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

[Michael Mozina]

So were you lying again when you said this?...




You seemed to agree that there is a physical cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. You change your mind so soon?

Just out of morbid curiosity, how are my two statements even remotely related in your twisted mind? I'm sure we'll discover the empirical disconnect in there somewhere.

 

[Reality Check]

The fact you cannot empirically demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between acceleration and "dark energy" matters. Erroneously labeling an EM field "dark energy" matters. Erroneously labeling induction "magnetic reconnection" matters.

The fact is that we can empirically demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between acceleration and "dark energy" as done in these papers, thanks to Tim Thompson

1. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant; Riess, et al., The Astronomical Journal 116(3): 1009-1038, September 1998.
2. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae; Perlmutter, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 571(2): 565-586, June 1999.
3. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148(1): 175-194, September 2003.
4. Type Ia Supernovae at z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on the Dark Energy Equation of State; Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 607(2): 665-687, June 2004.
5. The Supernova Legacy Survey: measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and w from the first year data set; Astier, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 447(1): February III 2006.
6. Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 170(2): 377-408, June 2007.
7. Observational Constraints on the Nature of Dark Energy: First Results from the ESSENCE Supernova Survey; Wood-Vasey, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2): 694-715, September 2007.
8. Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation; Komatsu, et al., preprint submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, version 2 dated 12 February 2010.

Of course the really, really simple reason that we can do this that any one with 2 brain cells can understand is: Dark energy is defined as the cause of the acceleration !
Your continuing ignorance of this simple fact is astounding.

For the umpteenth time

• It is physically impossible for an EM field to be dark energy as pointed out to you before.
• It is physically impossible for induction to be magnetic reconnection as pointed out to you before.

You are just continuing to demonstrate that you are incapable of learning.
This is actually a good thing. Since you are making this abundantly clear it means that anyone in the world with access to Google will quickly realize that your ignorance makes your assertions about anything scientific probably wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

Just out of morbid curiosity, how are my two statements even remotely related in your twisted mind? I'm sure we'll discover the empirical disconnect in there somewhere.

Let's take it bit by bit, you know, since your qualifications to communicate in a sane and rational way on the subject of, well just about anything, have been challenged, and you have been unable to show that you possess any such qualifications. Were you lying again when you said this?...

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause.

Or do you indeed agree that everything has a physical cause?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

It's fine to be skeptical about one particular theory, or all scientific theories for that matter. If you're going to argue against a scientific theory, though, you should make an effort to understand it, and your argument should be a scientific argument. As illustrated below, your argument has been explicitly religious and magical, as though incessant repetition of that theme can attach religious/magical baggage to the theory instead of to the person making that religious/magical argument.

You're wrong about that. I'm aware that, lacking knowledge of the relevant mathematics and physics, you are unable to sustain a scientific argument, but your attempt to compensate by flooding this subforum with religious/magical name-calling is worse than foolish. It's disrespectful.

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?

You don't seem to understand the difference between science and engineering. Electrical engineering has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Neither do consumer products. For you to accuse me of "dumbing down" the argument to make cheap points is deliciously ironic.

Err, yes we do. Like various properties of the CMBR.

Er, no you don't. When did you provide any kind of empirical cause/effect demonstration between the behaviors of light and your invisible entities?

Aha. You must be ignorant of the empirical evidence for

R_ab - ½Rg_ab + Λg_ab = (8πG/c⁴)T_ab

Not to mention Newton's law of gravity and Maxwell's equations.

So why can't any theist use your exact same argument, brazenly pilfer your math and point at the sky and claim "God did it"? What is the *EMPIRICAL* difference between "science" and any standard religion that requires faith in the unseen (in the lab) when you cannot show any effect of your invisible entity in the lab right here, right now?

Because math is not a sacred text to be pulled out and used as an argument from authority. Consider the equation I wrote above. If theists were to pilfer that equation to claim "God did it", it would be obvious that they don't know what they're talking about. Their argument would be indistinguishable from yours:

...invisible friend...belief...invisible friends...impotent...

...theism...God...subjective...subjective...religious deity...mythical...deity...invisible make-believe friend...

You believe in invisible entities...impotent...religious deity...belief system...invisible entity...impotent...religious deity...

...unadulterated lies! Wow! ...hard core denial...beliefs...belief...Holy cow...God...belief...pure blind faith...invisible entities...impotent...religious deity...belief systems...

...point at the sky...God did it...point at sky and play around with math formulas.

Seeing is believing. I believe that your invisible entities are figments of your overactive imagination...waving at the sky...invisible friends...

You can't do that of course, so you'll just go on with your incredibly lame personal attacks and you'll hope nobody sees what an impotent set gods you believe in.

Everyone sees what you've been doing, Michael. Until you show some respect for math, physics, and empirical observations obtained by instruments both on and around earth, your argument will remain impotent.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It's too bad that this thread has been hijacked by Mozina. I am quite weary of his twaddle. If any one is interested in the OP, or my question:

So, I have some thoughts about the OP, if anyone is interested.
I'm not sure what it means to be "religious about science," other than to accept science as the only method of obtaining objective truth. We can all have hunches about things, but in order for these things to gain the status of truth, the scientific method is the only way for some of us. Even then, we feel that we can only strive for better models to understand reality, but never being certain that we can ever really get there. Is that being religious about science or is it just being logical?

please respond; if not, so be it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why should it? It explains a lot.

It doesn't "explain" anything. It doesn't actually "explain" anything more than simply beginning with an expanding physical universe (objects in motion stay in motion). It doesn't "explain" anything because it requires a negative pressure from a vacuum and not one of you can even tell me what you would physically add or subtract from a "pure" vacuum (no particles of mass) to create a "negative pressure" even if we could create one. Never mind the fact that it's physically impossible for us to create such a thing.

You still use Newtonian gravity even though it gets stuff wrong.

Yes. That is because unlike inflation, gravity is something that A) appears on Earth and B) has predicable patterns and Newtonian mechanics is "good enough" to land us on the moon and reach planets inside our solar system. Inflation however has no effect on anything anymore.

The theory of evolution looks somewhat different to Darwin's theory these days but you still use it. The three quark standard model doesn't work. But nobody gave up on quarks, they just added another 3. Etc etc etc...

But in each of these cases, these theories applied to real, tangible things, that appear on Earth and can be "picked apart" in the lab. Your inflation entity is dead and impotent in the present moment. These aren't even valid comparisons.

Michael, what is the cause of the gravitational constant, G?

"I don't know". I've learned to simply admit my ignorance.

And no, a negative pressure is perfectly possible so long as the energy decreases with decreasing volume. This is true by definition.

You'll have to give me a better explanation of what you mean. What "energy" are you claiming is 'increasing" or "decreasing" in the "pure vacuum" (no kinetic energy in the system)?

Because thats the commonly accepted scientific term. It'd be a bit stupid if I called it Jimminybobbobsplat and RC called it qwertyuiopium and DRD called it flabberdangdingdongdoodle. We'd never know what the others were talking about.

The term "acceleration" was fine. You never actually established that A) energy was involved to begin with (vs. a fundamental in our misunderstanding of GR like MOND theory), or B) that the energy is "dark". You added nothing by making up a "dark" term since "dark" really just seems to relate to your (our collective) ignorance of the actual cause. The whole "dark" thing is purely "assumed".

You can call it what the hell you like. But civilization has been progressed greatly through the use of common languages.

The basic problem is that astronomers go out of their way to avoid "common language". Instead of adopting terms that are consistent with particle physical theory or electrical engineering they go out of their way to use pseudoscientific terms that confuse the hell out of *everyone*, themselves included. It's not my fault they make up pointless terms for human ignorance like "dark energy" that may or may not be energy and may or may not be dark. Had you simply stuck to "unexplained acceleration" at least everyone would start on the same page.

I can go to a fruit and veg shop and ask for an apple and I'm likely to get exactly what I want (assuming they haven't sold out). I'm unlikely to get a cucumber. The problem with inventing your own language is that nobody else is likely to know what you mean. For example, if I decided apple was a stupid name and I'd much prefer to call them flubles, my trip to the fruit and veg store is likely to be much less successful.

The basic flaw in your argument is that you aren't talking about a tangible or real "thing" when discussing inflation, dark energy, or dark matter.

I could in fact go to China and have no clue (I don't have a clue) how to ask for an apple in Chinese, but I could probably walk into any store and find one in the store and purchase it anyway. Since inflation isn't "real" in any current physical sense, the whole "belief" in inflation is forever going to be an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". I can't go get one. I can't test to see that it actually has any of the properties you assign to it. I essentially have to have faith in a dead supernatural entity. It's not exactly the same as simply having a language barrier. You have a giant empirical cause/effect demonstration problem on your hands and it's not related to language, it's related to the existence or lack thereof of the actual thing in question.

Likewise the problems with "dark energy" go far beyond a problem with communication. You can't show it has any effect on anything on Earth either. You aren't sure it's energy. You aren't sure it's even dark. Therefore the term "dark energy" is simply a pointless and misleading term at best, a metaphysical Frankenstein at worst. You've created the *illusion* that some new force of nature exists where none may exist at all. How exactly is that a "step forward"?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

It's too bad that this thread has been hijacked by Mozina. I am quite weary of his twaddle. If any one is interested in the OP, or my question:

So, I have some thoughts about the OP, if anyone is interested.
I'm not sure what it means to be "religious about science," other than to accept science as the only method of obtaining objective truth. We can all have hunches about things, but in order for these things to gain the status of truth, the scientific method is the only way for some of us. Even then, we feel that we can only strive for better models to understand reality, but never being certain that we can ever really get there. Is that being religious about science or is it just being logical?

please respond; if not, so be it.

Since I finally gave up and put MM on ignore, I will cheerfully discuss this.

I used to be of the opinion that scientism (that's the philosophy that science is the most authoritative and superior method for finding out what reality is like) was somewhat narrow-minded. A god-of-the-gaps "lite" school of thought, so to speak.

However, the argument for scientism is that science is so darn powerful when you apply it properly. For example, the benefits of various religions and philosophies could be studied statistically. Any deity or method that provides any kind of benefit should be revealed quite handily. The only remaining escape route is to postulate a deity that meddles in the scientific data to keep us fooled, which starts to sound like solipsism.

As far as current evidence goes, it seems any benefits of supernatural beliefs are equally supernatural (ie, good luck finding them in this universe). Add the rule of parsimony to this, and ignoring any such belief systems seems perfectly logical to me.

Certainly, science is never quite sure it has gotten things exactly right, but it's usually quite sure when something is wrong. Falsification works well for any philosophy that claims to have real-world effects.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Certainly, science is never quite sure it has gotten things exactly right, but it's usually quite sure when something is wrong. Falsification works well for any philosophy that claims to have real-world effects.

He has me on ignore so he won't care but therein lies the rub IMO. Inflation has no "real world" effects in the present moment. Falsification is therefore impossible. While some brands (like Guth's original brand) of inflation can be falsified, a never ending army of new metaphysical options to choose from keep popping up like weeds. Taken as a whole it's *IMPOSSIBLE* falsify an infinite number of "possible" hypothetical forces that have no real world effect in the present moment and who's so called "properties" relate entirely to events in the long distant past.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Since I finally gave up and put MM on ignore, I will cheerfully discuss this.

I used to be of the opinion that scientism (that's the philosophy that science is the most authoritative and superior method for finding out what reality is like) was somewhat narrow-minded. A god-of-the-gaps "lite" school of thought, so to speak.

However, the argument for scientism is that science is so darn powerful when you apply it properly. For example, the benefits of various religions and philosophies could be studied statistically. Any deity or method that provides any kind of benefit should be revealed quite handily. The only remaining escape route is to postulate a deity that meddles in the scientific data to keep us fooled, which starts to sound like solipsism.

As far as current evidence goes, it seems any benefits of supernatural beliefs are equally supernatural (ie, good luck finding them in this universe). Add the rule of parsimony to this, and ignoring any such belief systems seems perfectly logical to me.

Certainly, science is never quite sure it has gotten things exactly right, but it's usually quite sure when something is wrong. Falsification works well for any philosophy that claims to have real-world effects.

If one has rejected all religious and supernatural belief systems for lack of evidence and for having what I believe to be internal contradictions, then the only thing left is science. That is about where I am; consequently, I have encountered people who have claimed that science is my religion. I believe they are mistaken. It seems to me that science is nothing more than the application of rigorous logic to everything around us in our quest to deal with it all and to understand it. It's not religious; it's just the logical way.

P.S. I have also decided to put Mozina on "ignore" for a while so that I can enjoy the educational and thoughtful aspects of these threads. When I regain the stamina to deal with his twaddle, I may reinstate him.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Or do you indeed agree that everything has a physical cause?

Sure. What does that have to do with any of your mythical invisible entities that utterly fail to do anything in the lab? What possible hope do you have of demonstrating an empirical cause/effect link between acceleration of matter and 'dark energy" *BEFORE* you stat pointing at the sky and claiming "dark energy did it"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's fine to be skeptical about one particular theory, or all scientific theories for that matter. If you're going to argue against a scientific theory, though, you should make an effort to understand it, and your argument should be a scientific argument. As illustrated below, your argument has been explicitly religious and magical, as though incessant repetition of that theme can attach religious/magical baggage to the theory instead of to the person making that religious/magical argument.

But Mr. Spock that is because your theory is comparable to any standard religious argument. You've shown no cause effect links between GR theory and inflation, dark energy and dark matter. We all agree that GR theory isn't dependent upon those things in any empirical way. What does your impotent stuff actually have to do with GR other than the fact you stuffed your mythical forces into a GR formula? How is that any different than claiming "God energy did it"?

You're wrong about that. I'm aware that, lacking knowledge of the relevant mathematics and physics, you are unable to sustain a scientific argument, but your attempt to compensate by flooding this subforum with religious/magical name-calling is worse than foolish. It's disrespectful.

Well, somewhere in there is some truth, but my "disrespect" isn't actually personal in any way. Were your invisible entities able to have some influence on a real experiment with actual control mechanisms, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For instance if you claimed an EM field was responsible for acceleration, well that's a logical and physical possibility. Dark energy isn't an option because it doesn't exist. The acceleration may in fact be real, but it isn't related to "dark energy".

You don't seem to understand the difference between science and engineering. Electrical engineering has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Neither do consumer products. For you to accuse me of "dumbing down" the argument to make cheap points is deliciously ironic.

Well, I'm certainly not anti-science as you seem to believe. I have no beef with electrical theory. I have no beef with standard particle physics theory either, although I do have some reservations. None of it is beyond empirical test of concept however so it's all good from my perspective. It's only when we get to the topic of cosmology where I "lack belief". At least acknowledge that point.

Because math is not a sacred text to be pulled out and used as an argument from authority. Consider the equation I wrote above. If theists were to pilfer that equation to claim "God did it", it would be obvious that they don't know what they're talking about. Their argument would be indistinguishable from yours:

You assume a lot about "all theists" I'm afraid. The point is that *IF* they did follow the math, their math and your math are identical and your invisible entity isn't any more 'real" by virtue of math than their entity. It then becomes physically (empirically) impossible to distinguish between religion and science. That's all due to the fact that your invisible entities are so shy around the lab.

Everyone sees what you've been doing, Michael. Until you show some respect for math, physics, and empirical observations obtained by instruments both on and around earth, your argument will remain impotent.

IMO that whole "disrespect for math" concept is purely contrived and nothing more than a silly rationalization on you part. You don't hear my bitch about Maxwell's equations, just your use of them at worst case. It's only when you start creating math formulas full of invisible entities that never show up in the lab that I get annoyed.

FYI it's because I certainly *DO* have respect for "physics" that I don't buy your brands of metaphysics and what Alfven flatly referred to as pseudoscience. The only thing that's impotent on Earth are your invisible entities. Dark energy never shows up on Earth. Inflation has *never* shown up on Earth and never will. Convincing or not, I'm here and I can affect things here and now. That's a lot more than can be said for your invisible entities.

 

[dafydd]

Snore.

 

[GeeMack]

Or do you indeed agree that everything has a physical cause?

Sure.

Okay. So you agree that dark energy exists. Dark energy is the nickname that scientists have given to the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Okay. So you agree that dark energy exists. Dark energy is the nickname that scientists have given to the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

I wonder about this. If the term "dark energy" is merely a synonym for cosmic expansion, why is the word energy part of the term? I believe there are some explanations of cosmic expansion that do not involve energy; would we still call it dark energy if those explanations prevailed?
It seems that it would be logical to reserve the term "dark energy" for those explanations that do rely on an unknown energy.

Mozina: This is not for your benefit. You are on ignore. I do not see your posts so don't waste your time responding.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay. So you agree that dark energy exists.

No. Whatever the empirical cause might be it has nothing whatsoever to do with "dark energy" because "dark energy" is figment of your imagination and is at least as impotent in the lab as any religious deity.

Dark energy is the nickname that scientists have given to the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

It's a stupid name for the reasons that PS cited. You don't even know if it actually involves "energy" at all, and you have no clue if it's actually "dark" energy even *IF* it actually involves real energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I wonder about this. If the term "dark energy" is merely a synonym for cosmic expansion, why is the word energy part of the term? I believe there are some explanations of cosmic expansion that do not involve energy; would we still call it dark energy if those explanations prevailed?
It seems that it would be logical to reserve the term "dark energy" for those explanations that do rely on an unknown energy.

Mozina: This is not for your benefit. You are on ignore. I do not see your posts so don't waste your time responding.

Well, thanks anyway.

 

[GeeMack]

Okay. So you agree that dark energy exists.

No.

Okay, so you didn't mean it when you said...

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause.

You sure do have one hell of a stupid religion if you can't make up your mind (or be honest) about such a trivial matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so you didn't mean it when you said...

No. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? When did you show any cause/effect relationship between your invisible friends and anything?

You sure do have one hell of a stupid religion if you can't make up your mind (or be honest) about such a trivial matter.

Oh, I've made up my mind, you just can't comprehend English evidently. I lack belief that your mythical buddies (including by not limited to dark energy) have any empirical effect on anything. They aren't the empirical "cause" of anything and you have never demonstrated anything of the sort.

 

[GeeMack]

No. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? When did you show any cause/effect relationship between your invisible friends and anything?

Did you or did you not mean it when you said this?...

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause.

And if you did mean it, were you counting the accelerated expansion of the Universe as part of "everything"?

Oh, I've made up my mind, you just can't comprehend English evidently. I lack belief that your mythical buddies (including by not limited to dark energy) have any empirical effect on anything. They aren't the empirical "cause" of anything and you have never demonstrated anything of the sort.

Need I mention again that I don't have any mythical buddies? I didn't think so. Your comment makes you a liar, or should I say, adds to the ever growing body of evidence that shows you are a liar?

If anyone is wondering how Michael's inability to engage in an honest discussion connects to the OP, his constant need to lie to support his faith based beliefs and his willful ignorance is an excellent example of the crackpot version of lying for Jesus.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did you or did you not mean it when you said this?...

I meant it and I still don't see any connection to any empirical cause and your invisible friends.

If anyone is wondering how Michael's inability to engage in an honest discussion connects to the OP, his constant need to lie to support his faith based beliefs and his willful ignorance is an excellent example of the crackpot version of lying for Jesus.

You've got the whole thing completely backwards. I lack belief in your invisible friends. It's your beliefs that are based on "blind faith in the unseen" (in the lab), not mine and you're essentially "lying for baby inflation Jesus".