"THIS is my Letter to the World!"

On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 06:55:05PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


There is rarely any disagreement about scientific claims ...


What planet do you live on, again?

Toronto.

Show me where all the controversy is, and I'll show you a place where
pseudo-scientists are attacking ideas they don't like. But in general
there isn't a whole lot of verifcation and fact-checking being done.
Quite a bit of crap is slipping through, and has been doing so for
quite a long time.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 07:56:51PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 06:55:05PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


There is rarely any disagreement about scientific claims ...


What planet do you live on, again?

Toronto.


That explains a lot. Perhaps some day someone will explain to you
that 'Toronto' is not a world unto itself.

Enough Torontonians think the Universe revolves around it to make it
trve.

Show me where all the controversy is, and I'll show you a place where
pseudo-scientists are attacking ideas they don't like. But in general
there isn't a whole lot of verifcation and fact-checking being done.
Quite a bit of crap is slipping through, and has been doing so for
quite a long time.


Pick any major scientific discovery and look at the reaction of
scientific orthodoxy when it was discovered.

That's a different ball of wax than what I was making reference to. I
wasn't referring to major historical discoveries, I was referring to the
contemporary field of science; the incremental advance of established
fields of study. When an Andrew Wakefield is caught, it is a rare
occurrence. Similarly with applied science as with Charles Smith, a
local forensic pathologist. The vast majority of academic science
fraud passes without comment because there's virtually no-one doing
any fact-checking. I'd suggest it's quite systemic, moreso in the
soft-science fields like psychology, sociology, or political science
where it's much easier to fudge the numbers, if there even are any to
begin with. The main problem is that there are relatively few real
scientists in comparison to the numbers of non-scientists.

The challenge of existing scientific orthodoxy is much less common,
and in such situations we find people behaving as they do in
discussions on ... Usenet. That is, they change the subject, ignore
the data, attack the person who has done the research, incite mobs,
you know - all the usual non-scientific political maneuvering that
people use to avoid changing their thinking in the face of the
evidence requiring that they do so. But at that point the scientific
establishment in question has abandoned the principles of scientific
inquiry for political reasons. Nothing to do with actual science --
just politics.

Once on hearing of the idea of Science Courts[1] in a Robin Hanson
paper[2] it sounded like a really good idea, never mind the idea of
applying reputation capital to scientific claims. But as I've now
seen first-hand and up-close how courts have evolved to be almost
exclusively political tools of the state, the idea of entrusting
science to such an entity is foolish. This theme is treated early on
in Nancy Kress' novel "Beggars and Choosers". The basic principles
are sound, but the technology of deceit and distortion, for lack of a
better phrase, is far in advance of our ability to curb it. So,
unless some way can be found to make courts honest, some other
solution will need to be found. I doubt that any reputation capital
scheme can be constructed that is also immune to fraud, in much the
same way as it seems impossible to harden the financial sector
against fraud and abuse.

I'm sure you understand this much about the way institutions are
corrupted by politics.

[1] Kantrowiz, A., The Science Court, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 1977, p.43-50
[2] Hanson, Robin, Could Gambling Save Science (Encouraging an honest
consensus), Proc. Eighth Intl. Conf. on Risk and Gambling, London,
July 1990



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 03:47:06AM +0000, Fred Hall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote on 1/1/2012 in :

On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 11:23:02PM +0000, Fred Hall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote on 1/1/2012 in :

On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 02:56:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:


Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they.


People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want
science subordinate to religion,


No. There are people who want to use science to invalidate religion,
too.

Well I know that, duh.

The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally
incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we
don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion.


That's only part of the issue. The entire purpose of the two is
different (except to those people who abuse them).

Religion isn't at all comparable to science anyhow. Within
Christianity alone there are several distinct ontological levels
ranging from simple-minded biblical literalism to the plutocrats in
the Vatican who go about the work of managing the politics of the
faith. At least among real scientists, everyone is agreed on what
science is and how it should be done. Religionists can't even speak
about the epistemology of their faith without revealing the game to
outsiders.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

********

I take that to mean you've run out of rhetorical road.

Is that what it means when you post "********" ?

No, when I use that term it is a much simpler rhetorical device. As
in, "This planet is such a ********". If you're merely using the word
in copycat fashion then you're in a much simpler rhetorical regime.



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

"Uncle Steve" wrote in message
...
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 10:42:12AM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"Robert Collins" wrote in message
...
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:


Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they.

People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want
science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use
science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the
'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats.


Why not let logic resolve the two into one system of understanding?

Because the structure of common organized religion doesn't allow
rational thinking about natural phenomenon.


But I was talking about religious philosophy. I showed how the two
can be logically resolved into a single system, which I believe
Complexity Science to be. You haven't shown why my logic
is incorrect. It is correct, in fact.


It requires that children
be brainwashed so their habits of thought are set in the ways of
magical thinking. They have the doctrines of fate, the doctrine of
suffering, the mystics, and much more -- all of which is barbaric and
anti-intellectual at best.


Intellectual dishonesty is utterly opposed to science and the real
world.

The only intellectual dishonesty I see in this debate is using
the simple stories of organized religion to refute religious philosophy.
Those simple stories are meant for the desperate masses that have
little or no education, and badly need hope and comfort.

It's no different than deciding modern science is hooey based only
on the math and science taught in the second grade.


Recapitulating religion and religious doctrines in other terms
won't help either.


I quote direct from the source. Nothing false about it.




Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.


Jonathan

"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?




Whose religion are you trying to reconcile with science?


My source is the Catholic Encyclopedia. And the more I
read it, the more astonished I am at the exceptionally simple
view most people have of religious philosophy.

More people should have some appreciation that many
of the best minds humanity has created have been debating
all these philosophies for a couple of thousand years. And
when you ...actually...read their arguments in good faith, meaning
spending the time to learn the meaning of their metaphors etc, then
you'll find their logic is pretty much bullet-proof.

For instance, the definition of God, to put it in modern language
would be ...the sum total of the observed properties of the
universe. Now, how does that differ from science?

And a truly unbiased mathematical argument would hold that
religion uses the better initial frame of reference...holism
or emergent system properties as the most important information.

The cost of objective reductionism is the loss of the most central
information of all concerning the future and the ultimate source
of our creation.

For example, objective science is fine for detailing every aspect
of, say,a market system. A philosopher would say it's those
ethereal 'market forces' which guide the whole into the future
and are more responsible for the final product.

So, scientist, give me the deterministic equations for 'market forces'.
How much do they weigh? What is their force per unit?
Same for natural selection, intelligence and wisdom. All the more
powerful variables for our reality are best known through
subjective (holistic) perspectives.



From the Catholic Encyclopedia on God.

"This is technically expressed by saying that all our knowledge
of God is analogical, and that all predicates applied to God
and to creatures are used analogically, not univocally.
I may look at a portrait or at its living original, and say of either,
with literal truth, that is a beautiful face...And similarly
in the case of God and creatures. What we contemplate
directly is the portrait of Him painted, so to speak, by Himself
on the canvas of the universe "

"The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of
metaphorical language in other connections justify and
recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence
ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies,
or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means
to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning
one a fox."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm



s

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:25:41PM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"Uncle Steve" wrote in message
...
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 10:42:12AM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"Robert Collins" wrote in message
...
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:


Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they.

People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want
science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use
science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the
'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats.


Why not let logic resolve the two into one system of understanding?

Because the structure of common organized religion doesn't allow
rational thinking about natural phenomenon.


But I was talking about religious philosophy. I showed how the two
can be logically resolved into a single system, which I believe
Complexity Science to be. You haven't shown why my logic
is incorrect. It is correct, in fact.

Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point. And no, I won't argue
religion on your terms. As a system of social control and magical
thinking it is obviously rather effective, but as I think religion
ought to be studied scientifically, as a subject of abnormal
psychology for instance, I see no reason to allow it parity in
standing with actual science.

It requires that children
be brainwashed so their habits of thought are set in the ways of
magical thinking. They have the doctrines of fate, the doctrine of
suffering, the mystics, and much more -- all of which is barbaric and
anti-intellectual at best.


Intellectual dishonesty is utterly opposed to science and the real
world.

The only intellectual dishonesty I see in this debate is using
the simple stories of organized religion to refute religious philosophy.
Those simple stories are meant for the desperate masses that have
little or no education, and badly need hope and comfort.

It's no different than deciding modern science is hooey based only
on the math and science taught in the second grade.

Is it? It is a moral choice to placate "desperate masses" with fairy
tales, and if it leads them to make poor decisions in their lives then
the responsibility it is on your head. Not that such deceits are
prosecuted as the frauds they are.

Recapitulating religion and religious doctrines in other terms
won't help either.

I quote direct from the source. Nothing false about it.

Your source is suspect on diverse grounds, not the least of which is
historical authenticity.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:41:01PM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

And faith, which is used to fill-in the logical inconsistencies. Plus
the /a priori/ assumptions that you start out using before you begin
'reasoning' are without merit.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

I don't care how the Vatican defines God, what matters is what
Catholics mean when they use the term. This is similar to the
difference between the Ten Commandments and how they are applied in
everyday Catholic living. I.E., two completely different sets of
propositions modified by the everyday hypocrisy of most so-called
Christians.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.

Perhaps you've taken the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic too far.
Merely because you can take an arbitrary thesis and antithesis and
combine them doesn't necessarily mean you actually should.



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:38:04 -0500, Jonathan wrote:

Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?
Why can't I get laid at the local Qujeer's Festival?

Dunno. scraggly balls mebbe?

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.

I doubt I'm missing any important philosophical or ontological points.
Mystical bull**** may have filled the gaps in centuries past when
actual knowledge was insufficient to the task of understanding the
world and it's varied natural phenomenon. But it should never have
become such a dominant force in the world. That is clearly due to the
cynical manipulation of populations throughout recent history, up to
and including today.

Media pundits decry the idiot North Korea regime while excusing
Western religions out of hand. What's up wit dat?


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms