₦airaland Forum

Science is ultimately immoral. So, ultimately, you cannot have science and morality.

Reality11's post is not showing...

..testing...

Here is a link to the BBC's (British Broadcasting Corporation) own assessment of its rainfall prediction performance.

Even its own massaged figures don't go above 60 PER CENT, and bobble around 50 PER CENT.

Sunshine figures are EVEN WORSE.

This means that when they forecast rain or sunshine, it is almost as likely that there will be no rain or sunshine!

Notice the wording of the excuse for rainfall:

It is difficult to forecast rainfall at a pinpoint location, therefore the target for this element is not as high as for others. For example, one location may have rain and a location a mile away may remain dry.

Notice that this is talking about the TARGET, i.e the bar has been lowered, and they are not required to perform as well as, say, for temperature predictions. The point is the ETS (Equitable Threat Score) is corrected for the randomness -- that is why it is called equitable. If anything, it biases towards an overestimate of the performance. See this paper.

As a result, the random hits are overestimated and the ETS becomes biased and not indicative of model skills.

But the BBC does not mention that the bias from its "excuse" is in their favour. A casual reader may think that it explains the poor results!

Reality11:
Am not talking about predicting rain or weather forecast

The point is that you should be!

You invoke science, which claims to "know" that it has "solved" or "unraveled" the mechanism of a phenomenon by using a model of the mechanism to make predictions.

I asked you in an earlier post.

sinequanon:
OK, now tell us HOW you know or can tell that "wow, water cycle, go and read on it" has unraveled "the mechanism behind rain".

I was expecting anyone who knows the basics of science to CLAIM that the mechanism has been modeled and TESTED, (i.e predictions made using the model, and seen to be overwhelmingly correct.)

OK, at least you have now described a model in better detail than just saying "water cycle".

Reality11:
But the Procedure and mechanisms on how water evaporates from the surface of the earth, rises into the atmosphere, cools and condenses into rain or snow in clouds, and falls again to the surface as precipitation.

You have NOT explained why so many predictions using this mechanism fail.

(And it is a good job for you that I picked "rain" as an example, because the failure rate with "earthquake" or "disease" is more).

All you have done is come up with an alternative explanation to "deity" WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY YOU THINK YOUR NEW EXPLANATION IS BETTER. What you have done so far is no different from a religious person picking his faith over other faiths. In this case, your gods are the books and scientists you are quoting without questioning.

Reality11:
Natural phenomenon such as rain, storm, earthquake, flood, diseases... are mysteries to the primitive men they attributed to the works of deities. These are later solved as mans knowledge and understanding of the universe increases.

OK, it appears that the OP was not able to go much further than simply repeating what he has been told, and has abandoned the thread.

I will proceed without him/her.

Primitive man was able to predict the weather. They knew of the tides and seasons. the cycles of the Moon and the Sun. They knew when to plant their crops in relation to the seasons, when the rains were due, etc. In fact, they knew about the importance of forest for the rivers. (More recently, my own great grandparents knew that clearing forest would cause the rivers to dry up, long before science was beginning to acknowledge the connection.)

Scientists are fond of inventing and exaggerating the ignorance of "primitive" man, who could probably predict the imminent weather better than the average person today.

Have we "unraveled the mechanism of rain" today? The performance of our weather forecasts show that we are far from it. Even with our "superior" satellite equipment, capable of tracking weather systems across the globe, scientists still frequently get weather predictions wrong. Right now, in the UK, the weather forecasts are very hit and miss. Most correct predictions are a result of early spotting of existing weather systems,and tracking their movement, rather than a result of anticipating their formation using science.

So, in regards to rain, humans are doing much of what they have always done. Forecasts of more than a few hours can be very unreliable. So the claim that we have unraveled the mechanism of "rain" is based on myth and spin.

We could look at any of the other topics the OP mentioned, such as advancement in medicine. It is a similar story. But you need at least a basic understanding of the issues to be able to spot all the spin coming from the science lobby.

I am not religious, myself, but that is no reason to spin and exaggerate scientific "accomplishments".

hopefulLandlord:
What are those hoops you're talking about? last I checked I can access most scientific papers straight from the internet

I suggest that you go back and read carefully, because you are losing track of our discussion. I said, "unless you use the 'scientific methods' personally, your belief is based on faith in scientists and humanity." You replied, "scientific methods are open to everyone and everyone gets the same results if they do the same thing".

Access to a scientific paper is not personal application of scientific method. It is access to a report about what someone else says they did.

As I said, all you have is FAITH in the method, the system and the people in the system, to report honestly and competently. So do religious folk reading their bible.

It is generally highly impractical for you to be able to check the facts. You can only read reports (papers). That is not checking the facts.

hopefulLandlord:
...but it's as close to perfection as we can get

There's that "we" again. You almost sound as if you have been programmed. What you have written is pure unsubstantiated mantra.

hopefulLandlord:
Scientists in Saudi Arabia, Utah and Venezuela have the same theories. We don't have South African science and Chinese science. Scientific theories are correct everywhere.

Oh dear! I recognize all this stuff you are repeating without really thinking about it.

Scientific theories are being disputed all over the place.

You are repeating dumbed down soundbites. Scientific theories can be "current" or "predominant". "Correct" is the dumbed down term, which has led you to believe in a non-existent uniformity of scientific opinion.

hopefulLandlord:
science is still the best way...

Forgive me if I skip the mantra parts of you posts, in future. Anyone can keep repeating that their way is the best way. it's called religion.

hopefulLandlord:
Everything is opinion or we might descend into solipsism, science has changed and shifted opinions of the " goddidit" variety and that's the point

The reverse is also true. So you have no point.

And you have missed the point, which was explaining in what way natural phenomenon, e.g "rain", has been "solved".

hopefulLandlord:
OP must be using it in his own field if it involves empiricism

I am not after guesswork about the OP.

I have asked the OP specific questions, which he should be able to answer if his belief is based on "scientific method".

hopefulLandlord:
scientific methods are open to everyone and everyone gets the same results if they do the same thing.

You are repeating layers of mantra that you may not have bothered to scrutinize.

First of all, you would have to jump through so many hoops to "qualify" to be anywhere near testing many modern scientific theories, that calling the field "open" is misleading and bordering on the ridiculous. If you did "qualify", you would be placed to test only a narrow subset of theories, most likely only in one particular field. It is more accurate to say that modern science is a closed activity.

Secondly, it is explicitly understood in physics (specifically from quantum theory) that doing the "same thing" does NOT lead to the "same outcome".

hopefulLandlord:
its open to corrections and modifications. there's also peer review to prevent someone lording it over science

The normal spiel. Peer review also provides the infrastructure for cartels. It creates a hierarchy which puts power into the hands of relatively few individuals in the multitude of fields and topics that comprise "science".

hopefulLandlord:
I (want to) believe OP understands scientific methods or at least the rudimentary forms of it
The shift usually favour the non "god is behind it" view and that's (probably) OP's point

The point was to explain what constitutes natural phenomena like rain being "solved". What you have written above, and shifting public opinion, explains nothing about that.

hopefulLandlord:
Trust in scientific methods, I don't want a situation where faith gets used in an equivocating or false equivalence manner

Unless you use the "scientific methods" personally, your belief is based on faith in scientists and humanity.

You would also have to understand the scientific method, be able to explain how it is being applied, how the application would explain the natural phenomenon in question, and how you assess the validity of the application or model.

hopefulLandlord:
Truth is beside the point though or we might descend into solipsism

the point is that sicknesses at some point were attributed to the divine or supernatural entities and even till today there are people that still attribute certain sicknesses to divine powers

whether they're right or the position they held was the truth is beside the point here

So your point is that opinions have shifted. So what?

hopefulLandlord:
OP was most likely speaking generally of the increase in knowledge of humanity as a whole not his specifically. so the best scientists in meteorological or geographical field might explain it fairly easily and wouldn't attribute things like that to gods like the average person in the deep jungles of Africa would

So, what more is it than faith in scientists? That is what I am asking.

hopefulLandlord:
If you do go with sicknesses I think its pretty obvious that advancements in Medicine has killed many gods over the years and people attribute sicknesses to gods a lot less than they do in the past

"Killed many gods" is rhetorical. We have to be precise. Are you suggesting that "truth" is a consensus of every tom, dick and harry?

hopefulLandlord:
But why did you pick rain? you went for the low hanging one which you feel the OP might be unable to explain on his own, clever

why not try that of diseases? that evens the playing field and I think OP can easily defend that and counter the counterarguments you might bring forth

(Actually, I thought rain was the simplest! That is why I chose it. But I am happy to let the OP choose whichever of the natural phenomena he/she listed.)

If the OP can't explain it, how can he believe it? What is the belief based on? He should only have included those things he can explain.

hopefulLandlord:
what is your point?

Your belief that "the mechanism of rain has been unraveled" is based on your FAITH in something very vague.

You have been unable to explain where your conviction is coming from, or why your conviction is any better than that of someone who believes rain is a deity getting angry, or the result of a rain dance.

Read your replies. They are all evasive.

(ha ha! You again. I've just realized...)

Reality11:
Wow, serious The mechanism behind rain?
Water cycle go and read on it.

So, the limit of your understanding is "water cycle".

OK, now tell us HOW you know or can tell that "wow, water cycle, go and read on it" has unraveled "the mechanism behind rain".

Reality11:
We...

Which part did you "unravel"?

Reality11:
...has...

"we has"?

I am guessing that you wanted to say who, but then went for the vague "we", and forgot to change the conjugation.

Reality11:
...unravel the mechanism behind them, they are natural procedures and not some kind of phenomenon controlled by sky supermen with magical powers.

Now we no longer incorporate god for its occurrence.

Let us take "rain".

Exactly how do you know or tell the mechanism has been "unraveled". Let's start there.

Reality11:
Earthquake, flooding, diseases...

Were once thought to be caused by when some deities are provoke but now we don't attribute these to them

So, "...'we' don't attribute these to them..." means "solved"?

uh-oh, I've got a feeling this is going to be a whole waste of my time.

Reality11:
Natural phenomenon such as rain, storm, earthquake, flood, diseases... are mysteries to the primitive men they attributed to the works of deities. These are later solved as mans knowledge and understanding of the universe increases.

Can you pick one of the listed "natural phenomena" and describe how it has been "solved".

Gggg102:
I get the point. although I'm sure we are a bit knowledgeable about today's pink smoke that we could know when something that breaks universal laws happens.

On the contrary, though. Science is currently going through the worst pink smoke ever, with quantum experiments. Fundamental concepts of consistency and repeatability have been thrown into disarray. In quantum theory, an event A can HAPPEN and NOT HAPPEN, AT THE SAME TIME! This throws into confusion all our concepts of reality. That is why they proposed multiverse theories to try to rescue consistency and say that A happened in one universe but not in another. But the multiverse theory is all very vague speculation on a par with astrology!

Gggg102:
they would be justified.
however, you can't compare blasting pink smoke to realigning stars. realigning stars is not possible.

Let's not play games!

I am sure that you get the point!

The primitive folk would equally have thought that writing in the sky with pink smoke is "not possible".

And what if the, as yet undiscovered, nature of dark matter means that it IS possible to shift space around on a cosmic scale? General relativity has already shown that what we used to think of as "alignment" can actually curve in the presence of matter. There's already space contraction and time dilation in relativity and entanglement in quantum physics, without a model to explain their combinations. These things are today's "pink smoke".

However, there is nothing unusual in what you are saying. History and archaeology have recorded the tendency of mankind to worship what it cannot understand. Modern Western science, with all its flaws, is a move away from that.

It is all relative. I was once sitting on a train opposite a hippie. He picked a spider off the floor and dangled it in the air and addressed nobody in particular, "you, know", he said, "to him, we are god" (referring to the spider). That was years ago, and I still recall what he meant. Imagine a creepy-crawly that, for example, lives its life under four stones in some untouched woodland. It may think of its "universe", the woodland (if not just a few trees and rocks) as VAST. It knows nothing of the mountains, the deserts and the oceans, and maybe nothing of man and his world. All those things are at best vague shadows or imaginings in his distant vastness, much like our dark matter (a scientifically estimated 85 per cent of "OUR universe" ). Are we god because we can mow down the woodland or plant trees in a straight rows?

And, if you believe in evolution, humans were supposed to have evolved from unicellular organisms. What was our "universe" then?

What else has evolved out there? Just because our solar system seems isolated, like that creepy-crawly in a woodland, does not mean some other intelligence may not "pass by", much as we would through a woodland. It could be something we can't even see, consisting of dark matter, for example, and of "huge size" with an intelligence that makes aligning the stars like a quick game of marbles. That doesn't make it god. That only demonstrates the limit of our own human perceptions and abilities. In a vast universe, maybe we are just like creepy-crawlies living among a few rocks called the planets of the solar system.

Gggg102:
what else could it be?

You still sound as if you are hedging your bets!

Anyway, I hope we have settled the definition of the experiment and there won't be any significant adjustments to it.

All I think we have so far is an entity, somewhat more "powerful" than we expect.

Let's do a thought experiment...

A scientist discovers the language of a primitive tribe of people living in isolation in a forest. The scientist arranges for a fleet of fighter jets to fly over this isolated forest, blasting out a message in pink and green smoke that it is a message from god. The primitive people have never seen a bicycle before, let alone any powered technology like a fighter jet. Are they justified in thinking that the message is a message from god?

Gggg102:
in recap,

god realigns the stars to give specific description of himself and specific information about what he wants in major languages that are understandable without middle men. this would be seen all over the world and would be recordable by anyone.
the message is written one language after another to ensure uniformity all over the world.

It's OK, I am not trying to be obtuse. I just don't want LARGE gaps in the description.

So, say we predicted for September 1st, the position of thousands of stars in the sky, but when we look out that day, the stars are way out of position, and they spell out in all the languages you have specified, "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM GOD TO MAN. I WANT YOU ALL TO BE GOOD, ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH AND TO END VIOLENCE." And the resolution of the letters is at least as good as the resolution of the words on a computer screen for anyone to read.

So, I am going with the spirit of what you are saying ( if you don't mind the pun).

But does it actually mean evidence of god?

Gggg102:
by major languages I mean: English, French, Spanish, Swahili, Chinese, Hausa,...
and there would be no need for astrologers to interpret anything. astronomers would just look at it and read it like they read books. it could even be visible in the night sky so that common people would read it also.

Is that it? Is your experiment defined? Or are you going to add more later.

(Note: I am not asking anything that would not be required in a scientific experiment. You wouldn't be supposed/able to add extra rules and to reject results in a real scientific experiment.)

Gggg102:
I am ...I created this universe and you all. this are my wishes for you to follow.... you should serve me this way....
written in all major languages.

realigning the stars alone is good evidence on its own. spelling out a message with them would be undeniable.

Let me show you why you need to be precise.

An astrologer could have stepped forward and claimed that, yes, god has aligned the stars and written a message written in an ancient "major language" which too many of us have forgotten, and it says [consults chart..] "blah, blah, blah.." (ehm.. face north-east three times a day, call my name, cross your heart and declare yourself my humble servant.) In fact, the astronomer claims that all the really major languages of god have died out.. god still writes in them, but we have forgotten them..

Then you would start adjusting your experiment (shifting the goalposts) because you have not been precise enough. Then you'd probably try to blame me for exploiting the gaps in your experiment.

But, I am giving you the opportunity in advance to be more specific..

Gggg102:
lemme just put realigning the stars to spell his name and his preferred religion and what he wants from man.

Why are you prevaricating, lol. I don't want you to "just put" something, that you can later "adjust" or deny.

I want a reasonable example. That would state the name that would appear in the sky, the name of the religion, and the orders, and the language/languages they are written in.

I don't mind hypothetical data, but I don't want something that can shift dramatically. For example, evidence of "what he wants from man" can be rejected on the grounds that it is "only one sentence" and you can claim you were expecting a poem or essay. So, for that reason, I would like, at least, hypothetical data to work with.

Gggg102:
if god broke the laws of science in presence of all. e.g a person walking on water unaided. an amputee regrowing limbs, realigning the stars to spell his name and preferred religion. causing all the presidential buildings in the world to levitate, just any impossible thing done under strict observation.

Overload, my friend, which is equally vague. All I need is a clear experiment. Not something that will morph and expand after each test.

Which one are you talking about, or is your experiment all of them? If it is all, have you included everything required for your test in your above post?

Gggg102:
something that's not ambiguous.
something undeniable. most likely an act of god himself or through a believer.
e. g the Christian god. in the old testament, he was extremely active. only a mad man would deny his existence. other gods are like this also, the Greek gods, Egyptian gods,... they were all extremely active according to their tales.

That wouldn't pass for science. If you did a science experiment to prove the existence of an electron, for example, you'd have to be very precise. You'd have to measure its mass, energy, charge etc.

Please design and describe a specific experiment that tests for god. i.e pick one of your undeniable, unambiguous indicators and create a scientific experiment with it. I am curious.

Gggg102:
...unless someone provides proof...

Example of what would "prove" that god exists?

frank317:
I have never seen any supernatural being... People have made claims they can't substantiate.

I have no opinion about this really... All i know is if anyone tells me he saw one, he will have to come op with undoubtable stories other wise I will dismiss it.

I am somewhat a disbeliever though... I said somewhat because that's is so much about the universe that we don't know... People call unknown things supernatural

Myself, I think the word "supernatural" is smoke and mirrors.

How do would you scientifically "show" something is supernatural? It seems to be a contradiction in terms. "Showing" anything in science, at once makes it repeatable/reproducible/consistent/controllable rendering it not supernatural. So, asking for proof of the supernatural would be disingenuous.

By its very nature science is control freakery. It only recognizes things that can be controlled or things that can be explained by controllable phenomena. That doesn't mean that other things do not exist. It only means that science, by its very definition, is blind to them.

frank317:
Creator of the universe who created us to love and worship him

Cool.

What about any supernatural being, whatsoever? Are you a "disbeliever" in that?

frank317:
This is the meaning of atheism that I adhere to...

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This assumes that the term "god" makes some kind of sense.

So, what do you understand by the term "god"?

frank317:
Atheism is not knowing God does not exist.. Or is that what atheism is to u.

Atheists are people who dismiss the idea of God because it makes no sense to them.

Is the above definition what agnosticism means?

Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

Because of this impossibility, atheists dismiss the idea of God because they know no one knows.

There are indeed broad and narrow definitions.

The narrowest definition defines atheism as the belief that no deities exist. I avoid the term in relation to myself. I just say that I do not "believe in" (i.e worship) god/gods. In terms of existence, I believe that deities/gods exist, in that they are supernatural beings worshiped by their followers. I am just not one of those followers.

The debate is intellectually very challenging, and is dealt with by very eloquent philosophers, so, yes, one has to be very careful and precise in using terms and constructing an argument.

Your definition of atheism actually seems a bit different from the normal spectrum of definitions I have come across, and there seems to be a little ambiguity, imo.

You have the argument that the term "god" makes no sense (cannot be conceptualized at all), and the position that argues from lack of experience (e.g witnessing an act of creation of the universe). If the term "god" makes no sense, the question of witnessing god makes no sense. You wouldn't know what you are witnessing, or how to witness it. On the other hand, if witnessing god demonstrates existence, then the term must make sense. So, can you clarify where you stand?

frank317:
"Know" is just a word... No need stressing so much on it. Atheist actually dismiss the idea of God or gods because this idea have been shown to be unreasonable.
Knowing that God does not exist in the way u mean is is to much for any human to handle.
As long as u reject the idea of a Good or gods because it does not make sense to u, u are an atheist.
No one has really claimed he is perfectly sure God does not exists simply because we were all born to meet the universe and the cause seem to be beyond us.
But all God idea can be dismissed simply because they are unreasonable... This is what atheist actually KNOW

Semantically, that is agnosticism, not atheism.

That, for example, is why "leading atheist", Richard Dawkins says that he is agnostic, not an atheist.

Dalamama:
The sun exist regardless of what ANY human says about it...

...

Dalamama:
...At least any body that has eyes, is lucid and not under the influence of any thing can see it or feel it's heat.

...then the inevitable qualifications! You rule out any dissenting opinion. Anyone can do that:

"God exist regardless of what any human says about it..At least anybody that is good, has spiritual awareness and is not under the influence of any bad spirit can know him."

For me, it is ok not believing in a god. I don't believe in god. But I know that doesn't mean that science has some inherent privileged position. In fact science is just another religion. Most people don't know enough about the basis of science to understand that it is just a religion.

And what if we turn the clock back to some time and place where it would have seemed sensible to say...

"The Earth is flat regardless of what any human says about it. At least anybody that has eyes, is lucid and not under the influence of any thing can see it and understand it."

Dalamama:
You have nothing to back up your claim. It's empty. An opinion of an unknown person on rationalwiki without any reference isn't something to be taken seriously.

Any way unequivocal evidence is very well admitted and used in science because recently a group of about 600 scientist came out and declared that unequivocal evidence shows that climate change is man made.

https://phys.org/news/2013-10-unequivocal-evidence-global-man-made.html

ok, you've just shot yourself in the foot. I rest my case.