13,000 Year old temple,

[BorderReiver]

I'm sure that's right BR- sometimes. However science is a word and therefore incapable of utterance.

Do you mean that no-one, ever, who professes to be a scientist has ever made such an assertion? Or that no "true scientists" have?

I have though read posts, articles, etc. expressing outrage when people profess views that are not "accepted science".

Science has its own mantras and I often feel the overtones of "burn the heretic" when people criticise aspects of it. Indeed as I said before, science is the new religion with its priests (scientists), saints (Nobel Prize winners), ceremonies (peer review) etc. All spoken of in hushed and reverential tones. And of course its sects, schisms and excommunications!

In my mind science is a word, it has good practitioners and charlatans (some notably exposed recently), it has done great things (advances in medicines) and terrible things (nuclear and chemical weapons).

Scientists are not above beyond being wrong, or beyond monumental conceit.

The parralels with "enforced religion" are uncanny.

I love poking fun at pompous priests and I also enjoy poking fun at pompous scientists

Not having a pop at any membes of this forum but I willingly confess to moments of schadenfreude when the pomposity of any "we know better" group is dented

Me - I like my world based on a little logic, a little wonder and leavened with a pinch of certainty that no person or group has all the answers.

Red

Put like that Red, I have to agree.

Of course there are rogue "scientists" just like in any thing that involves human beings.

The "new religion" bit I have to take issue with though; science (proper science ) is based on observable evidence and reproducible experimentation. A religion is......based on something else.

 

[HillBill]

; science (proper science ) is based on observable evidence and reproducible experimentation. A religion is......based on something else.

So, the methods used to date fossils/bones etc are not really science as they are neither observable or reproducable?

Science is religon that can be taken the next step.

Everything that science can prove has to have just been faith at one point. Newton, Darwin and Einstein all proposed theories about things without no proof. Same with religons with theories on God etc. Think of the prophets, are the 3 mentioned not phrophets of science?

 

[locum76]

Science has its own mantras and I often feel the overtones of "burn the heretic" when people criticise aspects of it. Indeed as I said before, science is the new religion with its priests (scientists), saints (Nobel Prize winners), ceremonies (peer review) etc. All spoken of in hushed and reverential tones. And of course its sects, schisms and excommunications!

there was a series of interesting letters in the observer today commenting on an editorial last week which featured Richard Dawkins.

One letter in particular caught my eye and echos your views...

...people like Colin Blakemore and richard Dawkins have made to recast science as an evangelical religion; an intolerant belief system where one cannot be both scientific and religious...

The writer was a science teacher and saw this a contributing factor to his pupils increasing disenchantment with science. I have to agree, it seems to me another case of zealots and extremist causing disengagement from useful information and processes.

The relevence of all of this to this thread:

science and religion are not mutually exclusive and the exponents from each side of the debate should try to understand the views of their opposite.

 

[Shambling Shaman]

Fascinating, I liked the reference to Eden... I'm not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination but I believe that the bible stories are a kind of remembered event, an old folk tale dressed up to enhance the 'one true god' fanaticism.

Thanks Cobweb, I may need Plagiarise that if I may...

 

[BorderReiver]

So, the methods used to date fossils/bones etc are not really science as they are neither observable or reproducable?

Science is religon that can be taken the next step.

Everything that science can prove has to have just been faith at one point. Newton, Darwin and Einstein all proposed theories about things without no proof. Same with religons with theories on God etc. Think of the prophets, are the 3 mentioned not phrophets of science?

No.

A Theory in science is an explanation of observable phenomena. When the observable phenomena change due to improvements in methodology, the Theory is modified to incorporate the new information.

The theory that you are confusing it with (the common usage meaning) is "I think that must be true" type of thing.

There is no "faith" involved in science.

Religion starts at the opposite end by having a Belief and trying to find ways to justify that belief. The exact opposite of science.

 

[Nagual]

Taking it back to the original topic...

Regardless of who lived there or what they did ( personally I think it was built by time travellers who have a sick sense of humour ) It certainly is interesting. Just don't let Time Team there, or they'll say it's Roman...

 

[BorderReiver]

I am not forwarding an opinion on either possibility as i do not know. The fact that it has not been discredited speaks louder than i ever could. It may not be true but then it may not be wrong either.

Science is detailed, does that mean science could be total fabrication? People were different back then, different values etc, don't judge them on the perception of modern human behaviour, we can not concieve of their mentalities. Some of the kings on the king list have also been independantly confirmed from elsewhere and by different people. So it is not "total" fabrication.

Thats the thing with science, they say they do not have all the answers then act like they do until something changes it. The public then also have the perception that science says this and that so it's correct.If you tell someone something and it is different to what science says then that person will disagree without even thinking about it. When in reality science is nearly always wrong and nearly always has been as this article and quantum physics are now beginning to demonstrate. Do not put your faith in science.You will only find out you were wrong later. I'd rather not believe it that repeatedly find out i was never right in the first place.

"It is a very detailed document though so it cannot be passed off as untrue. Nor can it be publicly confirmed."

That's the bit I was concerned about.

Science is NOT about faith, it is about searching for truth. There is nothing wrong about finding out that you were wrong, that's how we learn, that's how mankind has progressed. Try it out and see if it works, if it doesn't, try something else. That's what science is ALL about.

"When in reality science is nearly always wrong and nearly always has been as this article and quantum physics are now beginning to demonstrate. " Utter Rubbish.

The guys who are doing the "now begining to demonstrate" are the same people who had the original ideas. They have learned more and are using the new information to delve deeper.

I'm sorry but you really don't understand anything about science.

 

[British Red]

There is no "faith" involved in science

Aaah now there we disagree. Unless you have personally peformed every experiment and observed the results and indeed carried out the interpretation of those results you are accepting them as an act of faith.

The mantra of "peer review" does nothing to change that it is faith. You may have faith in the process, but unless you, personally, performed every step in the process, it is no more than an act of faith that the results are what the person reporting them purports them to be.

There may be faith in process, faith that charlatans will be caught out etc. but it is faith nonetheless.

Experiments can and indeed have been faked. So accepting the esults of any experiment or pape with personal validation is, ipso facto, an act of faith


Red

 

[BorderReiver]

Aaah now there we disagree. Unless you have personally peformed every experiment and observed the results and indeed carried out the interpretation of those results you are accepting them as an act of faith.

The mantra of "peer review" does nothing to change that it is faith. You may have faith in the process, but unless you, personally, performed every step in the process, it is no more than an act of faith that the results are what the person reporting them purports them to be.

There may be faith in process, faith that charlatans will be caught out etc. but it is faith nonetheless.

Experiments can and indeed have been faked. So accepting the esults of any experiment or pape with personal validation is, ipso facto, an act of faith


Red

Aha back.

Semantics time methinks.

There is belief in the veracity of something and then there is faith.

Faith is unquestioning belief in something that no amount of evidence will shift.

Scientists (again, good, non charlatan types) do not have faith. Indeed, the first thing they do on hearing of a new result of an experiment, is to rush off and try to replicate it, just to see if it does work.

 

[HillBill]

No.

A Theory in science is an explanation of observable phenomena. When the observable phenomena change due to improvements in methodology, the Theory is modified to incorporate the new information.

The theory that you are confusing it with (the common usage meaning) is "I think that must be true" type of thing.

There is no "faith" involved in science.

Religion starts at the opposite end by having a Belief and trying to find ways to justify that belief. The exact opposite of science.

Darwins theory of evoloution isn't observable phenomena. So i cannot agree with you there. A theory is an idea nothing more, just a glorified word.

 

[British Red]

Not semantics - just observation.

I wonder how many here who "believe" in science have split the atom? Or seen in split? Or proved that what was observed was genuinely fission?

And yet they believe something they have never seen and probably cannot truly explain, on the say so of people they have never met, based on the veification of other people they have never met.

Religions used to have large meetings where points of religious doctrine were discussed and debated and new ideas accepted or rejected.

To know something to be true, you must prove it for yourself

To believe something to be true without knowledge is surely an act of faith that the information you are given is true.

As a minimum it is an act of faith in science as a discipline.

I have no problem with that. I just see it as no more worthy (or less so) than any other act of faith.

Red

 

[HillBill]

"It is a very detailed document though so it cannot be passed off as untrue. Nor can it be publicly confirmed."

That's the bit I was concerned about.

Science is NOT about faith, it is about searching for truth. There is nothing wrong about finding out that you were wrong, that's how we learn, that's how mankind has progressed. Try it out and see if it works, if it doesn't, try something else. That's what science is ALL about.

"When in reality science is nearly always wrong and nearly always has been as this article and quantum physics are now beginning to demonstrate. " Utter Rubbish.

The guys who are doing the "now begining to demonstrate" are the same people who had the original ideas. They have learned more and are using the new information to delve deeper.

I'm sorry but you really don't understand anything about science.

I think you missed my point mate.

Science nearly is always wrong, it may find new answers and correct itself but for a time science on specific subjects is inaccurate.

The people now beginning to demonstrate are not the people who had original ideas, darwin is getting a hammering as is newton and einstein about certain things, the fundamental principles of physics are falling apart with quantum physics. With physics now being labeled an approximation of quantum physics.

I believe you have too much "faith" in science to be honest.

Science has faith that carbon dating radioisotpe dating etc is accurate yet it could never have possibly observed the phenomena. How can they prove 100% that something is a million years old for example. No one has sat and watched. The faith is there that it is correct without having the foggiest if it is or not.

 

[Toddy]

Darwins theory of evoloution isn't observable phenomena. So i cannot agree with you there. A theory is an idea nothing more, just a glorified word.

The theory of evolution is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record........or are you in agreement with Archbishop whatsisname who declared the world to be only 4004 years old ?

We can, and do, measure Oceanic ridge spreading, crust uplifting observe volcanic ativity. From those processes we can actively observe we can calculate by simple arithmatic how long the actual tectonic movements take.
In amongst those layers, which we can date by time, by deposition, (and refine by assorted scientific techniques) we can find the fossil record.
The record shows the development of species over time. We call this evolution. Species evolve in repsonse to a range of stimulus and catalysts. From those better able to reach a prolific foodsource to those who breed more quicklly to exploit such a resource.

The Theory of Evolution as originally presented has developed over the years as our knowledge has grown.

Think of it like this;

Our first home computer was a Kim1 based on a 6502 chip, that was the height of technology of the time..........nowadays I carry a phone that has more memory than that cabinet sized construction had, and in between we must have had fifty different ever advancing computers............it just keeps developing as our knowledge grows

Science is like that too, it's not static, it has no high priests, it has no controlling theocracy. Individual establishments might award honours for particularly innovative or original research, and peer pressure is always present.

What make science so important is that the work of someone else becomes a component in the work of someone else that leads to further development. If the original work is crucially flawed, does not perform as reported, subsequent development wouldn't work. It does, so the presumption is that the original work was sound.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[British Red]

The theory of evolution is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record........

Now please, if we are going to have a debate, lets be precise in our language.

The fossil records record the presence of fossils. Thats it. Evolution is an interpretation of changes in those records that are believed to ahve taken place over time. a record of the presence of fossils simply does not prove evolution.

Science is like that too, it's not static, it has no high priests, it has no controlling theocracy

No, but it does have BScs MScs that are awarded for repeating an adhering to the same old theories. It does have ranks of Doctor, Professor etc.

It does reward for adherance, promote for acknowledging the accepted reality and punish for "heresy" by withdrawing grants, employment and other funding.....

Back to you

 

[HillBill]

The theory of evolution is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record........or are you in agreement with Archbishop whatsisname who declared the world to be only 4004 years old ?

We can, and do, measure Oceanic ridge spreading, crust uplifting observe volcanic ativity. From those processes we can actively observe we can calculate by simple arithmatic how long the actual tectonic movements take.
In amongst those layers, which we can date by time, by deposition, (and refine by assorted scientific techniques) we can find the fossil record.
The record shows the development of species over time. We call this evolution. Species evolve in repsonse to a range of stimulus and catalysts. From those better able to reach a prolific foodsource to those who breed more quicklly to exploit such a resource.

The Theory of Evolution as originally presented has developed over the years as our knowledge has grown.

Think of it like this;

Our first home computer was a Kim1 based on a 6502 chip, that was the height of technology of the time..........nowadays I carry a phone that has more memory than that cabinet sized construction had, and in between we must have had fifty different ever advancing computers............it just keeps developing as our knowledge grows

Science is like that too, it's not static, it has no high priests, it has no controlling theocracy. Individual establishments might award honours for particularly innovative or original research, and peer pressure is always present.

What make science so important is that the work of someone else becomes a component in the work of someone else that leads to further development. If the original work is crucially flawed, does not perform as reported, subsequent development wouldn't work. It does, so the presumption is that the original work was sound.

cheers,
Toddy

No i don't believe the world is as young as that. In fact i do not have a belief as to how old the earth is, other people do though and their bandwagons have many passengers.

The theory of evoloution has way too many holes for it to be even taken seriously imo (but thats only MY opinion) For instance, science finds a fossil, dates it to 5 million years ago. It later finds another fossil similar to the first but with differences dated 4 million years ago. So science assumes that they are the same just evolved. Well my take on it is this, why can't they be a different species altogether? i will use bats for this example, take the vampire and fruit bats, both bats totally different type though. Find a fossil of one and later find a fossil of the other. It could look like evoloution but it just aint. There is no proof of evoloution, only different species found at different times and dated with methods they can not prove actually work.

Too many holes

Measuring the sea ridges etc also has too many variables, who knows what sudden and unexpected changes occured in 4 billion years (sciences view) that would compromise the accuracy of the data.

Beat me to it Red

 

[BorderReiver]

Not semantics - just observation.

I wonder how many here who "believe" in science have split the atom? Or seen in split? Or proved that what was observed was genuinely fission?

And yet they believe something they have never seen and probably cannot truly explain, on the say so of people they have never met, based on the veification of other people they have never met.

Religions used to have large meetings where points of religious doctrine were discussed and debated and new ideas accepted or rejected.

To know something to be true, you must prove it for yourself

To believe something to be true without knowledge is surely an act of faith that the information you are given is true.

As a minimum it is an act of faith in science as a discipline.

I have no problem with that. I just see it as no more worthy (or less so) than any other act of faith.

Red

It is still semantics to me Red. Unfortunately I can't get into this debate without straying into the area of religion, which is not a suitable topic for this forum.

Just to say for me, "faith" means blind belief in an idea that cannot be dented by a total lack of any corroborative evidence, or even evidence against the article of faith.

As I feel the constraints of the board rules stop me from getting stuck in properly, I will make a strategic withdrawl.

 

[British Red]

Yeah me too - although a proper "debate" is fun.

I will leave you withis thought though.

When people leap to defend "science" as a general heading, as opposed to a particular theory or discipline, isn't that a lot like leaping to defend a faith?

To me, it walks like a duck at least

Red

 

[Toddy]

BR the awards are for work done, academic politics and funding applicatios are a different matter entirely...........but then, would you trust a Doctor who didn't have the appropriate letters after his name to do heart surgery upon your nearest and dearest......the letters are just that......evidence that under peer pressure their knowledge and practical application was sound.

HillBill..........fossil record shows two things, the individual fossils *and* crucially, the time that they were deposited. Sorting it out is a knot of a thousand different strands but it is unravelling .

Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith is an evidenceless and subjective concept. For many people it is a great assurance and a tremendous comfort. To many others it is simply superstition.
I once heard a missionary proclaim that he could tell those who were bound for hell. ( an interesting concept in itself, originally the hell of the Christian and Muslim world was the eternally smouldering stinking rubbish middens outside their city walls, yet in the European North it was ice that does not melt, for other religions it is the unending cycle of life...) He reckoned that if someone who refused to believe his message was asked, "If I could prove to you that ***** exists, would you accept the faith ?" If the answer was along the lines of doubting his proof, he knew he was wasting his time. The concept was too far removed from their mindset ever to accept it.

Back to the 'temple', and gardens of Eden..........I believe that the greatest vector of defoliation in the world is the endless grazing of semi arid lands by goats. (Might be argued that the rainforests now are decimated by the production of beef for the American hamburger industry though,) but goats are still a hugely destructive cause of environmental change. I wonder if the way their society was structured, number of beasts = wealth might have had something to do with their soil degradation.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[dogwood]

Darwins theory of evoloution isn't observable phenomena. So i cannot agree with you there. A theory is an idea nothing more, just a glorified word.

Actually, evolution is easily observable today as we actively observe the emergence of, for instance, antibiotic resistant strains of disease. It's observed daily in viruses, etc.

To suggest that there is some doubt about the large scale mechanism of evolution is a fruitless exercise. It is a fact, even though we still learn more details all the time. It can be observed every day and proven in many, many ways.

No one should hang their hat on the nomenclature of the "theory of evolution." They still call it a "theory" out of political sensitivity to religious sensibilities.

The question of whether science or religion is right or wrong is a misleading construction and kind of pointless.

They are two different animals and you don't have to *choose* between science and religion. You can have both. Many people do.

Science is, in the larger sense, entirely about the process of testing your assumptions and observations and becoming MORE RIGHT over time.

Religion is, in the larger sense, entirely about the process of defending a static belief system over time and against changing circumstances.

I also contest this notion of some scientists claiming "that they know all the answers."

I've never seen a scientist claim to know all the answers. They know *some* of the answers, but the work of their lives is absorbed by what they *don't know*...

 

[BorderReiver]

Now please, if we are going to have a debate, lets be precise in our language.

The fossil records record the presence of fossils. Thats it. Evolution is an interpretation of changes in those records that are believed to ahve taken place over time. a record of the presence of fossils simply does not prove evolution.



No, but it does have BScs MScs that are awarded for repeating an adhering to the same old theories. It does have ranks of Doctor, Professor etc.
It does reward for adherance, promote for acknowledging the accepted reality and punish for "heresy" by withdrawing grants, employment and other funding.....

Back to you

This is safe territory. (see my previous)

No. Students are encouraged to challenge the status quo. The same old theories are legitimate targets and thus our knowledge advances.

The punishment you refer to is used by politicians when academics go against current policy. Prof. Lacey suffered when he challenged HMGs stance on BSE.

Some times yes, scientists fall into schisms, e.g. the Rohl / Kitchen divide over who is right about the dating of events in ancient Egypt. This is a healthy debate between the old establishment and the new thinkers.

So, IMO, science is not hide bound by insistence on orthodoxy, quite the contrary.