Hehehe The good member trying to convince us he has the ability to filter his thoughts.Originally Posted by MFKS
Ignore Plague interjecting and me throwing a couple of bones to keep him entertainedin the meantime.
It is sidetracking to what we are discussing here and this is your beliefs in science and logic being right.
Floors yours.
You sir, are a tap. You are either on, or off.
And right now it is peak flow Member.
But cool cool, let's get back to the dude up in the sky.
Dude up in the sky isn't the issue. The focus is Snakes thoughts on the decisiveness of science and logic.
His thoughts on these conspiracy theories have a bearing on the consistency of his beliefs.
I am intrigued to hear from him so I can get a better understanding of this science and logic stuff and how it fits in
i haven't a clue where you're headed with this, but here goes.
as a general rule, these conspiracy hypotheses (they shouldn't downgrade the word theory, which is lamentably downgraded when used in everyday use; "i have a theory as to why...") involve humans and events, and rely on eyewitness testimony. (perhaps the moonlanding is separate here, but it is just batshit crazy.) despite what eveyday experience may tell you, controlled studies have shown eyewitness testimony can be horribly unreliable. but, we innately trust it above all else. why? it may have to do with our evolution. up until only very recently, it [i]was[/] the most reliable for of evidence. now we have photographs and cctv footage, which aren't biased by suggestion or fogged by recall. so, can we get to the bottom of these issues? probably. it depends on the evidence.
but please don't confuse this to say that proper scientifiec theories are also clouded. not all evidences are created equal. the theory of evolution has millions of pieces of evidence from multiple lines of enquiry that point to an internally consistent picture that states that all life on earth are decended from a common ancestor.
you and I are both cousins with a corn cob. that is fact.
so, how do we know that human scientists "testimony" is reliable? how do we know that they're not distoring the data? therin lies the beauty of the scientific method. someone else will go and check. if they see something fishy - potentially an honest mistake or something more sinister - people will ask questions. if the data is wrong, it will be shown to be.
i'll paraphrase a recent example i'm vaguely familiar with. the absolute specifics may be jumbled, but the basic story will be correct. i'll provide a link to the controversy somyou can check for yourself.
a japanese group recently claimed to be able to get stem cells to become "active" in adults with a simple mild acid treatment. this is valuable to be able to grow replacement organs which the body won't reject.musually, only fetuses contain stemcells with this activity, used in body development. this was a potentially landmark discovery, which would change the world of medicine. so, they published thier paper in a scientific journal called Nature. for a scientist, that is a pretty big thing. everyone reads the related papers in this journal, because what is accepted here is usually a big discovery.
how did it - or any paper - get to be published? after it was submitted, some anonymous experts in the field independently scrutinised the draft manuscript for probably a few days in total each over a month or two. this is peer review. their job is to try to spot flaws in the manuscript. was the analysis done right? does the conclusions logically follow from the results? are the claims noteworthy? they then will usually respond with questions to be answered, and a bit back and forth happens between the authors and referees (still anonymous, via the editor) with corrections or rebuttals, until the editor agrees to accept for publication (or reject). this is the first layer of scrutiny. it's not perfect, it can be improved, but it is current best practice.
so, the paper is released online and an army of under-valued slaves known as PhD candidates and post-docs eagerly read the paper and get really excited. this is a really exciting discovery that can change the world. with the apprival of their professor (the boss- provided they can locate them), they eagerly run out into the lab to repeat the experiments. in this particular case, they were met with frustrations, as they were unable to obtain the same results. so, they try and try again. they may have email correspondence with the lead author of the work, to ask for guidance. they may speak to their friends in other laboratories. can they get it to work? in this case, they couldn't.nare they all doing something not quite right??
what happens next is usually the professors will argue with eachother at an international coference in some beautiful city somewhere. it's not as fun as it sounds. some accusations will be made behind the lead authors back. such is human nature. eventually, after repeatedly failing to reproduce the results, the voices of discontent will become louder. a group of concermed scientists will contact the editor of the journal and highlight their concerns. i'm less familiar with the processes here, but i'd imagine the editor will seek the opinion of the authors for clarification, as well as additional expert opinion. eventually, if it is unable to be resolved, the paper is retracted. gone. finito. the editor will publish a note saying that the experiments are unreliable, and maybe some reasons.
this process id the second layer of error checking. an error which made it through the gates of 2-3 reviewers plus an editor is then able to be scrutinised by all the researchers in the field.
the example here is probably an extreme case, but highlights the self-correcting process that is continually going on. in this example, it was found that one of the slaves had made up data. she lost her job, was basically unemployable because the whole system is built on trust, and i'm pretty sure she regrettably took her own life.
these kind of big ideas - like evolution - are continually undergoing this second type of review. the fact that it still holds up and is only gettingbstronger suggests that it's pretty darn close to the truth.
and it's not just grey men in white coats all agreeing with each-other at conferences in honolulu. scientists are every bit as petty and ****y as everyday people.mthey'd live to make themselves a superstar by overturning a theory. it would be a battle, but if you built the evidence to overthrow it, you'd go down in history.
we will loose
we will loose
Nice read.
**** knows how it has any bearing on what we are talking about.
I have no idea exactly where your going but you still didn't answer the question directly I asked unless your use of the term Conspiracy hypotheses is some code indicating you don't believe any of them.
I won't be presumptuous to speculate or assume all I will do is just ask you to clarify your belief on each of them individually in a form which is pretty clear so I can from your answer determine if you are Yay or Nay on the Conspiracy Theories I brought up.
To me you should have a pretty straight forward response to all of them.
I have assessed which way I think you will stand on each issue and was curious to know whether my logic actually applies and they match up to the realities of your beliefs
Looks like Member is positioning Snake for the fatal blow.
This is better than Kasparov v Deep Blue.
No fatal blow.
Just wishing to comprehend how his belief in science and logic transcends these issues and see where it sits.
Oi Member maybe you should put this as one of your submitted questions at the Jets fan forum.
Who knows they might have an answer you're looking for.
not really sure what the member is driving at with the whole conspiracy theory/hypothesis thing but i'm interested to see where it goes
No, my offer to answer serious questions was a genuine one. I said I would answer them in the Religion thread. I've certainly got no interest in talking to someone who feels its okay to insult me before we get started on more serious topics. I personally don't know why MFKS does it when he's got Mathew 7:6 to guide him.Updated thread title to warn sensible people to just sit back and watch the fun
That's something you might like to consider about God. If science can't even predict how I am going to act and what I am going to say, how do you think you would even be able to test how God chooses to interact with His creation. There is no problem with science at all, all methods of truth discovery are not contradictory whether science, philosophy, history, theology and subjective human experience. Most apparent contradictions are able to be resolved by looking at things in their context. There is so much data out there but people choose to blinker themselves because most of it is subjective. There is even testable evidence but it is rejected because it can't be reproduced, as if you could reproduce what God has done. There is historical evidence but people just pick and choose which history is real based on their beliefs. But if you rely on only one method as the only way to find truth, with its inherent limitations, you aren't going to get the full picture. Boz says that scientists use "philosophical discussion" to look at the scientific method, which is a good start.
Last edited by tha_hauss; 08-06-2015 at 07:36 AM.
Hauss
I don't take that much offence to Snakes digs.
I have my beliefs in god and they are much stronger than anything he will ever say to break them.
I have copped enough over the years about priests and paedophilia from uneducated fools who think it is an insult to us.
Dumb ****s just don't get that we are more offended by it than anyone and are not condoning the churches handling of the matter at all.
I am also not in the slightest bit offended by people who choose to believe differently.
I though am intrigued to understand how he believes what he does. He does have a degree of self righteousness about it and am curious to understand his position more to see whether there is something to it or just hot air and bullshit bravado
Last edited by MFKS; 08-06-2015 at 07:45 AM.
I just think its more of a waste of your time than anything. Whether you are offended or not, what's the point in discussing something important with someone who doesn't care if he insults you? There is no respect there, and if there isn't respect, the discussion is pointless. It's not two respectful humans discussing something with each other but two people shouting their own opinions at each other. That's why I made a genuine offer to have a discussion. I would hope that 10 years of serving the Jets community would be a foundation for a bit of respect.
So how bout this legalization of gay marriage hey
Equal rights and all.
Dear Member, do you believe in unicorns?
ok serious questions.
1. when and how were you introduced to you current religion?
2. is there any part of the scriptures you find concerning, or that you personally disagree with?
3. are you concerned that the books were written some time after jesus' death, and there being any possibility of transcription errors or embellishment?
4. have you read the scriptures which didn't become conon? if so, what are your thoughts?
5. have you tried or ivestigated any non-abrahamic religions, which have their own genesis stories?
thanks for your time.
we will loose
the answers are there, implicitly. the strength of evidence of any of them is weak relatively speaking, because they're based on eyewitness testimony and police interrogation, which aren't that great.
i haven't personally investigated any of them as there's no value in it for me. so at this point, in lieu of strong evidence to the contrary, i'm happy to accept the default position. however, if there was strong evidence that were to arise casting doubt on one of the stories, i would have to reconsider this position.
obviously, the above is about the mmurders/ 9-11 stories, not the moon landing, which very obviously happened several times.
we will loose
1 Have had religion all my life more or less. Exact date not certain but definitely as a child and have always had it by my recollection.
Lost interest in it as I got older didn't stop believing just lost a bit of interest and then I came back to it because I chose to
2 Parts of the scriptures I feel are concerning or disagree with??
Remembering I don't choose the contents of the scriptures I have to with my beliefs embrace them. It isn't really for me to actually pick and choose which parts of the Good Book I should.
The book isn't really there for me to go I like that so will go with it but would rather do this that way etc
3 To include the story of Jesus they would have of course have to be written after his death.
I agree the time after can see tales of embellishment errors etc. with the Chinese Whispers principle.
The issue with it being written by man also sees the potential for error as man is flawed
Does it concern me. NO NOT AT ALL.
It may not be perfect that doesn't matter. The principle and reason for it is right
4 The word Conon is ****ing your sentence up as I have no idea what it means I will pass on the question until I understand what exactly you are asking
5 Trying other religions No. I though am interested in learning about other religions. I am going to Thailand soon and will be hoping to get a greater understanding of Buddhism whilst there
Thanks
that's a wishy-washy position with no value, as far as i'm concerned. testable science can and often is contradictory with theology and subjective human experience. that's kind of the point of statistiical tests - to remove subjective human inferences from data analysis.
and we are all amateur statisticians, trying to infer causal relationships that may benefit us. for instance, noticing that plants grow well after the coldest part of the year and it starts warming up is a good inference, and allows for planting of seeds for growing food. on the other hand, noticing that it rained heavily after having a dancing celebration with your tribe by the campfire, is probably a poor statistical inference, although you are unlikely to be severely punished for making that mistake. however, if some brown mushrooms are edible and delicious, but some are poisonous and deadly, there can be severe punishments for poor statistical inference.
we therefore deloped objective mathematical tools to filter our subjective and limited personal experiences. you owe your life to these tools, too. we all do.
we will loose
member: sorry, i made a typo. i meant canon.
i answered your questions at 10.45.
we will loose
1. so you just independently rocked up at a church as soon as you were aware, or did someone introduce you to it?
2. so if parts are contradictory, that's ok? if they're clearly wrong, based on new discoveries? none of this is concerning?
3. did it have to be written so long after his death, like a century? if he was a wonder, wouldn't that have been recognised earlier and people recording his life during his life? what about the missing years? what did jesus do from like 13 to 30 or whatever it was? it was already known that he was a miracle as mary was a virgin and the kings knew and brought gifts, so shouldn't his life be better documented?
4. scriptures not accepted as official canon.
5. thanks. what about other sects of christianity, like the church of jesus christ and the latter-day saints?
we will loose
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
