DOC this is not a very impressive way to conduct yourself, sorry. Joobz has said he made an error, and he was quick to say so. We can all see that he did that, and that he has repeated that many times. Your demand is that you be permitted to choose the form of words he uses to say so. Now, unless you have him physically at your mercy, you are not going to be able to make him say "uncle". Even if you do have the power to do so it is not going to be seen as a very grown up thing to do, IMO. It comes across as vindictive and ungenerous. And utterly pointless.
Now you say you will not answer his question till he complies with your demand. Fine. If that is what floats your boat it leads me to think certain things about you which may or may not be justified; but there is no reason at all for you to care about that. All I will say is that it does render me less likely to respect your position, since if you have an answer I would have thought you would be eager to move on.
Beyond this you seem to wish to show that those of us who are not scientists have faith in science, in the same way that believers have faith in their religion. This argument has been run many times and it has been answered, not very satisfactorily from my point of view. So I will give you this much: I do not understand science. I am not alone, and if that is what you wish to establish, there it is. I will go further. Scientists in one field do not always understand science in another. And I will go further yet. Scientists at the forefront of new research often do not understand the meaning of their results. We see this most clearly in social sciences (but that is another topic, perhaps) We also see it in hard science. Scientists are people, and they learn and speculate from the basis of their background. That includes a lot more knowledge of science than I will ever have; but it includes both constraints from how our brains are wired and blinds spots bequeathed by our culture. They know this and they continually try to refine their methods to minimise those influences. But when we get to the things we find hard to visualise (as in your OP, for example), they stuggle. Less than I do cos they have more practice, but yet they struggle.
All of that does not bother me because I do accept that those who pursue it do so using a method I do understand; and they reach their conclusions on the basis of carefully constructed experiments to test clearly expressed hypotheses. I accept that if I wished to do the work I could (in principle) follow the progress in any given field, and I could learn what the hypotheses were and what the crucial experiments were which led to the current understanding.
This is where it differs from faith in religion. Both have a reliance on what I will call philosophy, for now. People who are thinking about things and how they work always come up against problems they cannot yet solve. And they think about them. If they can they do things to test the ideas they have: but if there is no practical way to test something it does not stop us thinking.
Science exists as a discipline devoted to the development of the testable hypothesis. This approach has been found to work in a wide variety of fields for a wide variety of questions. Sometimes its success leads people to believe it can be applied to all fields. I do not agree with this but nothing at all hangs on it. If they are right the are right. There is no loss in pursuing that idea because we will learn from the attempt and already we have learned more than could have been dreamed of before the method was found. That is wonderful to me. And if there are limits we will learn that too. Which is enough to make me happy.
I am not sure if I am being very clear here, but the point I am trying to make is that if you prove us lay people do not understand the details of what scientists are doing you have not undercut anything substantial at all. One is either content to understand and accept the scientific method or one is not. If you are then absent outright fraud there is no requirement not to accept what experts tell us because we can always go and look for ourselves, though perhaps few of us do.
This cannot be done with religion. It is also founded on philosophy but there is no method by which the conclusions can be tested and so I, as a lay person, cannot verify those conclusion by hard work and honest research.
I think you are conflating two meanings of faith: one is trust and the other is unquestionable belief. I trust the scientific method, but I do not have unquestioned belief in scientists of their findings. I am not sure if that is any help but it is the best I can do to address what I (perhaps wrongly) take to be your goal here
Last edited:
Any figure I gave would be a guess, of no value.