Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[Aepervius]

Why do people even bother to respond to this nonsense posted by Zeuzzz any more? It's even lost its entertainment value, by this stage

I am getting entertained. it is cheap. make me laugh.
Why should I ask more ?

 

[Reality Check]

Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.


I'm waiting.

1. Plasma cosmology does not exist (see the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread) except as fairly arbitrary collection of mostly mutually exclusive and easily debunked theories. Thus there are no such things as "plasma cosmology advocates".
2. No one in any scientific literature is using god to explain aspects of cosmological theories. They are using science.
3. I have no idea why you think that a religious person who believes in a god crediting that god with the brilliance of their models says anything about the science or even correctness of the model.
   As an atheist I credit the brilliance of their models to the people who created it.
4. The "brilliance" of a scientific model states nothing about the correctness of the model. The ancient Greeks four elements model was brilliant and wrong.

Tubbythin said it best:

What is the point in this thread? If someone wanted to pick an instance where religion had been detrimental to scientific progress then fair enough. But all I see is various bits of quote mining of people who've said things scientific whilst using the language of religion. No evidence that these quote have been detrimental and no acknowledgement that most of the quotes seem to be similes and metaphors.

Zeuzzz:
Do you know what a simile is?
Do you know what a metaphor is?
Do you think that only atheists can do science?

I am waiting for your quote from a cosmologist stating that "god did it" (creationists do not count).

ETA
The cited above thread is very long so here is the relevant post

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

Zeuzzz gave one definition which resulted in "a collection of scientific theories with a common thread" definition. This common thread seems to be that the theory emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe and/or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

He then seemed to retract that definition (despite having contributed several theories to the collection) in favor of another (Lerner's?) definition which is hidden somewhere in the thread. I think that it is this post from 3rd July 2008. It is similar to the first definition, i.e. defines itself as non-science. Science fits theories to the data. Science does not assume that a theory is correct and go looking for data to confirm this (ignoring data that does not match or theories that better match the data).


Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:

• General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
• Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
• Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
• Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe).

This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.

 

[paximperium]

Dude.
That's like so deep dude.
It's like so much stuff dude.
It's like someone trying to blame others for how much of a failure they are.
...that's actually kind of pathetic dude.

 

[Hokulele Mom]

science as religion = scientology ???

 

[sol invictus]

A normal scientist may get new data that shows the old data to be wrong, and he will just forget about the previous results. The religious scientist tries his hardest to keep the figures he previously worked out were significant in some way in the literature.

By that definition, all scientists are religious.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.

 

[Dancing David]

Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.

I'm waiting.

Yes but as I recall the strong assertions that EM forces are capable of doing things that they can not do, due to the strengths of the forces as measured, is rather dogmatic. Now does that mean it is religous, no, is it dogmatic, yes.

So where is the detriment to science you were talking about?

 

[Dancing David]

I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.

Why> because you were wrong about Fred Hoyle, or because you were asked to support your assertion that some dogma is holding back science?

 

[Tubbythin]

Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.

I'm waiting.

Why bother? Quote mining doesn't mean anything. This is a science forum.

 

[Tubbythin]

I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.

Who's being arrogant?
As far as I can see, rather than use science to show why you don't like certain scientific theories you chose to make up some strawman religious scientist to bash, quote mine a load of similes and metaphors from proponents of said theories and then unjustifiably conclude that said scientists (and by proxy said science) was hampered by religious dogma. And you wonder why the thread lacks productive conversation?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Why do people even bother to respond to this nonsense posted by Zeuzzz any more? It's even lost its entertainment value, by this stage

I am getting entertained. it is cheap. make me laugh.
Why should I ask more ?

You, my friend, have extremely low standards for entertainment

 

[MattusMaximus]

Dude.
That's like so deep dude.
It's like so much stuff dude.
It's like someone trying to blame others for how much of a failure they are.
...that's actually kind of pathetic dude.

This

 

[Toke]

Some scientists cling to their pet theories in spite of new discoveries?
Well, yes that sounds human/unprofessional.

And your point is???

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Who's being arrogant?
As far as I can see, rather than use science to show why you don't like certain scientific theories you chose to make up some strawman religious scientist to bash, quote mine a load of similes and metaphors from proponents of said theories and then unjustifiably conclude that said scientists (and by proxy said science) was hampered by religious dogma. And you wonder why the thread lacks productive conversation?

Welcome to a Zeuzzz thread. I don't participate, I just read, and sigh, and leave.

Why do I even read them? To be educated by the people spanking him (see Zeuzzz, it's a metaphor.)

 

[Complexity]

I give up on this forum.

I hope by 'this forum' you mean all of the JREF forums.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You hope too much complexity.

And people mentioning straw mans or a stereotyped "scientist" need to pay special attention to the word "hypothetical".

@ Zeuzzz

Have you ever actually met a scientist?

Yes. All ace people, even the ones I thought were slightly eccentric or using science for religious reasons. They don't seem anything like a lot of people on this forum, at all, however. Having currently re-sat my last year of my degree in physics, I will be one myself soon if all goes to plan.


I started this (nearly) same thread on 4 other forums to see the difference in reactions. They all largely agreed with me and said it was a good point. These were similar science forums.

Besides I actually held some of you in high regard until you jumped on the bandwagon too recently. You, complexity, have always been (to me at least) a particularly nasty derisionary insulant individual, if your on a hitchenesque crusade for science against all dissenting vioces then go ahead, but your no worse than the religous zealots that try to enforce their world view on the rest of the worlds population. Your a fundamentalist.

I've said Im done with this forum about 100 times. Its turning into an abusive relationship. At the moment some of you just make me want to top myslelf. Which I would not, of course, ever do, thats no threat; but really, the conduct towards some members here is on occasions nothing more than chronic bullying done, often under the guise of "education and science".

Unfortunately though, complexity,

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--- George Bernard Shaw


And some else of you could do well to take in these two quotes;

—Jonathan Sacks
"Well I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single 'truth' on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear, a profound insecurity that makes you feel when you meet someone who is not like you, or doesn't agree with you, that that challenge is a threat against your very being. Aggression is always a sign of insecurity. And insecurity is always, at bottom, a lack of faith, not a presence of faith"

Proff Sir Anston Winston.
The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency.

Im done.

(for now)

PS. Thx david and realitycheck for actually trying to keep this thread on topic, you were nearly completely civil to me too, like you used to be.

 

[Dancing David]

So where was the deteriment to science?

 

[paximperium]

I started this (nearly) same thread on 4 other forums to see the difference in reactions. They all largely agreed with me and said it was a good point. These were similar science forums.

Wow. I must read these forums.
You shouldn't have any issue with linking to these threads...do you?

 

[Jono]

Mmmhm? A person can also be "religiously" anti-religious I suppose. Nothing noteworthy about it, even so I do not agree with the frame or your (OP's) psychological "taxonomy" of 'the scientist' like so. Not at all. Or, I just didn't get it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So where was the deteriment to science?

Detrimental to its reputation to have top scientists keep explaining things as gods work.

And also detrimental to the science itself no doubt, as for example the person who said "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" has created a religous/spiritual attatchment to his findings. So when they are proved wrong in a few years, either from analysis or new data, hes going to want to keep his special findings in the limelight for as long as possible. Even though its now wrong. Thus he is pushing bad science for religous reasons. Or as people on this forum that so like stereotyping people would say, is a crackpot; an awful personal and pejorative habit that even I've picked up now when posting here.