h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And theres me thinking that Photons were what CaPtain Kirk shot the baddies with!!!!

By the way thanx all of you for debating my original "Science is Crap" with such enthusiasm. I'm trying to think of another heading that will stir up the emotions as much!!! Any suggestions??? (without being sexist, racist etc)!!!

How about 'The Media is Crap'.
As in all of the moronic nonsense they pump out on some TV and in some magazines, and some radio.

Yeah - but I think almost everyone will agree with it - so there wont be much in the way of "Yes it is", "No it isn't"

You'd get a great reaction from a "Monty Python is Crap". Not something I believe - but it sure would be fun!!!!

ooooh, you're going to upset a lot of media people who wont agree, one of them said on the radio the other day, with a straight face, 'Eastenders is quality drama', about ten million people seem to agree with him and not with 'the media is crap'......okay, who wants 'the media', and who wants 'Monty Python'???

(if there's anywhere on the planet that doesnt get Eastenders, its a crappy English soap-opera)

Interesting that you mention "the purest form of science" as being thought.
Science itself is no more than the scientific method. The scientific method is a
means of connecting the empirical world rationally--by logic. Therefore, it inherently
contains no value statements. It is a logical set of premises, which you are free to
agree with or disagree with, that leads to a conclusion. In the case of Cosmic, or
Dawinian Evolution, Scientists, regardless of what they beleive, which has no
relevance, state a number of things, pointing out bone structures, etc., and
come to a conclusion that there is a natural process of selection that who ever
produces the greatest number of viable offspring able to reproduce in turn shall
continue to exist over their peers. Radical genomic change facilitates this.
Randomly, something will change in an organism's DNA, most of the time for
the worst, but ocasionally for the better. It is up to individuals to beleive or
disbeleive.

I am horrified to think that anyone could consider that science could be crap! I believe very strongly in science and I would believe a scientists word on related matters much more readily than most peoples. Saying there is no evidence for theories like creation and evolution is all very well but what proof is there that God created everything and that evolution didn't exhist? The bible was written thousends of years later and most of it wasn't written to be taken literally anyway.

Pardon me if this has already been stated, but I tend to get lost among the replies and new threads....

A prevailing theory is that humans are not decended from chimps (or vice versa), but rather, humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

--- Avatar

Another thing to consider is that the world (and indeed the universe) could conceivable be here without an intervening deity.

If I may make an obvious reference: The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That was one of DNA's themes; that it doesn't matter how we think the world got here. No matter what we think, it's still here. The earth's origins are its own, whether we're right or wrong about them.

--- Avatar

My regular "pub physicist" assures me that the most interesting theory at the moment states that there is only one, very busy, photon. Therefore, false by default, on the "some protons" clause...

This thing about 'evidence' needs a lot of thought. On my 30th birthday I went to a certain restaurant, I paid cash, I didnt know any of the other diners or staff. All the receipts or booking entries will have been destroyed by now. Is there any evidence that I was there? No. But I was. If a crime happened in that place and they appealed for witnesses to come forward, my 'evidence' would be an official part of the court case even though I could not scientifically prove I had been there. My evidence would be accepted on its credibility....if it tallied with other witnesses in key respects. This testimony style evidence is what our entire justice system is based on, and its how the Bible came to be written. Its not scientific evidence, but just because I cant prove I was in that restaurant it doesnt mean that I wasnt there.

but... If you had something to gain by giving that statement, such as a newspaper paying for your story, most people would agree that the statement would immediately seem less credible given the lack of supporting evidence.

Most organised religions' "Holy Books" really come down to a sort of "social engineering" manual, making sure that people would defer to the priests of that religion, and bring up their children in a way that wouldn't "rock the boat". Taboos against adultery were ways of controlling sexually transmitted diseases. Taboos against sleeping with close relatives were to prevent genetic mutation. There are many such examples, and when these books were written the general population were insufficiently educated to understand the reasoning behind these "rules of social etiquette", so needed a "because we tell you so" kind of framework, backed up by promises of eternal comfort and pleasure if they followed the rules, or eternal discomfort and pain if they broke them. Crude, but it seems to have worked so far

Good point. I've no problem with that. I just wanted to make the point that rules of scientific evidence do not and cannot apply to every situation, and whole social institutions, like the justice system, have to operate largely without them. (although forensic evidence is used when theyve got some of course).

At secondary school we did Religious Education for the first year or two; it was a Church of England school. The R.E. teacher was a Reverend, so he should have known what he was talking about. In his opinion, the Bible consists of 'laws, parables and myths, with very little fact'. If a C of E Reverend has trouble accepting the Bible as 'gospel truth', what chance have the rest of us got. Then there's the man who was Bishop of Durham a few years ago (and maybe still is). He publicly stated that he did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Makes you wonder how he got to be a Bishop.

I guess my point is that a lot of people take the various religious works a great deal too literally. The problem with all religious works is that the hand of man has been involved, regardless what their original source is claimed to be. Consequently we can have no idea what the wishes or intentions of God really are, and must just try to live the best kind of life that we can. So far, regardless of our religion, we seem to have made a right royal mess of things!

I've heard a similar theory.

It went along with something about how, in ever dna studied so far, every species has 4 genes in common with the dinosaurs.

But evolutionism was taught to you in Science class, right? Because it is a Scientific Theory. And creationism is not.
Where I went to school (in Sweden) we were taught evolutionism in Science class, and creationism is a class called World Religions, along with myths (theories?) of creation from all the largest religions of the world including, Hinduism, Islam and all kinds of "heathen" religions.
In my opinion, this makes a better ground for judgement than just showing students two parts of the story.

A right old mess yes. Here's my theory....15 percent of people are power crazed selfish superficial scumbags, 15 percent of people are good and always trying to do the right thing, and the 70 percent in the middle are drifting towards one end of the scale or the other depending on how the mood takes them, or how life is treating them that day. Tell you what though, its the 15percent scumbags who cause 90 percent of the mess.
My percentages are open to argument......?

Can you come up with just one person who falls into the "good" category?
And BTW, what is "the right thing", that they are trying to do?

"Good" and "Right" are both relative terms... I interpreted it as "15% of People think sufficiently like you do that you feel comfortable around them..."

Lets try it this way.... 15percent deliberately set out to, or are not bothered whether they, hurt other people in their pursuit of power. At the other end of the scale, 15 percent would always try to avoid causing damage or hurt in what they do, not always possible but they would try. You obviously cannot prove they have that motivation, but this is a philosophical discussion isnt it.

Well, a "Good" businessman, doing the "Right" thing for their business can cause untold damage and hurt... That's what I mean when I say the terms are relative...