Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Big Bang (Part 2)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2007 :  10:28:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
Ricky asked:
quote:
Certainly experiences influence our intuition, there is no question about that. But what exactly is the difference between an educated guess and intuition? To me, the lines get blurry there.


Remove your current knowledge of mathematics and code writing. All of it, so the extent of your computer science knowledge is how to turn your computer on and send an email.

Now, sit down and try to debug something.

Is your intuition going to be any use?



I do agree with you that we use intuition frequently though, in the sense that Zebra described.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Edited by - Dude on 01/10/2007 10:30:54
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 01/11/2007 :  12:03:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

This may be getting way off topic, but I believe we already are.

The following quote was posted by Neurosis.

quote:
Intuitive/feeling is worthless. Going with your gut feeling is not scientific or skeptical and the definition of intuition, so it precludes the scientific, empirical, and historical. It is also Faith. Note also that you have NO scientific, empirical, and historical evidence, so you only have faith any way you look at it.


I wouldn't say worthless. In fact, many scientists use intuition to form a hypothesis. I use it myself in math, and heavily while debugging programs when I do not know where the error lies.

However, once one wishes for a theory to be accepted by others, then it is worthless. But it is very important for the process of discovery, just not justification.



That is what I meant. I did not say useless, I said worthless.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 01/11/2007 :  12:05:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Certainly experiences influence our intuition, there is no question about that. But what exactly is the difference between an educated guess and intuition? To me, the lines get blurry there.



They are the same really. We just call the one where we can't put our finger on the source intuition. The one where we can is an educated guess. Both are subject to be misinformed.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 01/11/2007 :  12:09:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Zebra

Intuition is the sub-conscious recognition of patterns one has seen before (including recall of knowledge one has previously acquired, and rapid connection formation between areas of knowledge) with a resultant "sense" of how to complete the pattern - what to do next, what would be the next best step, etc. The recall and processing are not explicit, and the person may not recognize how they came to the conclusion, but after the fact people can often piece out (far more slowly than in the intuitive moment) what clues they recognized, and what knowledge they have that tells them what those clues mean.

Gary Klein, Ph.D. is one psychologist who has spent years studying intuition, especially rapid, intuitive decision-making by firefighters at fires, and other experts in various fields who have to make rapid, important decisions under stress.

The way Neurosis used "intuition" is different:
quote:
Intuitive/feeling is worthless. Going with your gut feeling is not scientific or skeptical and the definition of intuition, so it precludes the scientific, empirical, and historical. It is also Faith. Note also that you have NO scientific, empirical, and historical evidence, so you only have faith any way you look at it.

Neurosis is explicitly referring to "feelings" based on "NO...evidence". That's not intuition, though at times it may seem like experts using intuition are not using evidence (not so).

The mixup probably comes because people sometimes say they are basing something on "intuition" when really it's "wishful thinking" - they hope it's so. Faith seems like one kind of wishful thinking.

Edited to fix the links & clarify one point.
And edited again to fix 2 stupid typos.



Thanks for the clarification of my post. You were right on. That is why I switched terms to faith at the end to show that GK was substituting his faith and wishful thinking for the word intuition in his claim.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

GK Paul
Skeptic Friend

USA
306 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2007 :  05:19:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GK Paul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I read a book about Isaac Newton that says nuclear scientists can actually change materials into gold but the expense would not make it worthwhile. So much for people who criticise Newton for looking into alchemy. Those same people would probably laugh at Edison for trying human hair as a conductor in the light bulb.


Reading so many non-fictional books, do you know how physicists go about changing some other element into gold?
Who wrote that book about Newton anyway?
For someone claiming to read many non-fictional books, your grasp of general (scientifically derived) knowledge seem to be wanting.

If you had read more fiction, you would see that the Bible has much more in common with fiction than with non-fiction. And even more in common with other religious myths.

You know, I once worked with a woman who had no clue what was fiction and what was non-fiction. After a lengthy discussion with her it was clear that she really believed that "Murder on the Orient Express" actually happened and that Agatha Christie was some find of historian/correspondent.
The Swedish word for literary fiction as you would find it in a library marking out that particular section doesn't say "made up stories" but more like "beautiful stories" (as in could-be-real-stories). For someone not native Swedish and very gullible, I still left the discussion with her wondering how the world looked through her eyes...

Just because you're saying that you don't read fiction, GK Paul. How do I know what you read? And just because you're reading fact-books doesn't necessarily mean that you understand what you read. What conclusions did you make from that book saying it that it is possible to transmute another element into gold? Was Isaac Newton on the right track in his alchemy studies?

If the biblical story of the Tower of Babel is true, given that God is spiritual in nature and not physical, what threat could the tower possibly pose to God? I can't imagine. So why stop the people from making it, since when the tower was finished, they would have realised that they made it all in vain. Would it not be punishment alone?
Besides, many buildings have been raised after that, that's been much higher, and no one ever saw God there. Neither on the Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building, nor World Trade Center.
I cannot find any sane reason to believe the story of the Tower of Babel is real, because it contains so many of these logical flaws. Flaws that would make sense if you assume that the story is fictional to begin with, written by a mediocre author who hadn't thought through the implications of the various critical plot-points.

Then, realise that the story originated during the later Bronze-age.


OK, I'm done ranting for now.

Oh yeah...
The story about the female coworker, who believed that "The Murder on the Orient Express" was real, is actually true!



I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

I'm sure Bush couldn't make an atomic bomb on his own - he just has the power to use one. Scientists with IQ's of 200 invent and make the bomb. Layman with IQ's of 100 make the decision whether or not to use it. For example Harry Truman the farmer and clothing store owner who didn't go to college was the one who made the decision to use Oppenheimer's baby.


"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist

"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton


GK Paul
Edited by - GK Paul on 01/14/2007 05:23:54
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2007 :  05:45:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

Ah, so you do know why people who criticize Newton for his attempts to use alchemism to make gold are completely justified in that criticism. So why did you pretend not to in an earlier post?

quote:
I'm sure Bush couldn't make an atomic bomb on his own - he just has the power to use one. Scientists with IQ's of 200 invent and make the bomb. Layman with IQ's of 100 make the decision whether or not to use it. For example Harry Truman the farmer and clothing store owner who didn't go to college was the one who made the decision to use Oppenheimer's baby.


Is there any relevance to this? I'm trying to reconcile it with the post you are answering to, but there doesn't seem to be any reasonable way to do this.

Edited to fix formatting -- Boron10

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Edited by - Boron10 on 01/14/2007 09:18:45
Go to Top of Page

GK Paul
Skeptic Friend

USA
306 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2007 :  06:35:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GK Paul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

Ah, so you do know why people who criticize Newton for his attempts to use alchemism to make gold are completely justified in that criticism. So why did you pretend not to in an earlier post?

quote:
I'm sure Bush couldn't make an atomic bomb on his own - he just has the power to use one. Scientists with IQ's of 200 invent and make the bomb. Layman with IQ's of 100 make the decision whether or not to use it. For example Harry Truman the farmer and clothing store owner who didn't go to college was the one who made the decision to use Oppenheimer's baby.


Is there any relevance to this? I'm trying to reconcile it with the post you are answering to, but there doesn't seem to be any reasonable way to do this.




Anybody who has taken high school chemistry knows about electrons, neutrons, protons and atomic weight.

I really don't understand why anyone should try to discredit Newton for looking into alchemy (I didn't pretend anything). I say looking into it because he never did publish a paper on alchemy. Newton never heard the words electron, neutron, proton, or atomic weight and I think thats what all the critics don't understand. If you all lived in the 1600's you might be looking into alchemy too.

But if you all want to criticize the guy who invented calculus, the reflecting telescope, formulated the laws of gravity, did important work on light properties, and was able to figure out that the poles of the earth flattened out, than go ahead.

I forgot his work on tides, figuring out the radius of the earth, and being the first to mathematically prove that planetary orbits were ellipses.

Edited to adjust formatting -- Boron10


"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist

"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton


GK Paul
Edited by - Boron10 on 01/14/2007 09:19:30
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2007 :  08:02:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Anybody who has taken high school chemistry knows about electrons, neutrons, protons and atomic weight.

I really don't understand why anyone should try to discredit Newton for looking into alchemy (I didn't pretend anything). I say looking into it because he never did publish a paper on alchemy. Newton never heard the words electron, neutron, proton, or atomic weight and I think thats what all the critics don't understand. If you all lived in the 1600's you might be looking into alchemy too.

Not necessarily. There is a simple reason for this. Alchemy is not chemistry. Alchemy is devoid of the scientific reasoning that Newton applied to those other branches of science you mention. That is why he is criticized for it.

quote:
But if you all want to criticize the guy who invented calculus, the reflecting telescope, formulated the laws of gravity, did important work on light properties, and was able to figure out that the poles of the earth flattened out, than go ahead.

I'll be happy to. He was a smart guy, probably one of the smartest guys ever lived? But noone is beyond criticism and that includes Newton. Alchemy is devoid of scientific reasoning. That is why Newton was criticized for looking into it and even if he was the smartest guy that ever lived and also invented special relativity, general relativity and a way to make my toaster make good sandwaches, it doesn't make that criticism any less valid.

quote:
I forgot his work on tides, figuring out the radius of the earth, and being the first to mathematically prove that planetary orbits were ellipses.


And that still doesn't make alchemy scientific. Do you understand this, GKpaul? Do you understand that the logical reasoning Newton applied to those branches of science you name, he did not apply in alchemy? Do you actually know what alchemy is?

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2007 :  15:49:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
As an interjection, I would like to say that Newton is criticised for investigating Alchemy not because it was stupid of him to do so but because he was so smart. It is used as a "even the smartest people can make mistakes" tale. I believe it was first stated to you GK as an argument against authority citing. It may have well been a respectable undertaking during the Dark Ages, but currently it is veiwed as a farce, and rightfully so. This is the whole point, actually. If one were to say well Newton thought it was a good idea as a justification of practicing it today, it would not serve his argument no matter what discoveries Newton did make. No more than suggecting that since blood-letting was the foremost medical treatment it should be practiced today. Arguments from authority are fallicious. One must have data and evidence.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2007 :  01:44:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis

As an interjection, I would like to say that Newton is criticised for investigating Alchemy not because it was stupid of him to do so but because he was so smart. It is used as a "even the smartest people can make mistakes" tale. I believe it was first stated to you GK as an argument against authority citing. It may have well been a respectable undertaking during the Dark Ages, but currently it is veiwed as a farce, and rightfully so. This is the whole point, actually. If one were to say well Newton thought it was a good idea as a justification of practicing it today, it would not serve his argument no matter what discoveries Newton did make. No more than suggecting that since blood-letting was the foremost medical treatment it should be practiced today. Arguments from authority are fallicious. One must have data and evidence.


Arguing from authority can result in being Hoist with your onw petard.

As I understand you (GK) are saying "Newton was a smart guy and a devout Christian so everyone should become Christian"

Well - Einstein was a very smart guy and he was a socialist so you should be a socialist. (Einstein was definitely not a Christian)

Also, if we increase the sample size to something larger than one scientists are much more likely to be atheist than the general population. The is also a strong correlation between level of education and atheism.

BTW Atheists are much less likely than Christians to end up in Federal prisons.


"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2007 :  01:52:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
quote:
BTW Atheists are much less likely than Christians to end up in Federal prisons.


Meh, they aren't real christians, otherwise they wouldn't be in jail.

Probably just atheists lying so as to skew the results of the poll.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 01/15/2007 08:26:46
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2007 :  02:52:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by pleco

quote:
BTW Atheists are much less likely than Christians to end up in Federal prisons.


Meh, they aren't [b]real[b] christians, otherwise they wouldn't be in jail.

The corollary being, the few atheists in prison are the only real atheists.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/15/2007 02:53:46
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2007 :  04:48:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Just a small correction: alchemists were scientists, the very first. Their ranks included chemists and metallurgists, and the master physicians of their times. A great many of their discoveries are still revelent in modern days.
quote:
In the history of science, alchemy refers to both an early form of the investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art. Alchemy has been practiced in Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Persia, India, and China, in Classical Greece and Rome, in Muslim civilization, and then in Europe up to the 19th century—in a complex network of schools and philosophical systems spanning at least 2500 years.

Western alchemy has always been closely connected with Hermeticism, a philosophical and spiritual system that traces its roots to Hermes Trismegistus, a syncretic Egyptian-Greek deity and legendary alchemist. These two disciplines influenced the birth of Rosicrucianism, an important esoteric movement of the seventeenth century. In the course of the early modern period, mainstream alchemy evolved into modern chemistry.

Today, alchemy refers to a basic three step process: Analysis, [understanding the structure and properties of the thing that is about to be transmutated], Deconstruction/Decomposion [breaking down the substance into it rudimentery properties], and Reconstruction/Recomposion [rebuilding it in a different form, or with different properties]. The discipline is of interest mainly to historians of science and philosophy, and for its mystic, esoteric, and artistic aspects. Nevertheless, alchemy was one of the main precursors of modern sciences, and many substances and processes of ancient alchemy continue to be the mainstay of modern chemical and metallurgical industries.




Sir Issac, an alchemist, was the premire scientist of his day. Let us not confuse his science with the New Age bullshit we encounter in movies and literature. The search for the so-called "Philosopher's Stone" was only a small part of their art.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2007 :  06:20:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Reading so many non-fictional books, do you know how physicists go about changing some other element into gold?

I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

So you don't know then. I figured as much.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2007 :  08:30:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The corollary being, the few atheists in prison are the only real atheists.


You mean that isn't true? The rest of us that claim to be non-theists are just running away from God(tm) so we can live in Sin because being bad feels pretty good (but we know God(tm) is out there).

God loves us like a prodigal son, unless we die before we come back to Him, then we go to hell for all eternity.

But I digress.


by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.28 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000