OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.]

In article <5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com>,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

Why are so many engineers snookered by Trolls, who have themselves
been snookered into the metaphysics underlying something similar
to Naturalism or Materialism without even realizing their unconscious
philosophical beliefs and assumptions?

Given that this posting was in English, one reason is that most English
speaking engineers had the great privilege of being raised in Western
democracies where they have some degree of freedom to study and choose
their underlying metaphysical beliefs from among various alternatives
rather than being force fed only one by the State. However, most probably
also have much more training in science and its very successful use in
technology, rather than in the philosophy of the metaphysics underlying
science and the scientific method itself.

But given current worldwide enrollments in engineering schools these
days, it is very probable that more engineers are Buddhist rather than
Christian Creationists today. Perhaps someday one will have to learn
Mandarin to read this newsgroup, and the trolls will have to post
about how Giant Turtles (or some such) do not hold up the universe.


IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
<rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote (in <c481e3$r4a$1@blue.rahul.net&gt about
'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Mon, 29 Mar 2004:

the trolls will have to post
about how Giant Turtles (or some such) do not hold up the universe.

Heresy! It's turtles all the way down.
[Anon.]
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Dave]

rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote in message news:<c481e3$r4a$1@blue.rahul.net>...

In article <5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com>,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

Why are so many engineers snookered by Trolls, who have themselves
been snookered into the metaphysics underlying something similar
to Naturalism or Materialism without even realizing their unconscious
philosophical beliefs and assumptions?

Sorry, I haven't gotten back to this thread have I? I started to read
down it once but got caught in a diverging conversation. I suppose I
presumed that the sharp minds here would be able to pull out the
essentials and deal with them in a satisfactory manner, and I bet they
did. Regarding naturalism I do believe that it indeed does provide a
more accurate picture of the world and provides a clearer view of
where we stand and what we should be striving for than do the various
confusing and contradictory religious viewpoints, despite their
pagentry and emotional appeal.

Given that this posting was in English, one reason is that most English
speaking engineers had the great privilege of being raised in Western
democracies where they have some degree of freedom to study and choose
their underlying metaphysical beliefs from among various alternatives
rather than being force fed only one by the State. However, most probably
also have much more training in science and its very successful use in
technology, rather than in the philosophy of the metaphysics underlying
science and the scientific method itself.

Which only goes to show that the current inclination to increase the
religious content in this world is a bad idea fosted by the dominant
religions to further increase their influence and reduce the authority
of rational science. Philosophy is the art of studying one's own navel
and pretending to draw huge theories out of it.

But given current worldwide enrollments in engineering schools these
days, it is very probable that more engineers are Buddhist rather than
Christian Creationists today. Perhaps someday one will have to learn
Mandarin to read this newsgroup, and the trolls will have to post
about how Giant Turtles (or some such) do not hold up the universe.

Why should Christians want to study engineering when they make such
excellent lawyers and insurance salesmen?

 

[Terry Given]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:QDyhWjL+uzYAFwJc@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <x4aytpvn7ffn$.nvrv1d115265$.dlg@40tude.net&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:08:15 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

"Mares eat oats and does eat oats
And little lambs eat ivy"

?

What doesn't make sense about that?

What can you do with the next two lines, though?

" A kid'll eat ivy too,
wouldn't you?"

I couldn't believe that! How irresponsible. The answers are 'only once'
and 'no'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

perhaps they meant baby goats......LOL

 

[Terry Given]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:kt9b60hpg5b9o0lantfe7thp8lfsmnh26k@4ax.com...

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:25:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:37:23 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Yeah, dream on. You know the one, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.

But this universe, and this planet in particular, are
extraordinary.

In your opinion maybe, but not mine. Your argument is circular.

Maybe I'm just having more fun than you are.

John
-------------
Do you really NOT "get it"?? ANYBODY in an intelligent species
which evolved in a stable enough ecology would be so perfectly
adapted to that place that it would seem "extraordinarily lucky
they were there" as opposed to someplace where the atmosphere
was nothing but burning nitrogen and oxygen at 300K and saline
oceans that would dissolve your scales right off.

this is of course the well known "two-legged existence theorem." It is
equally worthless to be "amazed" that both our legs reach all the way up to
our hips.......

If conditions on Earth were different, we would be different, too. From
thermophiles to fish with antifreeze in their blood, life shows an amazing
propensity to survive/thrive in any environment. AFAIUI amino acids have
been found in space. Im sure one day we will discover non-carbon based
lifeforms; it will be interesting to see if they believe in the boogy man
(oops god), or is that merely human arrogance (you know, the sort that
states the universe revolves around Earth, etc)

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Terry Given <the_domes@xtra.co.nz>
wrote (in <5S4ac.4479$Tf3.73375@news.xtra.co.nz&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Tue, 30 Mar 2004:

this is of course the well known "two-legged existence theorem." It is
equally worthless to be "amazed" that both our legs reach all the way up to
our hips.......
Indeed; since they are joined on they must reach. But what IS amazing is

that they both reach the ground.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:25:59 -0800, "Terry Given"
<the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

If conditions on Earth were different, we would be different, too.

As in, most likely, dead.

John

 

[Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.]

In article <5591d176.0403290817.3689ad23@posting.google.com>,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Which only goes to show that the current inclination to increase the
religious content in this world is a bad idea fosted by the dominant
religions to further increase their influence and reduce the authority
of rational science.

and also the result of an intellectually free society. A society
where the influences of only your belief system is allowed is certainly
no longer free.

Philosophy is the art of studying one's own navel and pretending to
draw huge theories out of it.

However, without any philosophical and metaphysical underpinings, rational
science becomes just as much a belief system based on authority as any
religion; and you end up back on square one.

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written. The result is that sometimes "fad" science ends
up being used or designed into products.


IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <d2mj60tm2f66fc4koe7ds8ia1b4joeluhg@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Tue, 30 Mar 2004:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:25:59 -0800, "Terry Given"
the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:


If conditions on Earth were different, we would be different, too.

As in, most likely, dead.

Our ancestors survived several Ice Ages. Some humans *walked*, and

sailed in primitive boats, from Africa to Australia, taking several
generations for the journey, of course. The present generations would
find either of those experiences exceedingly tough, and very few would
survive. But we were adaptable in the past, and could be so again if
need be. But not at a population of 6 billion.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:

In article <5591d176.0403290817.3689ad23@posting.google.com>,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Which only goes to show that the current inclination to increase the
religious content in this world is a bad idea fosted by the dominant
religions to further increase their influence and reduce the
authority of rational science.

and also the result of an intellectually free society. A society
where the influences of only your belief system is allowed is
certainly no longer free.

Philosophy is the art of studying one's own navel and pretending to
draw huge theories out of it.

However, without any philosophical and metaphysical underpinings,
rational science becomes just as much a belief system based on
authority as any religion; and you end up back on square one.

Not at all. Science has no requirement for metaphysical underpinnings
whosoever. Science does not claim absolute truth, so there is no faith
(blind belief) involved. For example,

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." -
Einstein.

Science is about choosing *arbitrary* *models* of reality and
determining if they predict measured outcomes. The goal is to have the
smallest number of *arbitrary* assumptions that predict the most
results. Whether or not these models and assumptions are fundamentally
"correct" or not is simply irrelevant. Science does not claim that they
are.

Its possible that you have been misled by some sloppy scientists who are
confused on this matter.

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written.

Probably.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens
<scottxs@comcast.net> wrote (in <fSIac.48758$w54.296709@attbi_s01&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Wed, 31 Mar
2004:

Shamans make stone rings and believe spirits guide the shadows, and yet they can
still correctly use the information

No, those activities are just window-dressing, intended to impress the
populace.

to determine the season to plant and
harvest.

They use completely non-mystical methods to do this. The window-dressing
is to hide the fact that, with some experience of interpreting the
climatic and other signs, such as the growth of wild plants, anyone
could determine the relevant times. One of my uncles was a farm worker
all his life, and he knew when to plant things, and when they'd be ready
to gather. No stone circles.

There is the story of the motorist who stopped by a field where an old
countryman was milking a cow. He asked the old man if he knew the time.
The old man lifted the cow's udder and said, 'Ten minutes to foive'.
'How can you tell that?' asked the amazed motorist. 'Waaal, if Oi lift
cow's udder, I can see church clock.'
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Not at all. Science has no requirement for metaphysical underpinnings
whosoever. Science does not claim absolute truth, so there is no
faith (blind belief) involved. For example,

Science presupposes the efficacy of reason, and consistency of
identity.

Nope. It pretends that there is some structure and consistency to the
universe for the sake of argument. It doesn't claim that there is in
finality. Science simply does not make absolute declarations. Indeed, in
QM, it is argued that little can be said at all about entities in
between measurement. Science is *always* open to the notion that
something else might come along and change its current views. Religion
doesn't.


If the process of reason is not consistent, systematic

knowledge has no context to be understood.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." -
Einstein.

I can contrive a unique variation of the Periodic Table, but I won't
do good chemistry with it.

Nope. The fact that someone has not yet presented an alternative to QM
for the periodic table, dose not mean that the QM description is any
more correct than another.

This is obviously too subtle for you.

{snip meaningless ramblings}

Science is about choosing *arbitrary* *models* of reality and
determining if they predict measured outcomes. The goal is to have
the smallest number of *arbitrary* assumptions that predict the most
results. Whether or not these models and assumptions are
fundamentally "correct" or not is simply irrelevant. Science does
not claim that they are.

That is why I called creationism science. It is an explanation for
existence, systematic knowledge, even if a crude one based on beliefs
of deluded fools. Shamans make stone rings and believe spirits guide
the shadows, and yet they can still correctly use the information to
determine the season to plant and harvest.

Yeah, right on dude...

NASA and the priesthood of Ivy League idiots is squandering billions

{snip more meaningless ramblings}

Existence, reality, determines the nature of our consciousness. The
objective is true, the subjective - deluded fantasy, however
cherished.

http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of
the governed..."

All men are not created equal. Its that simple. Evolution demands that
we are all different, i.e. a result of a random process.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:

In article <5591d176.0403290817.3689ad23@posting.google.com>,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Which only goes to show that the current inclination to increase the
religious content in this world is a bad idea fosted by the dominant
religions to further increase their influence and reduce the
authority of rational science.

and also the result of an intellectually free society.
-------------

No, the result of the remaining UNfree part of an otherwise fairly
free society that is NOT a monolith, but composed of factions, as
are all statistical distributions.

Your monolithic assertion is merely a ruse to pretend that religion
is born of freedom, when actually it is and has always been the key
opposition to our freedom, and it needs to be destroyed, which we
are in the process of doing.

A society
where the influences of only your belief system is allowed is
certainly no longer free.
-------------------------------

No!
A society where UNfreedom controls your beliefs is never free.
BUT, even a single belief system that upholds the truth is free.

Freedom is NOT free to bind itself.
And there is: A Single Truth, and it AIN'T fucking religion.

Philosophy is the art of studying one's own navel and pretending to
draw huge theories out of it.

However, without any philosophical and metaphysical underpinings, > rational
science becomes just as much a belief system based on authority as any
religion; and you end up back on square one.
---------------------------------

Nonsense, with antiscientific underpinnings it cannot BE scientific.
WITHOUT such underpinnings it AT LEAST CAN be free and scientific!

You're pretending any instance is unary again!!
This seems to be the hallmark of your inferior mind.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Not at all. Science has no requirement for metaphysical underpinnings
whosoever. Science does not claim absolute truth, so there is no faith
(blind belief) involved. For example,

Science presupposes the efficacy of reason, and consistency of identity.
If the process of reason is not consistent, systematic knowledge has
no context to be understood.
-------------------------------

Religion offers NO knowledge or reason.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." -
Einstein.

I can contrive a unique variation of the Periodic Table, but I won't do
good chemistry with it.
---------------

Ain't what he meant.

The human mind is the consequence of existence existing - the external
world! Einstein's brain operated because it existed, and because of
physical principles in its operation. It evolved according to the
principles of biology, and those consequences of principles of physics.
-----------------

There is no such proof that there is an externally existing world.
There is ONLY the observation that we share a common existence.

We see the universe through our self-centered eyes, but the "I AM",
consciousness, is not the center of the universe.
------------------

Of course it is, it is the ONLY manner in which ANY Being, Ever, and
in Any Universe will Ever exist, and thus the ONLY way that ANYTHING
can exist.

We discover our
thoughts, feelings, even reason and logic. We do not invent them, we can
merely change their flow, just as we did not bring about our own birth,
yet we can alter the course of our life.
---------------------

Nonsense, you cannot change your tiniest thought without having been
changed by the effect of others to do so. If you COULD you could
voluntarily change your belief that you were elsewhere and be so!!

We did not invent our thoughts,
no more than we invented our brains.
--------------------------

Nor do we control ourselves, "Free Will" is a myth!

We are conscious to discover our
minds, somewhat free to choose our thoughts.
---------------------------

Nope.What we choose we are caused to choose by cause and effect from
the effects of others.

Science is about choosing *arbitrary* *models* of reality and
[]

That is why I called creationism science.
---------------------

Which is totally moronic.

It is an explanation for
existence, systematic knowledge, even if a crude one based on beliefs of
deluded fools.
---------------------

If it is self-contradictory then it is NOT a system of knowledge, but
one of belief only, which is delusion.

Shamans make stone rings and believe spirits guide the
shadows, and yet they can still correctly use the information to
determine the season to plant and harvest.
------------------------

And baptists can still walk and chew gum at the same time. So what?

NASA and the priesthood of Ivy League idiots is squandering billions of
dollars to find water, perhaps evidence of life on Mars, so they can be
comforted in their narcissistic delusions that there is no force, no
controlling legal authority, no God, to hold them accountable for
federal plundering and criminal delusions that the principle of justice
or TANSTAFL is a culturally relative delusion.
---------------------

Nonsense, they wish to dispel the stupidity that leads to people
imagining that they need not care for this world because of some
supposed afterlife!

That Nietzsche was right
about morality being relative to class. That the governing class is
morally just in devouring the taxpaying class. That there is no
objective reality to demand a day of reckoning.
-------------------------------

Nope, greed emerges logically from the same place that failure to
correct social injustices and irresponsibilities upon the earth does.

Existence, reality, determines the nature of our consciousness. The
objective is true, the subjective - deluded fantasy, however > cherished.
---------------------------------

The objective is illusive, as your ignorance proves.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:



The human mind is the consequence of existence existing - the
external world! Einstein's brain operated because it existed, and
because of physical principles in its operation. It evolved
according to the principles of biology, and those consequences of
principles of physics.
-----------------
There is no such proof that there is an externally existing world.

Ahh... you seem to be getting the point here.

There is ONLY the observation that we share a common existence.

Yes.

We see the universe through our self-centered eyes, but the "I AM",
consciousness, is not the center of the universe.
------------------
Of course it is, it is the ONLY manner in which ANY Being, Ever, and
in Any Universe will Ever exist,

Oh dear, you missed it...

....Can ever be *known* to exist.

and thus the ONLY way that ANYTHING
can exist.

No. We don't know. Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other. However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case. For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.

We discover our
thoughts, feelings, even reason and logic. We do not invent them, we
can merely change their flow, just as we did not bring about our own
birth, yet we can alter the course of our life.
---------------------
Nonsense, you cannot change your tiniest thought without having been
changed by the effect of others to do so.

Not strictly correct. As I have pointed out many times. An individual,
in principle, can generate a *random* response, i.e. one unrelated to
any previous inputs if QM is correct. However, the individual has no
control over this response as it is random. So the point you are making
that an individual has no ultimate control appears to be correct,
however, this not does imply that any responses are strictly casual from
the effect of others.

However, the notion that there is no "I" that exists to make independent
decisions does not imply that we shouldn't pretend that there is.

If you COULD you could
voluntarily change your belief that you were elsewhere and be so!!


We did not invent our thoughts,
no more than we invented our brains.
--------------------------
Nor do we control ourselves, "Free Will" is a myth!

I agree, in principle, but it is still more subtle than it appears. We
can simply define free will as that response that is not
deterministically related to its inputs, and according to QM, this is
possible.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html

However... I'm still investigating whether or not there is still a
fundamental flaw in this argument of no true self control. The argument
is based on extending the physics of non complex systems to complex
systems. The basic issue is that conscious is not derivable from physics
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html), it is simply
an aspect of complex systems, so this argumant fails. Since this is the
case, they may be other properties of complex systems that are similarly
non-derivable. It may be that we simple have to take as a new,
nonderivable axiom, that there is an entity that can make independent
decisions based on the obvious evidence that this seems to be a very
good approximation for what we actually observe. If we accept that QM
allows an entity to produce non deterministic outputs, how can this
entity, in principle, be distinguished from an entity that we refer to
as an "I".

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <bTUac.596$Ny4.307@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli
..net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu,
1 Apr 2004:

Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other. However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case. For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.

I don't see that you need to do physics experiments. The fact that you
can hit your head on the open door of a kitchen cabinet is sufficient.
If you had consciously observed the door, you would not have hit your
head. If it was not there because you did not consciously observe it,
you would not have hit your head. But you DID hit your head. QED.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:

In article <5591d176.0403290817.3689ad23@posting.google.com>,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Which only goes to show that the current inclination to increase the
religious content in this world is a bad idea fosted by the dominant
religions to further increase their influence and reduce the authority
of rational science.


and also the result of an intellectually free society. A society
where the influences of only your belief system is allowed is certainly
no longer free.

Nor is a society that allows the promulgation of any
belief system that has no demonstrable connection with
reality other than crowd control.

Philosophy is the art of studying one's own navel and pretending to
draw huge theories out of it.


However, without any philosophical and metaphysical underpinings, rational
science becomes just as much a belief system based on authority as any
religion; and you end up back on square one.

Bullshit. Rational science works for any diligent
investigator, regardless of their philosophy or metaphysics.

If that were not true people like Einstein couldn't have
made the scientific contributions they did to the entire
world. Relativity works for everyone regardless of their
philosophy, even if they reject "Jewish Science".

The converse is not true; religion, philosophy and
metaphysics are based on nothing _but_ authority.

If you disbelieve that, think about how the phrase
"Jewish Science" came to exist.

The difference between science and everything else is
that science includes a mechanism for the falsification of
its precepts and conclusions, and enthusiastically applies
that mechanism at every opportunity.

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written. The result is that sometimes "fad" science ends
up being used or designed into products.

"Would have difficulty in" is not the same as "are
fundamentally incapable of" or "are forbidden by their
philosophy from". The required tools and the knowledge of
how to use them are freely available.

(Besides, your argument ignores the fact that product
marketing is not driven by rationality but by appeal. What
the market wants, it gets, regardless of the technical
accuracy of marketing claims. Remember that in the "Big
Science" market, the targeted consumers aren't you and me
but rather Congresscritters.)

To turn your argument around, how many priests could
easily determine whether a given doctrine is consistent with
Church dogma? What would they use as criteria?

How many parishoners could, even if they weren't taught
it's a sin to question such fundamentals?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
bTUac.596$Ny4.307@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli .net&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other. However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case. For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.

I don't see that you need to do physics experiments. The fact that you
can hit your head on the open door of a kitchen cabinet is sufficient.
If you had consciously observed the door, you would not have hit your
head. If it was not there because you did not consciously observe it,
you would not have hit your head. But you DID hit your head. QED.

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able to
materialise a big tilted, long legged blond, because, believe me, no
matter how many times I have beaten my head against the wall, non has
ever appeared despite my best efforts to imagine them into existence.
Its only in my dreams I'm afraid.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <9DZac.1120$Ny4.595@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl
i.net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able to
materialise a big tilted, long legged blond,

Only Aylward Idiosyncratic Orthography could produce that!

You want a tall, fair-haired man with one leg shorter than the other?

Whatever turns you on, baby! (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote (in <vrZac.68053$1I5.12185@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

The difference between science and everything else is that science includes a
mechanism for the falsification of its precepts and conclusions, and
enthusiastically applies that mechanism at every opportunity.

Doesn't it share that property with mathematics?

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written. The result is that sometimes "fad" science ends
up being used or designed into products.

"Would have difficulty in" is not the same as "are fundamentally incapable of"
or "are forbidden by their philosophy from".

Quite right.

The required tools and the
knowledge of how to use them are freely available.

Well, no. The testing may in fact be very far indeed from easy. In the
field of audio reproduction, it turns out that what appears to be a very
simple thing, the measurement of the frequency response of a pair of
headphones, is in fact extremely difficult.

Something even more difficulty is determining the bandwidth *really*
required for the correct reproduction of music. The 'DC to light' people
have just made an 'act of faith' that more bandwidth is better. The true
science is incredibly complex, and is certainly not yet fully
understood.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk