Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:07:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera#NoSpam#.com
|
Viewed:
|
1455 times
|
| |
|
|
<37CDCE45.78EA965D@eclipse.net> <slrn7srq48.kau.jsproat@eris.io.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sproaticus wrote:
> Waitaminute. So what you're saying, then, is that people you've never met
> can be trusted in the realm of science, while people you've probably met
> before in the realm of religion cannot? I have two words to say to that:
> cold fusion.
I trust the scientific method because I personally have conducted
experiments, made predictions, and so forth. So I know it works when
applied properly. I trust peer review because I personally have been
peer reviewed and have been a peer reviewer (in a different field) and
seen it work.
I paid enough attention in my high school and college science classes to
be pretty confident about the veracity of a number of basic theorems in
fields such as electricity, magnetism, chemistry, statics, dynamics,
etc.
So, building on that foundation, I have a pretty high confidence in
stuff being put forth. Even if I can't personally understand it, SOMEONE
can. Some human. Unlike this god stuff.
I'm glad you brought cold fusion up. It's a PERFECT example of the
scientific method and peer review working.
Let's review:
Two guys come forth making outlandish claims. Their work gets published,
people try to reproduce their claims. Pretty soon all has been
thoroughly debunked/discredited.
Outcome: their hypothesis is pretty thorougly disproven and we now know
a bit more about metal salts in solution, electrolysis, how to take a
heat balance, how to be isothermic and a lot of other good stuff. Big
win for science, despite all the media hype about "failure". Who cares
about them?
> I'll accept that as a definition, with the understanding that the scientific
> method is flawed by its dependence upon an honest community.
Sure. OK. But it's not a big flaw. We have a very honest community, and
peer review ensures it will stay that way. There's glory to be had in
exposing charlatans or even honest mistakes (I think the CF guys at
first got fooled by their heat balance calculations being off, then got
backed into a corner and turned charlatan)
> Arg. Lastworditis. My point: science is a form of religion.
Bull. Unless you mean it's a form that has hypotheses (how DO you
pluralise that?) and theorems that can be verified and that can predict
useful things.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
