• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

Seriously, to get back to this thread's original purpose, I've not read the book, but it's on my list. I'm really looking forward to it. I've heard Michael Shermer interviewed, and in general I do like him. (I also like what little I've read of his writing - mainly his Scientific American columns.) Sometimes I feel his arguments are not as powerfully worded as those of Dawkins, Sagan, or Dennett, and once or twice, I've been frustrated to hear him answer a question without emphasizing an important point that really should have been emphasized. (e.g., answering the charge that Darwin's theory is in trouble because scientists argue about it so much - that must show that many scientists doubt its validity; Shermer said that arguments are in fact a sign of science's health - a sign of its self-correcting quality. Well, that is certainly true, but I thought he really should have said - clearly - that in this case, all the arguments are about refining details of Darwin's theory - that all serious scientists accept the theory itself.)

However, I'm probably making too much of this. Shermer is certainly an intelligent and seemingly charming man, and he's done a lot to further the cause.

By the way, has anyone read Dawkins's new book? I think someone mentioned it, but I can't remember. That's another one I want to read.
 
scotth said:
Lifegazer,

This thread was started to discuss Shermer book, not your stupid fantasies. If you wish to discuss them, start your own [rule 8]ing thread.
Click to expand...
Actually, this thread was started to discuss a specific "beautiful argument" from within that book. Get your facts straight.
Since that argument is about as beautiful as a pig's rear-end, I feel obliged to point that out - since nobody else has - given the unjustified cooing I hear for this naive scientist.
You sir, are one of the MAIN reason (yes you in particular) that I quit reading the forums from time to time. You come in and inject the same tired crap into threads on every topic under the sun.

Cut it out. I've had enough of it.
Click to expand...
I don't care one jot whether you quit this forum for me. If you don't want to read my posts, then put me on ignore.
We want to talk about Shermer book, that is why the rest of us are in this thread.
Click to expand...
No, you all want to congratulate yourselves for being cool enough to like Shermer's nonsense.
May I remind you that this a philosophical debating forum where people have a right to raise the negative qualities of everything.
If you don't like, then buzz off and join a kiddies ego boosting forum or something.
Stop ruining every decent conversation on this forum with your drivel. Again, you are free to drivel all you want, just put it in appropriate threads (hopefully of your own creation).
Click to expand...
You haven't contributed anything "decent" to this discussion whatsoever.
You're a useless blob of matter... apparently.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
And clearly the objects of our experience do exist without our experiencing them. Otherwise when we looked away from the clock and then looked back later, the time would not have advanced consistently.
Click to expand...
C'mon Paul, read some quantum physics.
Actually, you also raise an interesting point about 'a clock' with regards to Einstein and relativity.
... As you might know, there is no such thing as absolute time. So, let's imagine a very very large clock, akin to Big Ben, but with it's face to the vertical. Now, if you're stood right by that clock, you will observe a different rate of time than if you were to observe the Earth (clock) at a very high velocity, in orbit/space... akin to the space-twin paradox.
Now, the clock is fixed upon the Earth and - if real - it's rate of time should be static/absolute. But it is not. It can be shown that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own circumstances.
Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock.

Comments?
 
Lifegazer,

C'mon Paul, read some quantum physics.
Actually, you also raise an interesting point about 'a clock' with regards to Einstein and relativity.
... As you might know, there is no such thing as absolute time. So, let's imagine a very very large clock, akin to Big Ben, but with it's face to the vertical. Now, if you're stood right by that clock, you will observe a different rate of time than if you were to observe the Earth (clock) at a very high velocity, in orbit/space... akin to the space-twin paradox.
Now, the clock is fixed upon the Earth and - if real - it's rate of time should be static/absolute. But it is not. It can be shown that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own circumstances.
Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know about Paul, but I have read a lot of quantum physics, and I think it is very safe to say that I have read much more about it than you have.

That said, my comments on your above post are that (1) you obviously do not actually understand QM if you think it in any way invalidates what Paul said, and (2) that your conclusion about the time you see being given by your mind, not the clock, does not in any way follow from the argument you attempted to present.


Dr. Stupid
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Lifegazer,


Well, I don't know about Paul, but I have read a lot of quantum physics, and I think it is very safe to say that I have read much more about it than you have.

That said, my comments on your above post are that (1) you obviously do not actually understand QM if you think it in any way invalidates what Paul said, and (2) that your conclusion about the time you see being given by your mind, not the clock, does not in any way follow from the argument you attempted to present.


Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for the detailed explanation.
 
Why should he bother? Detailed explanations are lost on you.

Or should we bring up the 'problem with infinite space' again?

Gentle Reader, just a refresher: if it didn't come off of a pop-science webpage, Dar here doesn't understand it. The sum total of his knowledge - apparently, in numerous fields - is whatever whacko web site he's discovered that supports his irrelevant and highly moronic 'philosophy'.

Try it, folks. If he spouts about quantum mechanics or physics, actually try asking him solid questions to demonstrate his knowledge. He'll either completely muck it up - instead parrotting the same old tired, cliche misunderstandings as on these websites - or he'll try to tell you that 'the mathematics are irrelevant'.

He don't know Jack. Straight up.

Hmmmm... Jack. Straight up. Man, that sounds good right now.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Lifegazer,


Well, I don't know about Paul, but I have read a lot of quantum physics, and I think it is very safe to say that I have read much more about it than you have.

That said, my comments on your above post are that (1) you obviously do not actually understand QM if you think it in any way invalidates what Paul said, and (2) that your conclusion about the time you see being given by your mind, not the clock, does not in any way follow from the argument you attempted to present.


Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...
:) Any day with Stimpy posting is a good day.
 
Mojo said:
Interpretation of this comment will be a matter of personal taste, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Damn, now I've got this image of Ned Beatty squealing like a pig in my head. "You got purty lips"
 
*elaine repeating to herself*

"think pleasant thoughts, think pleasant thoughts"


Damn! Not working.
 
hammegk said:
I'd agree those who have faith science can answer all meaningful questions are irrational.
Click to expand...

Science has answered many, many meaningful questions, like "how do I ensure I don't get food-poisoning?" and "what is a good way to cure disease?" and most importantly "how should we build a world-wide communication system where people can transfer information and ideas within milli-seconds to each other?"

Without science, we'd literally be in the dark ages.
 
Garrette said:
Okay. Just checkin'


Ummm, if you're free for lunch and have a coupla hours, then I was thinking that, you know, maybe, if it's no bother, then you......aw, forget it
Click to expand...

I have, um, lunch plans....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom