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

[DeiRenDopa]

Sure you did. You just called it "dark energy", "inflation' and "dark matter", none of which show up in real experiments on Earth. They are at least as impotent in the lab as any religious deity.

Again, you moan about not showing up in experiments on Earth/in a lab. And once again you completely fail to justify why all physical phenomena should be observable on the scales of a human lab circa 2010. The idea that all physical phenomena must show up on a scale of a lab couldn't be more anthropocentric. So, do you think the Universe was designed for humans? If not, why do you believe all physical phenomena should be observable in a lab?

One of the truly bizarre things about MM's religion is its arbitrariness.

The 500.7 nm "nebulium" line does not show up in real experiments on Earth, yet in MM's worldview it's totally OK to say it's due to a forbidden transition of doubly ionised oxygen, to take just one example.

But how does one get from what "does" (or *does*) turn up in real experiments, in labs on Earth, to equating a 500.7 nm emission line in the spectrum of some planetary nebula to an [OIII] transition? Via thousands of other experiments, and decades of working with the mathematics of quantum mechanics, applied to the concepts of "oxygen" and "atoms".

Now MM accepts, as an article of faith (he has shown himself to be totally incapable of actually understanding the experiments, or the math, especially the math), that some part of modern physics is valid, and that "atoms" of "oxygen" really do exist, and that a "transition" between two "energy states" of a "doubly ionised oxygen atom" results in light which has a "wavelength" of 500.7 nm.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The way I interpret what Zeuzzz wrote in the OP is like this ...

Normal Scientists
They are on a quest to understand nature and is thus willing & able to suppress their innate sense of how things ought to be, in favor of the revelation of how things really are, through science & logic. They are willing to be surprised, and more importantly, they are able to recognize when they have been wrong and need to retrace some steps, or even start all over again. They are willing to consider any evidence, regardless of how it seems to fit with any innate sense of how things ought to be.

Religious Scientists
They are on a quest to prove that their innate sense of how things ought to be is in fact true of nature. This idea is to them equivalent to a religious doctrine of faith which is true by definition, a postulate in the full mathematical sense. Hence, it is not necessary to consider any contrary evidence, since you know in advance that it is wrong and so not worth the waste of time. So they are unwilling to consider any evidence that is contrary to their innate sense of how things ought to be.

Of course, real people are rarely all one or all the other, but a mix of the two. All real people want to see their innate sense of how things ought to be win out in the end. This includes normal scientists, who will try to make it work. But they will eventually see the light, so to speak, and with some variability for individual differences, realize that the universe is the way it is, not the way they want it to be. Einstein was a paragon of "normal scientist" as he plowed through the revelation of special & general relativity, an elegant statistical mechanical demonstration of the sizes of molecules, and the very surprising re-adoption of the particle nature of light. This is really the pinnacle of letting the universe, and not prejudice, lead the way. But the very same Einstein became a "religious scientist" when it came to his rejection of quantum mechanics, based on a combination of the really religious idea that "God does not play dice", and his own innate sense of how orderly things ought to be, and how disorderly they became under the rule of quantum mechanics. One man capable of being both a "normal scientist" and a "religious scientist", almost at the same time.

I had something a little different in mind. I will use myself as an example -- I am not a scientist. But, in a sense science could be said to be my religion, since I do not believe there is any other way to get a grip on reality. When it comes to how the universe works, how life came about, why the planets go around the sun. why the galaxies are moving away from each other, why do two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen make water, etc., there is only one way to get at an answer -- the scientific method. Even questions as difficult as "why is there anything instead of nothingness? -- e. g.: why is there a universe at all?" if they will ever be answered (however unlikely), will be done so through science or not at all. There simply is no other way. So -- is that religion or just plain logic?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I had something a little different in mind. I will use myself as an example -- I am not a scientist. But, in a sense science could be said to be my religion, since I do not believe there is any other way to get a grip on reality.

Ya, but you and I ultimately share that very same viewpoint on *MOST* branches of science. We only seem to have wildly different opinions on one or two topics related directly to cosmology theory and/or solar theory. In most every other branch of science, I suspect we tend to agree.

When it comes to how the universe works, how life came about, why the planets go around the sun. why the galaxies are moving away from each other, why do two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen make water, etc., there is only one way to get at an answer -- the scientific method.

Again, I agree. I simply believe that the "scientific method" should and must include "control mechanisms", otherwise it quickly turns into a "religion" that requires faith in the "unseen" (on Earth). That's where you and I tend to part company.

Even questions as difficult as "why is there anything instead of nothingness? -- e. g.: why is there a universe at all?" if they will ever be answered (however unlikely), will be done so through science or not at all. There simply is no other way. So -- is that religion or just plain logic?

I think it entirely depends on how one "practices" their science. IMO you aren't even remotely close to falling into the 'fundy" category although you clearly vehemently disagree with my opinions. IMO your attitude isn't all that "religious" in nature although I thought that deference to "greater mathematicians" was rather telling from my perspective. You still see the problem as being related to an individual rather than being directly related to an empirical cause/effect flaw in your own beliefs. That's a highly dubious choice IMO and again, it's a place where we tend to differ. Math is fine, but I expect to see you "show me" how it works too.

GM, RC, Tim, DRD and a few of the "old timers" (longtime EU skeptics) tend to fall more into the "religious" category in my experience. You and sol and TBT and Mr. Spock are quite different in your approach and it shows.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One of the truly bizarre things about MM's religion is its arbitrariness.

The 500.7 nm "nebulium" line does not show up in real experiments on Earth, yet in MM's worldview it's totally OK to say it's due to a forbidden transition of doubly ionised oxygen, to take just one example.

But how does one get from what "does" (or *does*) turn up in real experiments, in labs on Earth, to equating a 500.7 nm emission line in the spectrum of some planetary nebula to an [OIII] transition? Via thousands of other experiments, and decades of working with the mathematics of quantum mechanics, applied to the concepts of "oxygen" and "atoms".

There's absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about "empirical physics" DRD. The clear difference is that "oxygen" and "atoms" show up in real lab experiments and given the right conditions we theoretically *could* duplicate what we see in space right here on Earth. I don't have any problem with you applying maths to atoms and various elements that show up on Earth. It's only when you claim your invisible friend did it that I will expect to see a demonstration of concept. If you claimed 'dark matter" generated those lines *THEN* I definitely would expect you to support that claim independently of your belief that some known type of atom or molecule did it.

Now MM accepts, as an article of faith (he has shown himself to be totally incapable of actually understanding the experiments, or the math, especially the math),

Pure personal put down. It's also irrelevant. I don't have to know all the maths related to a working transmission to get behind the wheel and use one. Likewise I don't have to understand all the maths related the microprocessor in my computer to use a computer. It's only because your invisible friends are impotent on Earth that suddenly you need a "free pass" in the lab.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Again, I agree. I simply believe that the "scientific method" should and must include "control mechanisms", otherwise it quickly turns into a "religion" that requires faith in the "unseen" (on Earth). That's where you and I tend to part company.
...

Nonsense, the theory of evolution has been a viable scientific theory for well over a hundred years without any "*CONTROL MECHANISMS*". Your comments are just plain silly!

 

[Michael Mozina]

If he were a scientist, that would be true and highly relevant to this thread. In his response to your post, however, he appears to reject that label.

Mozina's response confirmed his disrespect for science as we know it. He believes the purpose of science is to produce consumer goods. If some area of what we call science has not yet produced consumer goods, then he regards that science as non-empirical, "mythical", "impotent", "religious":

In that last paragraph, Michael Mozina appears to be admitting that, for the purposes of this thread ("Z's definition"), he is not a scientist at all.

For easy reference, here are Zeuzzz's definitions from the original post:

Michael Mozina fits neither description. His work does not involve research or lectures. "Time and where the universe came from" has nothing to do with his career path. By Zeuzzz's definitions or by ordinary definitions, Michael Mozina is not a scientist.

FYI, I agree.

My love of astronomy wasn't so overwhelming that I chose it as a career path. I have no emotional or professional need to gain any special insights related to a universal scale "creation event" from looking at stars. I don't seem to fit Z's definition of a religious scientist since it was never all that "important" to me to have an opinion about how and when the universe was "created", or important to me to chose cosmology as a career path. If all matter was once "hot" as TBT claims and then all matter was "created" as things cooled, great. If not, great. It's no big deal to me one way or the other from my perspective.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nonsense, the theory of evolution has been a viable scientific theory for well over a hundred years without any "*CONTROL MECHANISMS*". Your comments are just plain silly!

Actually microevolutionary principles have actually been demonstrated in controlled experimentation (unless I'm mistaken), and in fact the HOX gene has been known to have a direct effect on macroevolutionary processes via active experimentation in the lab at UCSD. I think you're definitely barking up the wrong empirical tree there PS. Evolutionary concepts *CAN* in fact be demonstrated in the lab because it involves mutations to DNA that *DOES* show up on Earth.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina's response confirmed his disrespect for science as we know it. He believes the purpose of science is to produce consumer goods.

I have one complaint with your post. I have no disrespect for science in general, just "disrespect' (if that's even the right word) for *ONE* and only one cosmology theory that just so happens to be "popular" at the moment.

In every other respect I have *great* respect for various branches of science and special appreciation for all the wonderful consumer products that are direct result of scientific efforts. Your portrayal of me as some sort of "anti-scientist" is absurd and simply a villianization technique. You're just "dumbing down" the argument IMO to make cheap points. You don't hear me bitching about electrical engineers do you?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Actually microevolutionary principles have actually been demonstrated in controlled experimentation (unless I'm mistaken), and in fact the HOX gene has been known to have a direct effect on macroevolutionary processes via active experimentation in the lab at UCSD. I think you're definitely barking up the wrong empirical tree there PS. Evolutionary concepts *CAN* in fact be demonstrated in the lab because it involves mutations to DNA that *DOES* show up on Earth.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

You totally ignore the fact that those are quite recent developments. As I said, "the theory of evolution has been a viable scientific theory for well over a hundred years without any control mechanisms." It is very clear that GeeMack is correct when he says you are dishonest!

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. I am saying that I know of no scientific evidenceof the existence of religious invisible deity/entity exists.
But that is a topic for the Religion section.

Ya, and this thread. What you mean is that you've never seen a cause/effect demonstration of concept on Earth, right? In other words you expect to see "God" do something in a real "experiment" with actual "control mechanisms" and so far you haven't see that happen, is that it? I mean statistically speaking *MOST* of humanity "chooses' theism for some reason or another. Couldn't we call that "evidence" of God if we wanted to?

I do know of scientific evidence for dark matter.

No you don't. You know of some subjective evidence of "missing mass" and that's it.

I do know of scientific evidence for dark energy.

No, again, you have subjective evidence (redshift interpretation) that the universe accelerates over time. Like any religious deity, you failed to show any empirical connection between that observation of acceleration and your mythical label. The dark energy deity didn't do it because dark energy doesn't exist and it doesn't accelerate even a single atom in any lab anywhere.

I do know of scientific evidence for inflation.

Again, you only have evidence of "expansion' at best case, and you never showed an empirical cause/effect connection between your invisible make-believe friend and that observation of expansion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You totally ignore the fact that those are quite recent developments. As I said, "the theory of evolution has been a viable scientific theory for well over a hundred years without any control mechanisms."

But DNA has *ALWAYS* shown up on Earth even before we knew how to physically manipulate it!

It is very clear that GeeMack is correct when he says you are dishonest!

The only 'dishonest" thing is comparing a real tangible, physical thing (like DNA) to inflation faeries that have *NEVER* shown up on Earth and *CANNOT EVER* show up on Earth. Such a comparison is both scientifically bankrupt and irrational IMO. DNA shows up on Earth. Dark energy doesn't. Do you *HONESTLY* not see that distinction?

 

[GeeMack]

So Michael, either something causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe, or nothing causes it. What's your guess, something or nothing?

What difference does it make? You've yet to demonstrate that inflation or dark energy are anything other than figments of your overactive imagination, let alone that they have anything at all to do with expanding or accelerating matter. When did you show that inflation can expand anything other than a math formula? When did dark energy accelerate anything in a lab? It's purely your imagination that expansion and acceleration of matter have anything at all to do with your invisible impotent friends.

Notice your continued inference that I have invisible friends? Even if you don't realize it, it's pretty clear to everyone else that comments like that support the claim that you a liar.

And clearly you are being intentionally ignorant of the simple question I keep asking. While your ignorance demonstrates a devout attachment to your nutty notions about physics, it also provides an excellent example of that blind faith and religious zeal that Zeuzzz described in the opening post. Thanks.

Now forgetting any particular cause, and leaving aside your apparently desperate need to discuss magic, gods, and invisible friends in every post, let's see if you can handle some simple fourth grade science...

Either something causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe, or it has no cause. It's a simple binary question, Michael. No math required. No explanations necessary. Like one of those simple yes or no questions that you seem to struggle with. If it's too tough, take the 50/50 shot and pick one at random. What do you say? Something causes it or nothing causes it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

that would have been the one in this post.

As I said earlier, I was looking for some a wee more "contemporary".

ETA:
and then of course are
the paper by de Keyser & Echim 2010
the paper by Khodachenko et al. 2009
the paper by Marghitu et al. 2009
and references in all those papers

Cool! Thanks. It will take me some time to go through those papers to see if any of them relate to events beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. For whatever reason the mainstream seems to accept the presence of Birkeland currents inside the electromagnetic field of the Earth, but it seems to attempt to attribute them to "magnetic reconnection" somewhere along the way rather than simple "current flow" from the sun as Birkeland proposed.

Michael you're blatantly wrong that circuit theory is not used in plasma(astro)physics and space physics.

Well, if it's used it's used in a secondary role, particularly *OUTSIDE* of the Earth's EM field. We'll see. I have some reading to do. Thanks again for the links.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice your continued inference that I have invisible friends? Even if you don't realize it, it's pretty clear to everyone else that comments like that support the claim that you a liar.

You believe in invisible entities that are at *LEAST* as impotent on Earth as any religious deity. That is a fact. You can lie to yourself all you like but you aren't fooling anyone. 96 percent of your belief system relates to "unseen" (in the lab) entities that have no empirical effect on anything on Earth.

And clearly you are being intentionally ignorant of the simple question I keep asking.

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause. You're the one making a very specific claim about a "cause' and yet you have never shown your invisible entity has any effect whatsoever on even a single atom on Earth. You can lie to yourself all you like GM, but your entities are as impotent on Earth as any religious deity. That is a fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

that would have been the one in this post.

ETA:
and then of course are
the paper by de Keyser & Echim 2010
the paper by Khodachenko et al. 2009
the paper by Marghitu et al. 2009
and references in all those papers

Michael you're blatantly wrong that circuit theory is not used in plasma(astro)physics and space physics.

FYI, I read through the abstracts of those links and I want you to know I really do appreciate them. Really.

 

[tusenfem]

As I said earlier, I was looking for some a wee more "contemporary".



Cool! Thanks. It will take me some time to go through those papers to see if any of them relate to events beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. For whatever reason the mainstream seems to accept the presence of Birkeland currents inside the electromagnetic field of the Earth, but it seems to attempt to attribute them to "magnetic reconnection" somewhere along the way rather than simple "current flow" from the sun as Birkeland proposed.



Well, if it's used it's used in a secondary role, particularly *OUTSIDE* of the Earth's EM field. We'll see. I have some reading to do. Thanks again for the links.

And it never got into your mind to actually "*CHECK*" for example on *ADS* whether your blatant misinterpretation of mainstream science actually had any solid ground? The second paper is on the sun and I knew that paper because the author is in the same building as I am, the first one I had seen just keeping up with modern day literature and the third took me all but 2 minutes to find in an ADS search.

But as usual you like "*OTHERS*" to do the work for you, god forbid you would get your hands dirty trying to find something.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And it never got into your mind to actually "*CHECK*" for example on *ADS* whether your blatant misinterpretation of mainstream science actually had any solid ground?

Yes I've checked ADS in the past and I read Arxiv constantly, but.......

The second paper is on the sun and I knew that paper because the author is in the same building as I am, the first one I had seen just keeping up with modern day literature and the third took me all but 2 minutes to find in an ADS search.

But as usual you like "*OTHERS*" to do the work for you, god forbid you would get your hands dirty trying to find something.

Well, I did in fact miss that second paper on solar atmospheric activity which is why I'm so excited to read it. I suppose I do deserve some of that criticism related to "sloppiness" on my part. Of course you could really demonstrate your point by finding a couple dozen such papers related to circuits in solar physics for us.

I think a single exception is hardly going to suffice if you expect me to believe you don't have an "anti-circuit" bias going on. I'll need a wee more evidence than that to demonstrate you don't have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. I admit I missed that *ONE* paper, but a single exception isn't exactly evidence of open mindedness inside your industry. You personally still seem to believe in 'magnetic reconnection" as I recall but you can't explain how that particular release of energy is different from A) induction or B) ordinary particle collisions in plasma. The bottom line is that kinetic energy can only be passed by particles of light (quantized carrier particles of the EM field), or particles of plasma. It has to be one or the other. Since magnetic fields can only form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning or end, they are incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to individual lines. The topology of the circuits change over time and therefore the topology of the magnetic field follows, but again, it's a form of "circuit" energy" and/or "induction" that accelerates the particles, not "magnetic reconnection".

How many papers might I find on ADS on "magnetic reconnection"? Tell me you don't have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse?

 

[GeeMack]

You believe in invisible entities that are at *LEAST* as impotent on Earth as any religious deity.

No, I don't. You are a liar.

That is a fact.

No, it isn't. You are a liar.

You can lie to yourself all you like but you aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not lying to myself, nor am I trying to fool anyone.

96 percent of your belief system relates to "unseen" (in the lab) entities that have no empirical effect on anything on Earth.

No, it doesn't. You are a liar.

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause.

Okay. I don't understand the need for all your smart mouthed stalling and evasion, but finally we can move ahead. We agree that something causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The scientists, the real ones who aren't too lazy or too stupid to learn a little math and apply a little science, the ones who specialize in this cosmology stuff, they agree with us that there is a cause for that expansion. And even though it is an area of active research, those scientists, who agree with you and I that there is a cause for that expansion, don't exactly know the mechanics behind it. You with me so far?

But even without knowing the way the pieces and parts of physics work together to cause that expansion, they need to be able to discuss it with other scientists, because that's part of what scientists do. And in order to discuss it, even though they don't know the mechanics behind the cause, and agreeing that there is a cause, they've given that cause a nickname. So instead of always calling it something like "the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe for which we currently lack an exact mechanical explanation", they've decided to give it the nickname "dark energy".

Now wouldn't you agree that dark energy is a better nickname than, say, Fido or Rover or Joe, or even "the stupidest idea Michael Mozina ever had"? And where it seems apparent that the nickname dark energy pisses you off for some reason unfathomable to the sane and intelligent among us, it is what it is, a nickname, for lack of a better nickname. It isn't something magical. It isn't a god. Nobody thinks of dark energy as a deity, worships it, believes in it, prays to it, or considers it magic in any way. Nobody that is except you, Michael. You're the only one, possibly on the face of this entire planet, who continues to insist that dark energy, the simple nickname for a cause that we all seem to agree exists, you, among all people, are the single person who keeps demanding that there is something magical about dark energy.

Everyone else simply accepts dark energy as the name given to the cause, which we agree must exist, of an effect, which we observe and measure, empirically, in experiment after experiment done in labs right here on Earth.

You're the one making a very specific claim about a "cause' and yet you have never shown your invisible entity has any effect whatsoever on even a single atom on Earth.

No, I'm not making a specific claim about the cause other than to acknowledge its nickname. You are a liar.

And wouldn't you know it, not only does that cause, which goes by the nickname of dark energy, have an effect on even a single atom right here on Earth, it has an effect on every last atom right here on Earth, every single one. That is, unless you're stupid enough to believe the Universe is Earth-centric, that the observed and measured effect of the accelerated expansion occurs with the Earth as the central point, and that all of the Universe is expanding away from us while we stand still not affected by that expansion.

You can lie to yourself all you like GM, but your entities are as impotent on Earth as any religious deity. That is a fact.

No, it's not a fact. You, Michael, are a liar.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I don't. You are a liar.

Do you believe in inflation, dark energy or exotic (so far unseen) forms of matter? Yes or no? Stop dodging the direct questions.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you believe in inflation, dark energy or exotic (so far unseen) forms of matter? Yes or no? Stop dodging the direct questions.

No, when it comes to matters of science I don't hold any beliefs. That would imply having some kind of faith not supported by evidence. That's the domain of those insane solid surfaced Sun cranks and those nutty EU/PC crackpots. Belief isn't really a valid approach to legitimate science. I accept, provisionally of course, some of the current explanations provided by science as being pretty reasonable, given the data we have available.

And of course your inference that I'm dodging questions, when I haven't been asked any until now, makes you a liar, Michael.