8371
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Knee replacements
You just never know what might happen tomorrow, take your chances!
Messages
This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - LP
You just never know what might happen tomorrow, take your chances!
8372
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
Very well written LP
Sorry for the phone typing, I'm still aquiver from the news about Doc.
8373
The Sports Desk / Re: Australian Cricket - Crisis, What Crisis ??
A few batsmen should be having a hard time looking in the mirror right now....
Yes, we have a T20 mentality, this loss is a failure of stoicism!
Stop our top test cricketers playing the short form game, and order will be restored.
Do like India, pay them well enough that T20 is not a carrot!
8374
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
The only reason dark Matter and dark energy came into science is because in the 80's and 90's physicists discovered anomalies in the speed of rotation of certain galaxies and the rate of expansion of certain galaxies. In order to make the gravitational equations balance, they added in the required amount of matter and energy. We have been told for ages that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe doesn't change, yet we have seen a 20 fold increase in these things in our lifetime. And no one bats an eyelid. Neither dark energy or dark matter can be detected, seen, observed, analysed, measured or anything else. This dark energy and matter accounts for about 96% of the universe, and yet no one knows a thing about it.
No PaulP, that is a very rough and incorrect summary of events, you have misappropriated events and facts.
There were observations and data(evidence) of something going back to the 1930s long before hypothesis and eventually theory existed, it didn't require a belief, just someone asking a question based on the pre-existing evidence. The data from measurement and observation has since been refined by further and ongoing investigation. It wasn't a case of looking for the data after the idea was floated, the data already existed in the careful observations and measurements of greats like Zwicky and Rubin.
As you would know, the Standard Model had Einstein's cosmological constant removed as a mathematical absurdity. Once experimentation and observation provided the evidence it was scientists who determined the mathematics as derived from known physical constants was in fact correct(dark energy). Quantum Theory fell out of this field, and entanglement, to his death Einstein refused to believe in these things but even Einstein had allowed mysticism to replace his understanding because the things he denied have now been proven to ever higher degrees of accuracy and repeatability. Whatever device you use to type on this forum is one of many proofs!
Dark matter was labeled dark matter cynically, I think originally by Hubble, but it has always been observable in terms of it's indirect effects. The fact there was no explanation for it at the time did not demand a belief, because the data existed, the data wasn't invented by humans but it is labeled by humans.
Now some things like a Multiverse fall out of the models built on these theories, they are theories now because they have been tested to high levels of precision, they are typically beyond 5 sigma and modifications may still be detected to refine them further. Sometimes the models appear without coercion, at other times theoreticians may have to "tweak" fields in a Monte Carlo scenario to get a testable model. But the commonality in it all is that they must make a prediction that can be tested or observed or else it is not science, belief plays no part in it, and whatever these mathematical things may be, they exist in the math and data before a hypothesis or theory is formed!
8375
The Sports Desk / Re: Australian Cricket - Crisis, What Crisis ??
There’s a reason 11 blokes take bats to the game...
Buggar, just lost Stark 8/228??
No doubt, but there are reasons the top-end batsmen should not go out the way ours do!
Really this situation is a consequence of poor bowling and poor batting. In spite of our poor bowling late in the Indian 1st innings the media was all positive, but really India scored 50 more runs that they should have and that was very very bad.
I won't write about our top order batsmen 1st or 2nd innings, their dismissals are frequently self-explanatory.
8376
The Sports Desk / Re: Australian Cricket - Crisis, What Crisis ??
And in spite of everything, we are currently 7/226
We could’ve capitulated and been all out before lunch, at least they are trying...
Small wins, probably a bit like our footy club.
We do have the batting depth to deliver a result, but even so it would be valid to question why the result needs tail-enders to deliver it!
8377
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
The scientific method cannot explain everything, and some of the things it cannot explain are very worthwhile indeed. The only way scientists can be religious is by compartmentalization. You don't think dark matter or dark energy or the multiverse are just guess work, without a shred of proof ?
"I believe in the multiverse."
"Prove it."
" I can't."
"Then I cannot accept your theory."
"But it comes from science."
"That's ok then."
"I believe in angels."
"Prove it."
" I can't."
"Then I cannot accept your theory."
"It comes from spirituality."
"It's a load of BS."
That's what the chattering classes will tell you.
The scientific method explains nothing, the scientific method is the process used by science to gather knowledge and it's that knowledge which is used to describes things.
In terms of science versus faith and belief, you have confused physical sciences with theoretical sciences and again have made a statement based on the wrong understanding of a theory and hypothesis.
Things like Multiverse or Brane are mathematical constructs, but there is no evidence they exist outside of mathematics and mathematics can be used to describe or model many things real or not. But they make testable predictions that have physical effects if those constructs are real, and experiments have been done to see if those predictions bear fruit and I'm sure they will continue to be tested, but they are not a theory just because the are proposed by theorists.
The substance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is hypothesised but not it's existence, it's existence regardless of what it may be is supported by physical evidence, testing and observation. It's existence needs no belief, because it can be observed and detected no matter what label humanity gives it.
It's a key difference between these things and an angel or demon!
8378
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
I don't know the proper labels. Whatever Sheldrake calls himself, or whatever David Bohm calls himself. The labels are inconsequential. I'm not arguing labels, I'm arguing belief.
There is no science that includes a belief, scientists following the scientific method never talk in absolutes, they only talk in probabilities. There may be references to probability which come across as an idea and a belief but they are foibles of language, they are not "beliefs" like religious faith!
It's the critics of science that make, imply or infer commentary about absolutes, beliefs and blind faith. Religion cannot have anything else but blind faith, it's the foundation of religion. That doesn't mean scientists cannot be religious, they can have a faith, but having faith doesn't mean they accept the world without question or resort to mysticalities to explain it or that faith becomes part of their work! If it does cross over to their work, they are no longer using the scientific method, and that is a foible of their humanity not a foible of science.
8379
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
None of the points you raise apply to Sheldrake. Materialist scientists are scientists who believe in materialism, the most popular of which is Richard Dawkins.
So categorised by a 3rd party or self-declared, should you premise that claim with a "so called...."?
"Materialist scientists are scientists who believe in materialism" you won't find a more dogmatic definition.
What are the other scientists, or are there only materialistic scientists and "others"? When you give the label, you imply there is another category!
8380
The Sports Desk / Re: Australian Cricket - Crisis, What Crisis ??
In the first innings our bowlers let India off the hook late, that is a fail, and now we are chasing more than we should have been and making it look like twice as much!
8381
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
A very strange and frankly nonsensical comparison. Contemplating this or that and having a desire to be this or that is irrelevant. Sheldrake has the training, the working experience and all the chops to be as scientific a scientist as Dawkins. Hitler had a few dreams and sang a few hymns.
https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake
Not really, trained scientists are not oracles of knowledge, they are generally very specifically trained in detail in a narrow field of knowledge and should adhere to the scientific method within their field.
The first alarm bell you should raise is when a person identifying as a scientist raises ideas that are not testable while claiming they have scientific significance in the absence of proof or testable hypothesis.
A good example is the misappropriation of scientific credentials used by climate deniers to claim a biologist arguing against climate change proves there is no scientific consensus.
They are all free to have an opinion, but we know about opinions and we certainly know they are not all equal, some are much bigger than others!
But can you clarify one thing from your debate, define "materialistic science" from science, and what are the other sciences?
8382
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
Don't log on for a few days and come back to one hell of a read lol.
What I can add from personal experience; I think a lot of Kate's article resonates with me and I dare say a lot of women in the LGBTQI community. In saying that, I have no doubt that the same happens to men (albeit not quite in the same quantities) in regards to people thinking they can 'convert' a same sex attracted person.
What I do find ironic though is that a lot of the types of men who think it's ok to try and 'convert' a lesbian, are the exact same men who would freak the hell out and get aggressive if a gay man did the same to them.
But NM, if a gay male happened to approach me in error, before I rejected his oveture and without knowledge I wasn't gay, I wouldn't be justified in giving him a label and ask he be persecuted. If ten different individuals do the same, they are all a priori until they become recidivist.
An attractive human is probably an attractive human regardless of their sexuality, they will gain attention for many and varied reasons. The fact they do so repeatedly does not make those giving them attention guilty by default.
8383
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
He has a science background, not only in training, but having a father who was also a scientist, and having being surrounded by scientists his whole life. He is not trying to invalidate science, merely trying to get it to expand its horizons. He is not anti-science at all, he is anti scientific dogma, and therefore anti the current incarnation of materialist science.
Not really a guarantee of anything is it.
Hitler sang in the church choir and contemplated becoming a priest in his youth, as an adolescent it's documented he had a strong desired to become an artist!
8384
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
His work has nothing to do with invalidating science - his work has to do with simultaneously getting materialist science to understand its limits and also to get materialist science to accept other valid ways of looking at the world, that lie outside its comfort zone.
There are no different sciences, that's reads like an attempt to label science from a dogmatic perspective like all the different religions.
There is only science and the scientific method, there are different categories of knowledge which are built on science and the scientific method.
Discussion around different sciences is a limitation of language and human perception.
8385
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: SSM Plebiscite
There is a general societal failure to understand the meaning of hypothesis and theory in a scientific context. Claiming that a scientific hypothesis or theory is about faith or belief is an error made from a dogmatic perspective, hypothesis built on faith would be examples of pseudoscience unproven or proven to be untestable or unmeasurable.
In science a hypothesis only becomes theory when the probability of it being true is very high, always after measurement and testing.
In dogma and in general society theory is widely misused, an idea which would more correctly be described as a claim without supporting evidence is frequently labeled a theory. It requires some faith or belief.
Science is not a belief system, belief has no part of science, and confidence in a scientific hypothesis is not about faith. An assertion can be made in science(Asking a question), choosing the assertion is not faith or belief base, because by default you must then test all cases supporting and counter to your assertion. In science an hypothesis is nothing more than a starting point, a starting point that may be based on some previous evidence but not necessarily, and a valid result in science can be either negative and positive.
If it is not measurable, testable and repeatable then it is not science, it is then a matter of faith. Phenomena that cannot be measured and tested has a high probability of not being real.
New Age has a horrendous history of misappropriation of terms like science, hypothesis and proof because many ideas proselytized are deliberately fashioned to be impossible to prove or disprove. By definition you might claim you cannot prove a negative result, in this regard those New Age ideas are nothing more than philosophical toys. Language gymnastics, not real science. We conduct this debate here in English, in other languages the terms might not even exists in which we can frame some of these pseudoscience issues, yet science's hypothesis, measurement and testing spans any language, the scientific method is not dependent on belief, faith, perspective or language.