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

Sorry 'scientific experiments' should read 'scientific theories'.

Gonna wrap up pedro and fanny's responses together here:

Pedro:
"The point being that we could never recreate the exact conditions "
Why not? It might take a lot of time and effort but the variables involved are finite, if rather large. It wouldn't be impossible, just very very difficult.

"it wouldn't be conclusive."
I'm not sure any experiment is conclusive. This doesn't render it invalid.

Fanny:
"given that all scientific experiments are potentially falsifiable"
Not sure what that has to do with it? We're only talking about repeating the event, not proving the cause conclusively ()

"Of course the literal event of the dinosaurs being wiped out isn't repeatable as time travel hasn't yet been invented"
Ah, I wasn't aware we were restricting ourselves to current technology only.
It is possible that time traval will be discovered.
All though time travel is a bit of a red herring since we couldn;t go back to the same time and repeat it because then we would change the original event which means our experiment would be invalid because we wouldn;t be repeating what had actually happened.
It is equally possible that a method to clone universes in which we can perform our experiments will be discovered. This would be a better 'exact' experiment, more ecollogically valid because we would be controlling more variables and thus have less confounding ones to potentially invalidate the results.

The only thing preventing human beings from repeating the extinction of the dinosaurs, complete with appropriate age of universe, dinosaur population etc, is our technology. And possibly our ethics, but I ain't so sure of that

I guess the issue of repeatability comes down to where you draw the line. I mean I could repeat an experiment you did using the same materials and so forth, but then there would be a) a difference in time and b) a difference in researcher.

Although I guess if we could clone universes then we could have a clone you experimenting at the same time as this you. That's probably the nearest we could get.

Ok, we can't recreate the exact conditions at the moment .


But this doesn't stop us using scientific methods to study it, does it?

Not sure that deserves a roll eyes comment.

"But this doesn't stop us using scientific methods to study it, does it?"

I thought I was arguing that this is precisely what it does allow, ie we can study it using the scientific method.

It didn't deserve the rolleyes thingy. Not without a below it anyway.

<<"But this doesn't stop us using scientific methods to study it, does it?"

I thought I was arguing that this is precisely what it does allow, ie we can study it using the scientific method.>>

I'm confused here. Does this mean that
a) we can study it now, scientifically
b) we can't

If it's a)then the whole point being that the scientific method is not merely about repeatable experimentation.

Alright, alright, it seems as if everybody has got thoroughly confused here, let's take a quick vote.

All those who were tryin got argue in favour of the methods of science say 'yea'

All those who were trying to argue for the limitations of science say 'nay' or 'neigh' or whatever.

All those who don't understand any more say 'eh?'

All those who were trying to argue that the fallability of science leaves room for religion to explain things that science can't, say 'weathampstead'.

And can you all please type your answers into this thread so that we can share them.

Thank you.

I'll say - eh?

As in, you cannot either prove nor disprove gods existing.

Though it might also be a question of *where* they actually exist. In people's minds, in the real world, or somewhere else?

I personally think that all gods are human creations. No problem there - I can even see the use for them.

As such, I can see gods being a practical necessity for some people, much like how I decide what to have for breakfast. What *caused* me to choose tomatoes on toast rather than cornflakes? So maybe the Breakfast God helped me decide? That sort of thing. But for others their choices are much more serious and personal ... which is also okey-dokey by me. As long as their beliefs don't extend to politics and how the world is being run. As long as I don't have to personally live by someone else's beliefs. That's where I draw the line.

I sure don't want a bunch of whacko fundamentalists telling me how to live my life, and I reckon most other people wouldn't like this either.

To sum up, whatever anyone wants to believe is quite fine by me, just keep it at home where it belongs.

az

"As long as their beliefs don't extend to politics and how the world is being run. As long as I don't have to personally live by someone else's beliefs. That's where I draw the line.

I sure don't want a bunch of whacko fundamentalists telling me how to live my life, and I reckon most other people wouldn't like this either.

To sum up, whatever anyone wants to believe is quite fine by me, just keep it at home where it belongs."

I believe that the above lines only states the obvious. But the question still exists neverthless, to be discussed.

About the confusion with sciences versus religion versus limits. I will again pledge the reading of an author i already put on this conversation before.

I vote yeah: science has no known limits, science is any sentients life form tool to evolve.

Just one more thing. Science method is something with dynamic rules. But this rules move around some small laws of concepts that makes science easyer to evolve. One of the major laws would be that in order to create a logical concept you must limit your universe, your variables. That way you can have small error values when trying to develop any theory. That way we can make cars, plains, create vaccines, and anything we can imagine and create. So, even if science is falsible, the margin of error may be reduced to nearly 0% or 0,00000009%.

Time travel: quite cool concept. I like the idea of stephen hawking that we can only travel to the future and never to the past (he knows much more than me about complex advanced physics so i will believe in him until another comes with better facts or ideas- and thats a very good thing in pure science: knowledge is dynamic, any theory can be proved wrong or false, but until no one puts forward any better, you must believe in the one you are using as basis for something, if not prove why not).

One more last thing: any kind of scientif or logical discussion need research, this means: try to find out about what are you trying to develop or discuss before you do it, cause there may be people who already knows better than you about the subject or have very good points of view.

OK, I'll take the hint and shut up for a bit - although I think there is a bit of confusion in my discussions with pedro which I may try and iron out with a post later.

Anyway, what about an option for those of us who think that if there is a deity of some descript (taking into account az's permutations on the concept as well) then there is no reason to suppose that they are outside the remit of science and investigation?

<> (Ictoan)

Hmmm...I don't actually care if my personal 'god' concept is provable by science or, really, by anyone at all. It's mine, and I'm quite happy with it. On the other hand, I don't go about trying to impose this on others in any way whatsoever. If I did choose to do so I would expect to be asked for some sort of PROOF, scientific or otherwise. And there would be absolutely no proof whatsoever - it's simply a personal belief I have.

I can happily live with that. I've never understood why other people holding personal beliefs can't just do the same.

az

<> (Kandarian)

No kidding? Really?

Of course it's bl**dy obvious. It's also very sensible.

I don't understand why religious beliefs have to be either proved or otherwise ... they're just beliefs, right?

Next I'll be told that I have to prove why I love Nog or my cats - stuff and nonsense.

The ONLY reason we care about people's religious beliefs is because they are being imposed upon societies that don't actually agree with them.

az

'Anyway, what about an option for those of us who think that if there is a deity of some descript (taking into account az's permutations on the concept as well) then there is no reason to suppose that they are outside the remit of science and investigation?'

Yes well that is more or less what I am after. Let me try and pull a few threads together that connect up towards my original idea. If Az, or anyone else, wants to believe that the whole universe was vomited up by Trevor the Great God of Mushrooms, or that Earth was the last bit of a failed painting by an eternal alien demi-god after he burned the rest in a large plastic tin or whatever else, needless to say, that's fine. You are entirely entitled to believe whatever you want to without proof as long as you don't expect anyone else to believe or act upon it without proof, although that doesn't mean to say that other people can't join in if they want.

However, I am personally seeking to convince myself one way or another, on the strength of reasoned, rational arguments, whether or not any sort of God exists. I invite anyone to offer their theories, one way or the other, and see if they stand up to any scrutiny that anyone in this thread cares, within reason, to offer. That's my personal position.

<>

What the hell are you on about? You haven't listened to a thing I've said, have you?

What a waste of time . . .

az

Sorry Az, maybe I've been unclear. Alright, I clearly have been unclear. I'm not suggesting that what you believe in is in any way outlandish or ludicrous and I've only picked on you because you delcared yourself to have a belief that you were quite happy to say did not have a rational basis (as I understand what you were saying). My point is, as I think you yourself were saying, anyone is, in my view, entirely welcome to believe anything they want and not make the remotest attempt to justify it as long as they don't attempt to enforce it upon others. Am I getting any closer to clarity?

Hey I love this thread. To think I once called it 'a waste of time'. Shame on me!

What I keep thinking about is that science is predicated on probability rather than absolutism. And actually it is TRUTH and ABSOLUTISM, that get's my goat. (apologies for shouting), So when religion appears to declare the truth, when all it's based on is a few ancient texts written by goodness how many people, in how many different times and places, no matter how beautifully, I'm not going to buy it, no matter how much I enjoy the literature itself. I'll admit I'm a metaphor addict. And it's the recent rise of literalist fundementalists in many religions, that turns me off.

Roughly what I think is that science is really the best tool we have for explaining the way the physical world functions. And science, can actually take us quite close to certain Eastern religions/philosophies, like Taoism and Buddhism anyway. Eg via quantum physics.

But as for explaining one's existential feeling position as human being, it's miles away from the Abrahamic religions. And so we have the arts and more recently psychoanalysis to do that for us. Well for us intellectuals anyway.

Is there a sense in which people (myself included) seek truth and absolutism when in fact neither science or religion are in a position to offer them (and me) any such thing? We want to be told exactly what happened when the world began, precisely how it works and, if at all possible, a sell by date, and in reality, we are simply asking too much?

>>However, I am personally seeking to convince myself one way or another, on the strength of reasoned, rational arguments, whether or not any sort of God exists<< benjamin

I think you might be onto a loser here benjamin, in the way you've phrased it. Conviction requires certainty. And I reckon that's impossible as the universe is built on uncertainty. (See theories of Heisenberg in terms of science); But you could also acquire certainty through blind dumb faith, it's just you don't seem to be that sort of person to me.

"All those who were trying to argue that the fallability of science leaves room for religion to explain things that science can't, say 'weathampstead'"
What on earth is 'weathampstead'?

Religion doesn't explain anything, it demands that you accept it's teachings without question (at least the Christian religion does).

>"All those who were trying to argue that the fallability of science leaves room for religion to explain things that science can't, say 'weathampstead'"
What on earth is 'weathampstead'?<

I think it might be connected with humour - just a hunch.