Five Myths About Christmas (answered?)

[Scoutfish 16]

Let's toss in a 3 point of veiw:

 

There will be both religion and science developing as the people develop too.

 

Religion: No telling what it wil be. Might end up worshiping grasshoppers and cats or follow the Greeks in thinking there are a handfull of god on a mountain i the sky who send brass owls and iron bulls and giant scorpions to screw with us. I'm almost sure Medusa had a bunch of grandaughters who I see on occasion!

 

REligion will change from time to time and like a river, will end up being completely different than how it started out. Religion changes as the people who use it need change. Religion's flavor changes to suit the needs of those who use it or as in some cases, to help those who use it for power.

 

SCience, well. science will never actually be finished> But the laws of science are pretty much set in stone - even if we can't tell the difference betweena stone, rock, boulder or mountain>

 

Science does not change per se, but the way we understand it does>

 

And by this I mean, the mechanical reasons gears work in a transmission will be the exact same reasons wether we fully understand that reason or not.

 

Science doesn't grow, but our understanding of things does: DNR, RNA, cloning, super computers, etc.

 

Used to, the laws of areodynamics said a bumble bee could not fly. The bee didn't care about those laws and flew off anyways. Then the laws admitted that the bee knew somethin g the laws didn't. Now the laws tell us why the bee can fly>

 

Truth now is that the laws themselves knew, we just didn't understand the laws.

 

SO, lets say that the population is wipred out and all of evolutuion starts all over from scratch. A million years from now, humans find themselves at the same place on the food chart and whatnot>

 

Will there be cars? Will language be the same? Will there be a God, gods, or only godesses? Maybe all god are animals?

 

Scioence may actually prove that there sun revolves around the earth in a pattern that we cannot detect right now with our best equipment>

 

But in the end, somebody will eventually figure out the laws of science wether by a differnt name or not. Religion on the other hand, will be as people need it to be.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Scoutfish, I hate to tell you fella, but the earth revolves around the sun now. And in a million years, given the differences in mass, etc, I doubt that will change. At least it hasn't in the thousands of millions of years in the past, before there were humans. Or maybe you wrote that in a confusing way.

 

If humans die off suddenly, it's almost certain that they're gone for good and best of luck to whatever fills that niche after us. We have almost no predictive power about what would happen after something like that. The book "The World Without Us" gives a fanciful account of some possibilities. At risk of invoking TWO four-letter words starting with 'M', who knows, we may just have 353 days to go.

[Scoutfish 16]

Nah, what I meant was that maybe one day, somebody will discover that the earth is actually stationary, and the univers - including the sun - actually revolves around the earth in a pattern that makes it look like the earth revolves around the sun.

 

Kinda like how lightning looks like it travels to earth, but in reality, the static charge actuallu shoots up from "feelers" that start out from earth.

 

Do I believe it? No, but at one time, I also believed that lighning shot down from teh sky....because that is what I was taught in school.

 

But wether people understood which way lighning traveled or not, it still taveled whichever way it traveled because that is the way it traveled due to whatever forces caused it to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

I mean, supposed you had an exact scale , minature working model of our solar system> Maybe it is operated by an electric motor and there are various arms that connect it all together kind like a mobile.

 

You reach up and grab earth and hold it stationary> Now look at the pattern the rest of our solor system is making around earth, which is now stationary. I guess it would be an asymetrical , eliptical, oblongated, etc...

 

So, suppose that in 100 years, we travel beyound our own galaxy with GPS sattelites that tell us that depsite all previous thought, the solar system actually revolves around our earth...it just trurns out we didn't have the proper equipment and instruments to figure it out.

 

Again, I have belief in that happening, but other things have happened in that way in science.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So, suppose that in 100 years, we travel beyound our own galaxy with GPS sattelites that tell us that depsite all previous thought, the solar system actually revolves around our earth...it just trurns out we didn't have the proper equipment and instruments to figure it out.

 

You'd have to throw out all physics since Newton, and explain how such a wrong explanation managed to make trillions of accurate predictions, and why the solar system revolves around the earth, and how the other stars can go faster than light, and why they don't go straight. You may as well suppose that we also find out the earth is flat and supported by 4 elephants on the back of a giant turtle.

[SSScout 1616]

The art of science involves Observation, Experimentation, Correlation, and Explanation. Explaining the cause of what has been observed, either from "nature" or from arranged events (experimentation), depends on what has gone before, what is already KNOWN (or thought to be known). If one observes that gases expand when they get hot, and contract when they get colder, this can lead to an experiment that would obtain measurements that could lead to Mssrs. Boyle and Charles seeing that gas pressure and temperature and volume are all related. Mssrs. Hero and Watts and Sterling can then use these observations to invent engines to move water or people or make electricity ( which is another story). These observations and inventions depend on BELIEVING the work and discoveries of others, and then using them to discover other things. That is what science is about, simply.

If I do not believe what my teacher tells me, I best be ready to prove something else. Depending on the teacher, a good student is one who keeps (politely) asking "why?" In my experience, the good teacher is always ready to at least attempt the answer, or join in the debate.

Same in Faith. If the faithful can not answer the heretic's "why" to his satisfaction, then neither the teacher nor the accolyte will be true to the faith. The 'asker' will find answers sufficient to his needs, or will go off to find (or found) another faith. Thus are "true believers" and "converts" and "revealers" created.

To which category does friend Le Roy belong?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

These observations and inventions depend on BELIEVING the work and discoveries of others, and then using them to discover other things.

 

No. You can be 100% skeptical of the works of others, and do them yourself. It's common to reproduce experiments in science classes and have the students do them.

 

If I do not believe what my teacher tells me, I best be ready to prove something else.

 

Nonsense. You can simply say you don't believe it. You don't have to come up with an alternative.

 

Depending on the teacher, a good student is one who keeps (politely) asking "why?" In my experience, the good teacher is always ready to at least attempt the answer, or join in the debate.

 

Or have the student do the actual experiments and write up the observations. That can be even better.

 

Same in Faith.

 

Faith has no right or wrong answers. People don't agree on the most basic questions, like how many gods exist, or whether polygamy is permitted.

[Beavah 205]

People don't agree on the most basic questions, like how many gods exist, or whether polygamy is permitted.

 

Here we go again.

 

Da true sign of personal dogma, eh? It gets chanted like a creed, no matter how much it's a silly artifact of language rather than anything of substance.

 

You can be 100% skeptical of the works of others, and do them yourself. It's common to reproduce experiments in science classes and have the students do them.

 

Not unless yeh have infinite time and resources. I'm skeptical of the faster-than-light neutrinos finding, but I don't reckon I'm going to be able to replicate that experiment anytime soon. And if I spent time on that I wouldn't have any time left and would have to take all da rest on faith!

 

I also seem to remember as a science student that my results quite frequently didn't come out all that well, a fact that many a lab writeup had to try to explain.

 

Beavah

 

[SSScout 1616]

""No. You can be 100% skeptical of the works of others, and do them yourself. It's common to reproduce experiments in science classes and have the students do them.""

 

Exactly my point. By reproducing experiments, and thus re-proving the results, one convinces oneself of the truth of the matter, thus believing the teacher. If the test does not agree with the teacher's lesson, that SHOULD lead to another discussion, yes? Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

""Nonsense. You can simply say you don't believe it. You don't have to come up with an alternative.""

 

Well, yes you do. The choice is to either agree with the teacher outright, and get an "A", or don't agree (and keep it to yourself: see Galileo and the Inquisition), or see if you can find an alternative argument that makes sense to yourself if not the teacher. Ultimately, everyone has to have an explanation as to how the universe operates. At least our own little part of it.

 

""Or have the student do the actual experiments and write up the observations. That can be even better.""

 

Exactly so. That is what I mean by "joining in the debate". It is never a good thing to say "that's the way it is, end of discussion", unless the discussion is between you and your 8 year old son, then, sometimes one must pull rank!

 

""Faith has no right or wrong answers. People don't agree on the most basic questions, like how many gods exist, or whether polygamy is permitted.""

 

Oh, come on, Merlyn, you know all faiths have "right or wrong" answers. That's what a faith is all about! It's science that has no absolutes, except what can be proven to our senses. Our knowledge and the science involved is always open to revision. We are constantly re-proving the gravity constant of (about) 9.8 m/sec sq. And you can't really find it surprising that folks 'don't agree' , again, that's what religion is all about. I don't expect my Christianity to be the same as a Roman Catholic's, but I admit to them both being a form of Christianity..Well, as I think about it, not all Roman Catholics might agree that Quakerism IS a form of Christianity. But some I know do.

Why should you? Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chence, as the carny barker would say. Unfortunately, religions do have wars over the differences, where scientists only tend to "backstab" the folks they disagree with about which way the DNA spiral curves, or who has the best electrical supply system.

 

My Muslim friend tells me that the strife between the Sunni and Shiite is "political" and not "religious" in nature. I tend to believe him more than Fox news.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You can be 100% skeptical of the works of others, and do them yourself. It's common to reproduce experiments in science classes and have the students do them.

 

Not unless yeh have infinite time and resources.

 

So pick a few. You'll find science works.

 

I also seem to remember as a science student that my results quite frequently didn't come out all that well, a fact that many a lab writeup had to try to explain.

 

I think the answer is, you just don't understand science. Why didn't you just make up an answer and get a few friends to agree, and call that "science"? That's what you've been advocating.

[Stosh 3452]

Then there's speculative science that has to be accepted as faith, i.e. the Theory of Relativity, Theory of Evolution, etc.

 

Theories are speculative scientific guesses. We're pretty sure, but we can't prove it. Yet as each day passes, some of these theories do come under increasing suspicion as to their validity. Someday they may be proven, but until then one has to assume a varying degree of "faith" as to their reliability. Until such time as they are proven, they remain in the realm of myth, i.e. traditional story of acceptance.

 

Stosh

[NJCubScouter 1389]

This has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, but I noticed Packsaddle mentioning that the Earth revolves around the Sun and likely will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. However, I have read that the same is not true of the Moon and the Earth. Right now the Moon revolves around the Earth, or more scientifically speaking, around a point within the Earth (the "barycenter.") The barycenter is not in the center of the Earth, and the Earth actually revolves around it too, but since it is within the Earth, we say the Moon revolves around the Earth. However, the orbit of the Moon is very gradually getting further and further away from the Earth, and eventually (in millions of years, I believe) the barycenter will be outside the Earth, so both the Earth and Moon will be revolving around a point that is between them (but still closer to the Earth.) At that point the Earth and Moon will really be a double-planet system rather than a planet and its satellite. At least that's how I understand it.

 

And by the way, religion is nothing like science. You can't prove that the beliefs of one religion, or any religion, are correct or incorrect. Beliefs are beliefs. Observable facts and results are observable facts and results. Science isn't perfect, but it's not based on pure belief as religion is. On the other hand, I would never call someone else's religious belief a "myth"... and yet we as a society seem to have no problem using that term for a religion that is "extinct." I have been hearing about Greek, Roman and Norse "mythology" my whole life, and yet those were peoples' religions at one time. And you have to admit, those gods seem like they would be more fun to be around than the ones who are popular today.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Theories are speculative scientific guesses. We're pretty sure, but we can't prove it.

 

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science. There are no proofs; proofs are for formal systems like mathematics. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory (although to confuse things, "evolution" is also used to describe observations, like speciation). Relativity is a theory, and it conforms well to observations like gravity bending light and time dilation.

 

Someday they may be proven, but until then one has to assume a varying degree of "faith" as to their reliability.

 

No, they will NEVER be proven, because there's no proof in science. Theories are models that make predictions.

 

Until such time as they are proven, they remain in the realm of myth, i.e. traditional story of acceptance

 

Relativity isn't on the same plane as goat entrails. Are you saying there's no difference between modern medicine and witch doctors? Between telecommunications and telepathy? How do you distinguish between things that work vs. quackery and fraud?

[packsaddle 753]

Jblake, two questions:

1) If those theories are just speculative guesses, in your mind what would they be called if there was good evidence to support them, short of proof?

2) What would constitute 'proof' in your mind, of either of those things you just called speculative guesses?

 

NJ, for a while I beginning to think YOU were extinct (possibly even a myth).

[Stosh 3452]

Proof is the scientific evidence that certain issues can be tested and given exactly the same circumstances will produce the same results. If I can drop a pencil and it always falls to the floor and you try it and it produces the same results it's called the Law of Gravity. It's provable by repeatable testing.

 

However, if it cannot be proven with evidence, then it stays a theory. We believe there is a "link" between apes and man, however, there is no scientific evidence that says we evolved from them. The evidence connecting the two is not there. Just because two things appear to be similar does not mean they are.

 

Now if I drop a pencil and it does not fall to the floor, there can be a very good reason for it. Scientific, too. If I'm on the international space station, the scientific laws that apply on earth do not apply elsewhere, but there is valid provable evidence that can support this. As a matter of fact. If I simply release a pencil, it will stay hovering without "falling" anywhere in a zero-gravity environment. Science can prove thus where gravity and no gravity exists. No "theory" needed because it is provable.

 

And as one final thought, if I release a pencil while standing on earth and it does not fall to the floor, I might be tempted to call it a miracle, or something that doesn't seem to fit the scientific patterns I am accustomed to. Without further experimentation to seek proof, I guess I have to accept miracle. Is that an issue of faith? Heck no, my faith in the scientific world would have had be betting 100% on the pencil hitting the floor.

 

By the way, modern medicine is based on scientific results, quackery is not. Why take medicine if it hasn't been proven to work? It doesn't work for everyone the same? Yep, nobody is the same so with so many variables, an exact replication of a certain medicine is not able to be guaranteed 100%.

 

Stosh