument leads to that not happening."

My argument most definitely has a practical point. It's refining what we call knowledge and refocusing, making us take stock, giving new ideas. It's not dangerous at all...like I said this is routinely taught to college philosophy students. And I'm a BIG believer in math...it's extremely important, all the way up to its most advanced levels.

"I am done with this, as I'm sure that you will respond with some philosophical word-play of some sort. If you haven't grasped my points by now then I'm not going to waste my time explaining any more."

You came back.
I understand your points. I just disagree, as you do mine. You have much more faith in theoretical science than I do, is all.

"If you are trully interested in string theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics, then I would highly recomend that you read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It describes everything very well using mostly layman's termonology. You should also probably look into some of the works of Thomas Kuhn, I haven't read him, but he is highly regarded for his explanations of what science is and how it works. "

Alright, maybe I'll have a look. I wonder how they match up with "A Brief History of Time". They prolly have some disagreements, eh?

Well, I'm glad you gave me this opportunity to respond to you. And I'm glad that we can disagree like gentleman. Others have gotten pretty nasty. Much respect, my friend. You're obviously very intelligent and know quite a bit about what you talk about.

[DrWeird]

54. Then you'll agree that the world is flat.

Since it looks flat, and because we don't have any direct evidence that it is round. All we've got is pictures from "space" using some fancy scientists doodad called a "camera" that's supposed to be using hypothetical particles called "photons",

[Guaranteed]

57. It doesn't look flat.

And if you set your watch to this time and go to the other side of the world you'll notice it's dark there, but there aren't any dropoffs where you start going the other way.
Look, man, you're using observable data. It's one thing to look at the Earth, but it's something else to be supposedly looking at something that is supposed to be the smallest possible particle in the universe.

On edit: Better response is that not the data, but the validity of the theorem itself is directly observable. You can even go up in a plane and tell it's round.

[Abaques]

61. The theory of relativity has been proven in this manner.

People took two very precise clocks and set them to identical times. One clock was put into an airplane and flown around for awhile (I believe at a relatively high speed and alltitude, iirc). When the plane landed its time was off by exactly the ammount predicted by relativity.

[Guaranteed]

63. Yes the data coincide but that does not prove the mechanism. n/t

[Abaques]

77. Yes it does.

Yes, it does prove that the math behind relativity is correct for those circumstances. Relativity has been challenged in similar ways many, many other times and it always comes through.

While its true that there is most probably some other math that would also fit into what relativity predicted, it has not been found yet.

[Atlant]

64. Yes, that's right.

The clocks were flown in conventional jet airplanes.

Nowadays, of course, atomic clocks are flying on each of the satellites in
the "GPS" constellation and they're travelling at much higher velocities
(>17,000 MPH) so relatistic time dilation effects are a routine part of
the calculations that underlie GPS. And the constant speed of light is
the basic principle that underlies finding your location using the GPS
system.

Atlant

[Selwynn]

71. I'm trying...

I'm trying to really listen to what you have to say, bullgooseloony. But forgive me for saying what is going to sound like a personal attack, but its like all I can hear when I read what you write is something that sounds very stupid and like a stubborn commitment to be a backwater individual. I read what you say, and I'm struck by how very similar it sounds to pamphlets of the Flat Earth Society (which by the way, if you've never seen you're missing a real treat.)

Then I think some more and I think that you sound a lot like what I imagine the church sounded like when they forced Galileo to recant is correct observation that the earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the solar system. Centuries later the Vatican issues and "apology" for their mistkes.

Yes, of course one shouldn't put blind faith into anything. Not science, not love, not religion, not the democratic party. Blind faith will kill you. But neither should someone choose deliberate ingorance or stubbornly refuse to seek to understand the deep complexities of life. Scientific theories, are just that - they are theories. But some of those theories seem to fit the facts so well that they have been the basis for a great many wondeful advancements and discoveries.

What bothers me about your post more than anything I think, is that it really sounds like you are particularly disgrunted and bitter at people smarter than perhaps you are, who do in fact have a head to understand some of the stuff that to you is "technical mubmo jumbo," nonsense, or crazy "theory." Perhaps it wouldn't seem so ridiculous to you if you possesed the capacity to understand it, or possessed the training even in disciplines that you consider concrete, like logical conjecture and refutation for example.

To me when someone spouts off about the "garbage assumptions" of science, it seems like what they are really saying is "I'm too uneducated or too lazy to expose myself to level of knoweldge required to actually comprhend this theory and evaluate its merits for myself, so I will instead just call it stupid."

Yeah, ok then "Science is stupid." No problem. :)
Sel

[Selwynn]

73. [Edit]

[Guaranteed]

75. I'm trying too...

I have plenty of education in the sciences. I did particularly well in them. In fact, I was WELL above average in what I was exposed to (I've never taken a class on quantum theory, unfortunately. I dropped the physics out of my philosophy/physics double major before I got there). And I won't go into my educational resume, for the sake of not coming off conceited.
I will say that it was when I turned to philosophy that I realized that science was just the new religion.
Look- you can believe in a whole lot of things that you've never seen before in your life if you want to- tachyons, quarks, 11th dimensions....but, you know what? You're kidding yourself. They're great stories, but they'll change, just like the rest do. As quite often happens when you're not dealing in reality.
And I don't deny the very real technological advances and luxuries that science has afforded us. But, I'm on a search for the truth. And I'm not going to let people fill my head with that kind of...yes- GARBAGE.
As history shows, people have a need to explain the things they observe....and, for some reason, they keep looking for the explanations in things that they CAN'T observe. They can't just accept things for what they are. They have to make something "more" of it. I'm not sure I understand why that is, but that's what people do. It's occassionally useful, but only through coincidence. And to truly believe any of these stories is just dumb.
Look at what is in FRONT of you. That's the best evidence you can possibly go on. In FACT, it's all you have, whether you know it, or not.

[Rex]

89. You don't believe in atoms?

LOL, man you learn something new everyday on DU. :evilgrin:

[Nihil]

95. Question for Atlant ...

I've flipped through the links you supplied but I'm still slightly
confused over your photograph of the CO molecules on the Cu substrate.

Carbon monoxide is a gas at STP while copper is a solid.
How did they get the CO molecules to stay attached to the Cu?

Was this done at very low temperatures or what?
Was the CO in liquid state or solid? (Haven't got a chemistry
reference book handy but suspect that CO needs a lower temp than
CO2 to solidify?)

Just wondering ...

Nihil

[sujan]

47. I just speak of commonsense

[Guaranteed]

51. I should reiterate and qualify myself....

...in that I only disbelieve theoretical science. Anything nearly directly observable, for example a bacteria seen through a normal microscope, and most other non-molecular biology is quite valid. Physics, the basic mechanical kind, only has problems in that there are problems with accuracy in measuring, but those are small enough to be neglected. It's only when one begins trying to explain things by bringing other unobservable things into existence that the problems begin.

[Ivory_Tower]

60. Why is "nearly" directly observable good enough?

"Anything nearly directly observable, for example a bacteria seen through a normal microscope, and most other non-molecular biology is quite valid."

Seriously, why should you trust the output of a normal microscope? You don't know what it's really doing, and therefore you can't be sure of what a bacterium really looks like, or for that matter, if it's really a bacterium at all. The same thing applies to a telescope -- do you REALLY see the rings of Saturn unaided? How do you know they're really there?

Sorry to play post-and-run, but I'm heading out from work and probably won't get a chance to look at this thread until late tonight or tomorrow. But I think the "nearly" comment sort of takes away from the rest of your argument (which, btw, I thought sounded like Kant -- I had forgotten all about Hume...it's been WAY too long since I've studied this stuff).

[Guaranteed]

62. Lenses...

...are verifiable in that you can look at a car from a hundred yards away with a telescope or binoculars and then walk up to it and see that it's the very same car with your own eyes. So, I suppose that what I meant by "nearly directly observable" is that the method used to observe is verifiable through direct observation.

[gristy]

66. hey, bullgoose

Read something by Richard Feynman - and "Surely You're Joking..." doesn't count.

"The Quotable Scientist Words of Wisdom from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Galileo, Marie Curie, Rene Descartes, and more" by Leslie Alan Horvitz (Editor) might be a good one for you, too.

By the way, you really ARE looney.

[Guaranteed]

68. I have some of his books.

You should read Immanuel Kant, David Hume, A.J. Ayer, George Berkeley, and John Stuart Mill, among others.
By the way you remind me of those Bible thumpers who say "Hey, if you'd just read it, you'd understand."
And, I already know plenty about Descartes, thanks.

[gristy]

69. Richard Feynman's point is this

as near as I can repeat it:

A scientific theory is "valid" if

1) it accurately describes/predicts everything it is supposed to describe/predict in the universe
2) its descriptions/predictions are not IN CONFLICT with any other theories
3) it CORRECTLY predicts the results of one or more NEW experiments which haven't been made yet. The more correct predictions it makes, the more "valid" the theory is.

If the previously-believed-to-be valid theory at any time DOES NOT predict the correct outcome, the theory (as had been stated so far) is immediately invalidated (after they go back and double-check the experiment). Often the scientists come up with a variation to the theory to make it valid again. Sometimes if they continue to find more and more experimental results that invalidate the theory, and the theory keeps getting more and more complicated, they will suspect that something was wrong with the original proposed theory, and they will start looking at the whole thing more carefully, and try to come up with a new theory.

That's it. As near as I can remember Richard Feynman describing it. What is your recollection? I can't remember him talking about the need to "directly observe" something.

[Guaranteed]

70. As Abaques already mentioned...

Theoretical science already conflicts with itself- PLENTY.
And, as far as Feynman's requirements for a "valid" theory, why not take the theories already out there and just add on the rejoinder "....in collaboration with the little green men." I expect they'll still predict things correctly.
In fact, I believe the point that Feynman is trying to make is that it's not the MECHANISM described so much that "matters"....the only thing that matters is whether or not it coincides with the empirical data. It doesn't matter if it's not true.
Thanks for proving my point. ;)

[gristy]

72. I appreciate your points here

but when you say It doesn't matter if it's not true, it depends on how you define "true".

If the theory is in agreement with all observation AND has accurately predicted one measured observation (or, preferably, many observations), then it is valid, or "true". That is the definition of "true" in this case.

W.r.t. your green men example, I believe there is some principle that the valid theory is required to be as simple as possible - to not contain any unnecessary components. So if a theory is equally "valid" or "true" (defined as above) with or without green men, then the men are not included as part of the theory. Probably never were...

[Guaranteed]

78. There are countless theories that could be formulated that all would...

...coincide with the empirical data. They can't all be true at once.

[gristy]

80. But there aren't

countless theories that could be formulated that all would coincide with the empirical data.

The FACT is that there ISN'T. There is just ONE body of scientific knowlege/theory. And that body is (for the most part) in agreement with observation. Those parts that may not be entirely in agreement with observation are, generally speaking, those areas of science that are HOT today. The scientists are working hard on those specific problems.

on edit: end italic typo

[Guaranteed]

92. Sorry I went ahead and took my time before addressing this...

I didn't think it was that pressing.
Feynman's criteria make a theory "valid," in the sense that theory can be attempted to be used in the future to make predictions about empirical data. This is a far cry from "true." In fact, "theories" remain "theories" as long as they can not be proved as fact, at which time they would become a "law." Feynman is most definitely NOT saying a theory is TRUE in such a case as the theory satisfies his criteria. Not only COULD many different theories be used to explain the same data, but, many different theories HAVE been used. And, at the time, they met his criteria. It's funny how so many theories could be true...not at once, of course. But, if they were all true, that would certainly be a notch against the Uniformity of Nature idea that is used to justify induction (which is itself inductively proved LOL talk about circular).
Truth, epistemologically, is a MUCH different issue than the criteria that Feynman put forward- ESPECIALLY when you're dealing in metaphysics. Feynman was really just handing it to the empiricists, saying, "Look...of course we can't get real handle on what's going on behind the scenes...but, hey, we should at least have some kind of criteria that'll help us make predictions in the future, even if we don't know anything about the real truth value of the theories we're putting forward." Of course, I'm paraphrasing LOL.
And, no, there isn't just ONE body of knowledge. There are many different scientists saying many different things. But, yeah...you're right on that last part! They're all working real hard on solving these problems. And they have been for hundreds of years.

[Selwynn]

74. Well...

Seeing has how I have a philosophy degree and a little teaching under my belt, I HAVE read the people you mentioned and think perhaps some thigns should be clarified:

Immanuel Kant: you have thoroughly abused his concept of a priori in previous posts - please read A Critique of Pure Reason again.

David Hume: My question to you is, do you doubt the persistance of the world you can't see -- when you close your eyes?

A. J. Ayer: As an anti-metaphysics "logical positivist" and skeptic, he might seem likea good guy for you. Except for one thing.. oh yeah, he was a scientist! :P

John Stuart Mill: I'm failing to make whatever connection you were tring to make here -- were you just name dropping to sound more well educated?

[Guaranteed]

79. Alright then

I don't think I was using any of Kant's definition of a priori in previous posts. I was using Hume's....relations of ideas.

No, I don't doubt the world when I close my eyes. I can still hear, smell, taste and feel it. It's impossible to turn off all the senses...even Helen Keller couldn't do it.

Yes I've always been puzzled how someone like Ayer could then go ahead and be a scientist when he knew how weak induction is. It also puzzles me how Hume was the founder of psychology (which is now supposedly a science.)

Mill was also an empiricist. Guess you just gotta read a little deeper into his things.

[Guaranteed]

82. BTW...

You sure you weren't referring to Berkeley with that closing your eyes comment? I could swear that was his thing...
Although I will give you that Hume was even more radical than him.

[phrenzy]

90. Wow

After perusing this thread, You BullGooseLoony sound like the cult member.

I am only glad that scientsts don't think as you do. Otherwise we'd be stuck in a technological stand-still for the rest of human history.

Oh, that's right - didn't you say "They'd probably figure it out anyway with the conventional OBSERVABLE methods" or something like that? hahahahaha

Believing in scientific theory is NOT anywhere in the same realm as "religion" as you say. It is based on sound observation and demonstration. As with any theory there is some 'guesswork' involved, but it is not the same thing as believing in fairy tales.

Oh yeah, you asked "Why do humans have the need for deeper understanding of things?" - Umm, do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

[Guaranteed]

91. Actually, I said...

"As history shows, people have a need to explain the things they observe....and, for some reason, they keep looking for the explanations in things that they CAN'T observe. They can't just accept things for what they are. They have to make something "more" of it. I'm not sure I understand why that is, but that's what people do. It's occassionally useful, but only through coincidence. And to truly believe any of these stories is just dumb."

You seem to be a believer. Yet I'm the cult member. Amazing.
When was the last time you saw a tachyon, phrenzy?

[Philosophy]

5. Matthew 21:12-13

12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, "My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers."

O8) :evilgrin:

[sujan]

7. Matt 7:22-23

[blm]

8. If this keeps up, I will cease being an atheist...

.

[Pert_UK]

9. I guess not even God likes Christian rock music.....

:evilgrin:

P.

[Wapsie B]

20. No she doesn't.

She's more into AC/DC & Def Lepard these days.

[Fenris]

10. You see, Christians...

You fuck with Zeus, you only get more wrath!

[Guaranteed]

17. LOL! n/t

[Voltaire99]

27. For an encore, God, please smite Joe Lieberman!

Or at least turn him into a Republican. Shouldn't be hard. ;-)

[goobergunch]

58. ROFL! (n/t)

[karlschneider]

12. You can make a safe bet that some of them are thanking Jebus that

nobody was killed. Somehow it never occurs to them to wonder why Jebus pissed on their parade to begin with. :eyes:

[arcane1]

65. it's a Godstock miracle!

I can hear tiny tim now

[kentuck]

13. Yea, Brothers and Sisters, the Lord acts in mysterious ways....

It thundered and He was only whispering....:)

[union_maid]

14. Trademark Violation

God probably never gave them permission to use Her name for the festival. Makes sense that it was only property damage. Trademark violation is a civil issue, nothing to smite anyone over.

[ewagner]

15. Two good points

1: Nobody was hurt, thankfully.

2: The irony is absolutely sublime!

[Pert_UK]

18. Rev Lovejoy: "This sounds like Rock and/or Roll music......"

:-)

P.

[Forkboy]

19. Pillar?

that sounds kinda dirty :evilgrin:

[PartyPooper]

21. Jesus Christ Superstar

Is he a critic, too?

Inquiring DUer's want to know.

O8)

[PurityOfEssence]

23. News Item: there were thousands of concerts today with no miracles

Nary a Bush was burnt (sadly) and the Red Sea is very consistent.

When natural things happen, they happen. The percentage of time when a stage is set up where there's a band on it is well under 50%...

Jesus definitely wouldn't listen to silliness like this...

[moondust]

24. God hath spoken.

Take heed, O ye sinners!

[DemBones DemBones]

25. I've always said that God couldn't possibly like that cheesy music

so this is no surprise to me.

Most of today's Christian music -- and most new hymns -- are appallingly bad. The same is true with contemporary Christian art. It's amazing when you consider how much of the great music and art of the past explores Christian themes.

[union_maid]

29. If Clapton is God...

as some have said, then MTV could be in big trouble.

[xJlM]

39. I thought Jimmy Page was god...?

At least that's what it says on the overpass down by Route 4.

[peterh]

26. I’m really tempted to type something very sarcastic…

But, with 2 people injured, my humanistic side says don’t…….fuck it….they’ll pass it off as saying something to the effect that the contractor really wasn’t Christian and he was out fornicating the night before and the two injured might be up for repenting for something they did recently.

[0007]

28. Holy' Mackerel

Folks have forgotten how to quell a strom. Jays'us said we must have faith.

[Duvenoy]

30. Mayhaps 'tis a sign of the times.

An half-assed war pursued by a dishonest administration that is not even compentent in it's dishonesty. Could it be that Halliburton built that half-assed stage? Or Enron?

Naw, not Enron. They would have cooked the books, stolen the ticket cash box, taken the money and scuttled off into retirement with the blessings of all concerned, and without an nail being driven nor a plank sawn.

Perhaps they should have hired the Amish, who are believers that know how to build.

Idiots and scounldrels rule the world.

doov

[leesa]

34. Thanks God!

Maybe you can drive your message home to these nasty people some way or another.

[ze_dscherman]

36. When we had our local concert for Iraqi children

we were clever enough to open the stage tarp so the gusts from an advancing thunderstorm could blow through it, instead of lifting the whole stage. Still, I could not hold the flapping tarp, which almost knocked over the drummer finishing the last piece before the event dissolved ...

[rocktivity]

38. I believe Soul singer Curtis Mayfield got hit by a stage prop in a storm

And now uses a wheelchair.

rocknation

[playahata1]

43. You mean USED a wheelchair!

Curtis Mayfield IS DEAD. He died 2, 3 years ago, from health problems caused by his paralysis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/579113.stm

[tom_paine]

52. God has Spoken

And what she's saying is, "Hey, you fundie whackos! Stop following the AntiChrist Your Emperor!"

You know, I think I now understand why this pretentious moralizing in the name of God gives Roberston and Falwell better erections than anally-penetrating small boys.

It's fun...and no one can contradict you.