Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #57611 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-24 23:56 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-02-27 11:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 163 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-24 23:56 +0100
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:10 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:12 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 09:00 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 02:06 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:51 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 17:03 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 18:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 10:03 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-25 10:48 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 21:33 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:25 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> - 2015-02-25 17:49 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 14:13 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:53 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:58 +0100
Let's talk about UFOs then Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 14:26 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-25 21:10 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 22:35 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 14:46 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:59 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:53 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:53 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:38 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 04:47 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 12:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:41 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-26 16:46 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:16 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 21:54 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then mt <mahdert@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:09 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 05:56 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:39 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 14:00 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 21:30 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:41 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:56 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:16 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-27 08:25 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 10:14 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 15:39 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-01 15:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-02 09:04 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 13:04 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 09:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:27 +1300
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 02:16 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 10:22 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 10:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 21:29 +0100
Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:27 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:01 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 23:17 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-02-27 12:15 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:29 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:10 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:45 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:12 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:43 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 23:09 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 22:10 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 14:19 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 00:57 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:09 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 09:10 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 13:55 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 16:20 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 08:09 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 09:21 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 09:28 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 12:49 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 05:59 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 15:50 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 07:10 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:01 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 19:39 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:36 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 21:55 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:39 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-02 01:33 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 16:53 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-02 14:49 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 16:14 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 22:49 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 23:04 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-02 02:29 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 00:41 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 02:07 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-04 09:44 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-01 14:26 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:08 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-01 14:31 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:44 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:24 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:11 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-03 15:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:20 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 09:48 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 01:05 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:41 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 05:06 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:58 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:59 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:52 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:11 -0500
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 11:40 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:59 -0500
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 11:43 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 12:57 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 19:19 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 12:55 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 22:47 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 14:24 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 11:54 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:14 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 14:22 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 02:57 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 14:59 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 15:43 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-03-05 09:57 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 17:59 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 19:17 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 17:08 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 21:27 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 18:22 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-07 19:01 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-05 11:43 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 20:16 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-06 09:58 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:17 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 19:17 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:30 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 09:47 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:16 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 11:12 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:09 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-04 12:16 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:23 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 15:30 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 17:31 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 10:46 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 18:56 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-16 18:25 -0500
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 12:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 14:12 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 09:08 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-03 10:00 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-26 22:07 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 14:21 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:18 +0100
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 14:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mcvss2$l8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57775 |
On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: > Consider the following: > > A person was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was getting > steadily worse. Yet suddenly they made a full recovery - doctors are > baffled. > > Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered. That doesn't rule out scientists discovering the cause in the future--and using it to develop a cure. We learn new stuff every day. > it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be > understood by mortal humans. There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? > Strange lights are seen in the sky, and witnessed by passengers in > several aircraft. Nothing is seen on radar. > > Science cannot explain the strange lights - it must be aliens. The > spacecraft cannot be seen on radar, because they aliens have > technology millions of years in advance of ours and completely > incomprehensible to us. Or it could just be the USAF (or one of their contractors) testing out new stealth aircraft, as was eventually discovered for many such "UFO" sightings when relevant documents were later declassified. Also, even without stealth, radar isn't perfect. One object can be in another's "shadow". It also picks up all sorts of ground clutter, so there are various filters applied to the output--and those filters may inadvertently hide real aircraft. This is one of the reasons that aircraft use transponders: so ATC can "see" them even if there's no radar return shown on the screen. > No one can figure out what the aliens were doing here, Nobody has established that aliens are here, or even that they exist. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35557f72-0a6b-40b3-9917-4a99034a5321@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57796 |
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:30:45 PM UTC, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: > > Consider the following: > > > > A person was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was getting > > steadily worse. Yet suddenly they made a full recovery - doctors are > > baffled. > > > > Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered > > ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered. That doesn't > rule out scientists discovering the cause in the future--and using it to > develop a cure. We learn new stuff every day. > > > it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be > > understood by mortal humans. > > There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? > The religious issue is a distraction. Most religious people wouldn't claim that a miraculous cure is ultimately inexplicable given the laws of physics or even of medicine. Just that it's so unusual that it must be the action of divine providence in response to a prayer. The UFO claim is different. It's a claim that unidentified flying objects are sometimes alien spacecraft, time-travelling craft from the future/ distant past or some other exciting explanation. Few UFO enthusiasts would claim to be able to actually demonstrate that unambiguously, the claim is that such an explanation is far more reasonable than any mundane one. Secret weapons like the stealth bomber are in a grey area - there's no paranormal element, but it's exciting enough to be a conspiracy theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 08:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md4g5o$ist$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57799 |
On 01-Mar-15 14:44, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:30:45 PM UTC, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: >>> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be >>> understood by mortal humans. >> >> There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? >> > The religious issue is a distraction. Most religious people wouldn't > claim that a miraculous cure is ultimately inexplicable given the > laws of physics or even of medicine. Then you don't know many religious people; the US evangelical variety say that religion can never be explained by science and, in fact, that science is a tool of the Devil used to tempt people away from God. > Just that it's so unusual that it must be the action of divine > providence in response to a prayer. ... except that science has conclusively proven that prayer has absolutely no effect on healing. (OTOH, _telling_ someone that you prayed for them does have a positive effect--even if you didn't.) > The UFO claim is different. Aliens and angels are pretty much the same thing: there is no evidence that either exist, much less that they have visited Earth and interacted with humans. Just about any argument that can be applied (for or against) to either one also applies to the other. You can choose to believe in either, of course, but there is no rational reason to expect anyone else to believe in them. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md4iua$p2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57839 |
On 03/03/15 14:24, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 01-Mar-15 14:44, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:30:45 PM UTC, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: >>>> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be >>>> understood by mortal humans. >>> >>> There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? >>> >> The religious issue is a distraction. Most religious people wouldn't >> claim that a miraculous cure is ultimately inexplicable given the >> laws of physics or even of medicine. > > Then you don't know many religious people; Although I am not fond of the word "religious", I suppose I must put up with it for the sake of this reply. Okay. I *do* know many religious people, and I would kind of agree with Malcolm. I'd rephrase the claim slightly, though, by inserting the word 'apparently': 'most religious people [of my acquaintance] wouldn't claim that an apparently miraculous cure is ultimately inexplicable...' (On the other hand, some undoubtedly would -- not all religious people are scientifically illiterate by any means, but no doubt quite a few are, just as quite a few irreligious people are.) > the US evangelical variety > say that religion can never be explained by science Do they? Okay. I think I agree with them, actually. Science is very good at explaining the natural world. It is not so good at explaining the supernatural, and therefore likes to assume that there is no such thing. Understandable, but it nevertheless can lead to woolly thinking. > and, in fact, that > science is a tool of the Devil used to tempt people away from God. Do they? Okay. I think I must disagree with them here. Science is just a way of explaining the world -- a highly successful way with tremendous predictive power. There is nothing in science itself that requires people to deny or reject God, any more than there is anything in it that requires people to refuse to believe in or accept God. > >> Just that it's so unusual that it must be the action of divine >> providence in response to a prayer. > > ... except that science has conclusively proven that prayer has > absolutely no effect on healing. Science can't conclusively prove anything. The best it can say is "beyond all reasonable doubt, given our current understanding of the world". If you think science can conclusively prove things, you don't understand science. Now, *can* prayer have any effect on healing? Directly, no, of course not. And neither can telephoning for an ambulance. Nevertheless, it may still be a beneficial thing to do. The theology of prayer is more complicated than people generally realise. There is no magic to it at all. But this is not the place to go into details. We are already taxing Keith's patience to the limit (and possibly beyond) in this thread, so let it lie. (If you really want me to say more on the subject, please take it to email.) > (OTOH, _telling_ someone that you > prayed for them does have a positive effect--even if you didn't.) The placebo effect, presumably. > >> The UFO claim is different. > > Aliens and angels are pretty much the same thing: No, I don't think so. Aliens (of the kind that flit around our landscape in spinny shiny fly-y things) are generally considered to be natural entities. Angels, if they exist, are supernatural entities. That's not the same thing at all. We can legitimately expect science to explore and explain the former, but not the latter. The supernatural is not within the purview of science. > there is no evidence > that either exist, much less that they have visited Earth and interacted > with humans. Well, that's just not true, is it? We have lots of eyewitness evidence for both. You will argue that eyewitness evidence is almost worthless. I would agree, but I would also remind you that *all* evidence is, ultimately, eyewitness (or earwitness, or nosewitness) evidence. If we discount eyewitness evidence, we don't have very much evidence left for quantum mechanics, anchovies, the Second World War, Helen Mirren, the Metropolitan District of South Humberside, or indeed anything at all. > Just about any argument that can be applied (for or > against) to either one also applies to the other. In my experience, you can apply just about any argument about anything at all to just about anything else at all, if you put your mind to it and hit it hard with a hammer. > You can choose to > believe in either, of course, but there is no rational reason to expect > anyone else to believe in them. I don't think it's rational to try to persuade other people of the existence (or non-existence) of angels. If they don't exist, that's that, and if they do exist, how could we use that information? I can, however, envisage a situation where it might be rational to expect, or at least to try to persuade, others to believe in the existence of aliens, purely from a survival point of view if nothing else. In fact, I don't have to envisage it, because "Independence Day" made a very nice job of it, thus neatly saving me the trouble. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RLkJw.820796$%M6.145612@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #57844 |
On 2015-03-03, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > > Well, that's just not true, is it? We have lots of eyewitness evidence > for both. You will argue that eyewitness evidence is almost worthless. I > would agree, but I would also remind you that *all* evidence is, > ultimately, eyewitness (or earwitness, or nosewitness) evidence. If we > discount eyewitness evidence, we don't have very much evidence left for > quantum mechanics, anchovies, the Second World War, Helen Mirren, the > Metropolitan District of South Humberside, or indeed anything at all. > I think that the evidence for quantum mechanics is in the predictive nature of the mathematics used in various theories. While "eyewitness" may apply in some sense to a test run in collider, the appearance of a particle is useful most often because it has been predicted by a theory. I'm not sure what sense is applied to the correctness of math - I know mine is under-developed - peer review hopefully removes the tendency humans have to lean toward self deception in these things. -- http://www.softsprocket.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md4mu9$jni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57846 |
On 03/03/15 15:51, Greg Martin wrote: > On 2015-03-03, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> >> Well, that's just not true, is it? We have lots of eyewitness evidence >> for both. You will argue that eyewitness evidence is almost worthless. I >> would agree, but I would also remind you that *all* evidence is, >> ultimately, eyewitness (or earwitness, or nosewitness) evidence. If we >> discount eyewitness evidence, we don't have very much evidence left for >> quantum mechanics, anchovies, the Second World War, Helen Mirren, the >> Metropolitan District of South Humberside, or indeed anything at all. >> > > I think that the evidence for quantum mechanics is in the predictive > nature of the mathematics used in various theories. Alas, there is no escape. The mathematics must either be read (in which case it's eyewitness evidence) or read out (in which case it's earwitness evidence). And how do we know the mathematics is right? Peer review is another way of saying "this flawed human being may have screwed up the proof, so let's give the proof to another flawed human being to see what /he/ makes of it". I'm not saying it's not a very good system. It is. But it isn't perfect. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 09:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md6gqt$cvr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57851 |
On 03/03/15 17:20, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/03/15 15:51, Greg Martin wrote: >> On 2015-03-03, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Well, that's just not true, is it? We have lots of eyewitness evidence >>> for both. You will argue that eyewitness evidence is almost worthless. I >>> would agree, but I would also remind you that *all* evidence is, >>> ultimately, eyewitness (or earwitness, or nosewitness) evidence. If we >>> discount eyewitness evidence, we don't have very much evidence left for >>> quantum mechanics, anchovies, the Second World War, Helen Mirren, the >>> Metropolitan District of South Humberside, or indeed anything at all. >>> >> >> I think that the evidence for quantum mechanics is in the predictive >> nature of the mathematics used in various theories. > > Alas, there is no escape. The mathematics must either be read (in which > case it's eyewitness evidence) or read out (in which case it's > earwitness evidence). And how do we know the mathematics is right? Peer > review is another way of saying "this flawed human being may have > screwed up the proof, so let's give the proof to another flawed human > being to see what /he/ makes of it". > And how do we know the world around us is not a dream, or part of "The Matrix", or (as my then six year old son asked me, how do we know we are real and not all characters in a computer game like Lego Star Wars)? When you go as far as this, you are well into the realms of philosophy and navel gazing. That's fine for a bit of variety, and we can never be /entirely/ sure that paint will dry unless there is a philosopher watching it. But it won't get us very far in a discussion about C. For normal use, there are various practical levels of proof for everyday life - even though none of them are /absolute/. (This is not a definitive or complete list.) "Reality" is what most people agree on being able to see, hear, and touch. "Mathematical proof" is a series of logical statements building upon a given set of axioms (which are not "proved", merely assumed). "Scientific proof" means you have a scientific theory that matches the evidence currently known, and you can treat it as a fact until contrary evidence or a better theory comes along. This relies on independent investigation and experiments by different groups. "Reliable eyewitnesses" means multiple independent witnesses to an event, where there is no reason to suspect their reports as false, and where there is at least a common core to the stories. "Eyewitness" means someone says they saw something - but while it could be true, they could be lying, mistaken, conned, etc. So if a kilometres-wide flying saucer arrives at the earth and destroys the White House (since aliens /always/ invade the USA first, even though they should know by now that there will be a hero that single-handedly defeats the interstellar army) - that would be "reality". Everyone can see it happening, and no one denies it. If a piece of an alien spacecraft were found, and independently analysed by different scientific groups and found to be "out of this world", it would be "scientific proof" of alien visitation. Multiple radar tracks picked up by different radar systems, or multiple radio signals could also count as "scientific proof". /Nothing/ like this has ever been found for either angels or alien visitors. If there were, that would clearly bring them (angels or alien visitors) into the realm of science - neither would be "supernatural". There are plenty of reliable eyewitness reports for "something odd and unexplained" going on, but none that connect to a specific explanation such as aliens or angels. That's what "UFO" means. And of course there are plenty of unreliable eyewitnesses for all sorts of things. Since we have yet to have any reasonable proof or evidence for alien visitors, belief in them is in the same category as belief in angels. If someone feels that such beliefs are important to them, or improve their lives, then that's great - I am a big fan of freedom of religion and believes. But it is not scientific or rational. And there is no difference between alien visitors and angels in terms of "natural" and "supernatural". If either exist, then they are "natural" and work by the laws of nature - even if we have not yet figured out any natural laws that would explain warp drives or a never-ending love of harps. There is no such thing as "supernatural" - there is just "natural that we understand", "imaginary", and "natural that we don't (yet) understand". > I'm not saying it's not a very good system. It is. But it isn't perfect. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 01:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9b6297f8-f71f-4bb5-bbec-99c3c712ee3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57875 |
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 8:48:44 AM UTC, David Brown wrote: > > And there is no difference between alien visitors and angels in terms of > "natural" and "supernatural". If either exist, then they are "natural" > and work by the laws of nature - even if we have not yet figured out any > natural laws that would explain warp drives or a never-ending love of > harps. There is no such thing as "supernatural" - there is just > "natural that we understand", "imaginary", and "natural that we don't > (yet) understand". > > if you define "natural" as "everything" then the word becomes effectively redundant. There's no difference between a natural fibre like wool or cotton or a synthetic one like nylon. We can't distinguish between the natural sciences like physics and chemistry and the social sciences like economics and psychology. There's also no difference between an angel, a being from another system of reality to our own, and a alien spaceman, a being which evolved (presumably) on another planet containing (presumably) liquid water and a similar biochemical soup to early Earth, orbiting a similar-sized star in a not-too distant part of the same galaxy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 10:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md6jvk$p2r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57877 |
On 04/03/15 10:05, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 8:48:44 AM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> And there is no difference between alien visitors and angels in terms of >> "natural" and "supernatural". If either exist, then they are "natural" >> and work by the laws of nature - even if we have not yet figured out any >> natural laws that would explain warp drives or a never-ending love of >> harps. There is no such thing as "supernatural" - there is just >> "natural that we understand", "imaginary", and "natural that we don't >> (yet) understand". >> >> > if you define "natural" as "everything" then the word becomes effectively redundant. In this context, "natural" means everything that obeys the laws of nature - and yes, it amounts to everything that actually exists. At best, "supernatural" means "breaks the laws of nature that we currently understand". Historically, there used to be a distinction between things that could be explained scientifically, and things that could not - but science has progressed and gradually subsumed steadily more "supernatural" things, and I think it is reasonable to say that scientific laws can explain everything in reality. I certainly don't claim that science /will/ explain everything - there are endless numbers of things that will be too difficult, or too expensive to explain, or for which we cannot gather appropriate evidence. There are also plenty of things for which I wouldn't want a scientific explanation (love is not nearly as much fun when expressed in terms of biochemistry and psychology). > There's no difference between a natural fibre like wool or cotton or a synthetic > one like nylon. That's a different context, and different use of the word. No one considers nylon to be supernatural. > We can't distinguish between the natural sciences like physics > and chemistry and the social sciences like economics and psychology. If it is science, it is natural. So-called "social sciences" are often a mixture of real science and wishful thinking. They might be useful, but they are not science (since the scientific laws involved have not been figured out - and perhaps never will). > There's also no difference between an angel, a being from another system of reality > to our own, and a alien spaceman, a being which evolved (presumably) on another > planet containing (presumably) liquid water and a similar biochemical soup > to early Earth, orbiting a similar-sized star in a not-too distant part of the same > galaxy. > Since all are currently just imagination or hypotheses (since there is no evidence), that is correct. Some such beings might be considered likely to exist based on extrapolation of available data - on that basis, it is rational to belief in life on other planets. Others, such as alien visitors or angels (at least of the "scaring shepherds" style), cannot reasonably be extrapolated from what we currently know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 05:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2c56876-734d-45ff-9351-e8dd972cf37e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57875 |
W dniu środa, 4 marca 2015 09:48:44 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > And how do we know the world around us is not a dream, or part of "The > Matrix", or (as my then six year old son asked me, how do we know we are > real and not all characters in a computer game like Lego Star Wars)? > When you go as far as this, you are well into the realms of philosophy > and navel gazing. That's fine for a bit of variety, and we can never be > /entirely/ sure that paint will dry unless there is a philosopher > watching it. But it won't get us very far in a discussion about C. > reality is quite table thing, you can dance on your left leg and you will not change it.. ..though reality is a massive thing it is contained from thousands of situations, [living alone is different than living with students in a student flat, or university reality, street reality] something like bubbles of reality, depending where you are (i am a bit sad here as my present reality is deadly boring and nearly dead for any kind of fun)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mcvug1$s71$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57796 |
On 01/03/15 20:31, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: >> Consider the following: >> >> A person was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was getting >> steadily worse. Yet suddenly they made a full recovery - doctors are >> baffled. >> >> Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered > > ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered. That doesn't > rule out scientists discovering the cause in the future--and using it to > develop a cure. We learn new stuff every day. > >> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be >> understood by mortal humans. > > There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? To be more precise, hypotheses can be constructed that do not require a supernatural explanation, and therefore there is no scientific obligation to investigate supernatural explanations, which is just as well because such an investigation is not scientifically possible. One of science's big assumptions is that the world plays nice (for certain values of "nice"), and so divine intervention (which is notoriously unreproducible) is somehow considered to be cheating. Dismissing the possible existence of supernatural agencies as "fairy tales" is a fairly common way of protecting oneself against having to consider them. Consider the age-old comp.lang.c analogy with basketball. A points out that "you can't do that in C," and B complains that clearly you can, and a dispute arises. Eventually D (to avoid overloading C!) reminds us of the chap who said "My basketball trainer said you can't run with the ball, but I tried it and it works just fine; clearly my trainer doesn't know anything about basketball!" It is ironic, and is intended to illustrate that C has rules. Yes, you can play by other rules, but then you aren't really playing C any more. Similarly, the scientific community has rules for "how you do science", and that's fine, but scientists sometimes forget that there is no obligation on other people to play by their rules. It is possible to construct other rules that also work very well, as long as we accept that we are no longer "doing science" (i.e. playing by science's rules). It is also possible to show flaws in science's rules, but scientists try very hard to ignore these flaws, as they would make "doing science" very difficult or impossible, and that's understandable. But to dismiss other sets of rules as "fairy tales" shows a lamentable over-reliance on philosophical foundations that are not as rigorous as scientists like to pretend. <snip> >> No one can figure out what the aliens were doing here, > > Nobody has established that aliens are here, or even that they exist. The Drake Equation suggests that there is a reasonable probability that aliens do exist; but our knowledge of the universe suggests that, even if they do exist, they are unlikely to find their way here. So it's probably NASA or USAF or NATO or a street-lamp near a marsh or Venus being distorted by air thermals. Or, of course, it could even just be PhotoShop. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 08:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md4i7f$t81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57801 |
On 01-Mar-15 14:58, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 01/03/15 20:31, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: >>> A person was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was getting >>> steadily worse. Yet suddenly they made a full recovery - doctors >>> are baffled. >>> >>> Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered >> >> ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered. That >> doesn't rule out scientists discovering the cause in the >> future--and using it to develop a cure. We learn new stuff every >> day. >> >>> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be >>> understood by mortal humans. >> >> There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? > > To be more precise, hypotheses can be constructed that do not require > a supernatural explanation, and therefore there is no scientific > obligation to investigate supernatural explanations, which is just > as well because such an investigation is not scientifically possible. Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations are inherently out of scope. OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, so it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural explanations, even if the specific one at had has yet to be debunked. > One of science's big assumptions is that the world plays nice (for > certain values of "nice"), We have yet to find any objective, repeatable evidence that it doesn't. > and so divine intervention (which is notoriously unreproducible) is > somehow considered to be cheating. Dismissing the possible existence > of supernatural agencies as "fairy tales" is a fairly common way of > protecting oneself against having to consider them. I don't need "protection" from imaginary fairies. That's one of the main differences between religion and science: the former only applies to those who believe in it, while the latter applies to everyone. > It is possible to construct other rules that also work very well, as > long as we accept that we are no longer "doing science" (i.e. playing > by science's rules). Of course. In the olden days, universities were divided into two sets of subjects: philosophy (study of the natural world, i.e. science) and theology (study of the supernatural world, i.e. religion). The former took us from riding horses to walking on the moon in a few years; the latter still has people living in mud huts. I know which I prefer. (This division is still evident in the "Doctor of Philosophy", aka "Ph.D.", which is awarded to academics in _any_ scientific field.) > It is also possible to show flaws in science's rules, but scientists > try very hard to ignore these flaws, No, they don't; if you can prove that their rules are flawed, they will come up with new rules that take those issues into account. That is how science progresses. Religion, OTOH, tends to kill anyone who disagrees with their rules--such as scientists. >>> No one can figure out what the aliens were doing here, >> >> Nobody has established that aliens are here, or even that they >> exist. > > The Drake Equation suggests that there is a reasonable probability > that aliens do exist; but our knowledge of the universe suggests > that, even if they do exist, they are unlikely to find their way > here. Showing a probability that something exists is not the same thing as showing evidence that it actually does. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md4la6$chf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57842 |
On 03/03/15 14:59, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 01-Mar-15 14:58, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 01/03/15 20:31, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote: >>>> A person was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was getting >>>> steadily worse. Yet suddenly they made a full recovery - doctors >>>> are baffled. >>>> >>>> Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered >>> >>> ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered. That >>> doesn't rule out scientists discovering the cause in the >>> future--and using it to develop a cure. We learn new stuff every >>> day. >>> >>>> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be >>>> understood by mortal humans. >>> >>> There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales? >> >> To be more precise, hypotheses can be constructed that do not require >> a supernatural explanation, and therefore there is no scientific >> obligation to investigate supernatural explanations, which is just >> as well because such an investigation is not scientifically possible. > > Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations are > inherently out of scope. Right. > OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, so > it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural explanations, even > if the specific one at had has yet to be debunked. By the same argument, science has debunked thousands of natural explanations, so it's rational to be sceptical of _any_ natural explanations, even if the specific one at hand has yet to be debunked. You are hoist by your own petard. >> One of science's big assumptions is that the world plays nice (for >> certain values of "nice"), > > We have yet to find any objective, repeatable evidence that it doesn't. That's begging the question. That is, you are assuming that real phenomena give rise to objective, repeatable evidence. In other words, you are assuming that the world plays nice. But a phenomenon need not be repeatable under laboratory conditions in order to be real. Example: the Battle of Waterloo, 1815. You won't be able to repeat /that/ in the laboratory. In any case, the word 'repeatable' is highly suspect. *Nothing* is repeatable. I can take some hydrochloric acid and pour it into the right amount of sodium hydroxide (carefully), boil off the resulting liquid, and get sodium chloride as a residue. That sounds highly repeatable, doesn't it? But how can you repeat it? For it to be a true repeat, you must exactly match the conditions of the experiment. But you just can't. You can't use the same atoms, because I've got some of them and the rest have diffused into the atmosphere -- you'll never find *all* of them. And even if you could, you can't repeat the experiment at the same *time*, because my experiment is already finished and you don't have a time machine. And even if you did, you can't repeat the experiment at the same time *and* the same place, with the atoms in the exact same places as before, because those places are already occupied. There really is no such thing as repeatability. It's a myth. > >> and so divine intervention (which is notoriously unreproducible) is >> somehow considered to be cheating. Dismissing the possible existence >> of supernatural agencies as "fairy tales" is a fairly common way of >> protecting oneself against having to consider them. > > I don't need "protection" from imaginary fairies. And saying so is your way of protecting yourself against having to consider them. > That's one of the > main differences between religion and science: the former only applies > to those who believe in it, while the latter applies to everyone. If 'religion' (FCVO 'religion') is *true*, it applies to everyone. If it's false, it doesn't apply to anyone. >> It is possible to construct other rules that also work very well, as >> long as we accept that we are no longer "doing science" (i.e. playing >> by science's rules). > > Of course. In the olden days, universities were divided into two sets > of subjects: philosophy (study of the natural world, i.e. science) and > theology (study of the supernatural world, i.e. religion). The former > took us from riding horses to walking on the moon in a few years; the > latter still has people living in mud huts. I know which I prefer. A car has an accelerator and a brake. You may prefer the accelerator because it helps you go fast, but a time may yet come when you are grateful for the brake. Physical progress is important, and science certainly helps with that. But progress isn't just about walking on the moon. It's also about not treating people as things. Science is not good at that part. > (This division is still evident in the "Doctor of Philosophy", aka > "Ph.D.", which is awarded to academics in _any_ scientific field.) > >> It is also possible to show flaws in science's rules, but scientists >> try very hard to ignore these flaws, > > No, they don't; if you can prove that their rules are flawed, they will > come up with new rules that take those issues into account. Fine. The concept of repeatability is flawed. Go find some new rules that still work but which don't rely on repeatability. > That is how > science progresses. Religion, OTOH, tends to kill anyone who disagrees > with their rules--such as scientists. Religion never killed anyone. Neither did science. Religious *people* have killed, sure. And so have scientists. In fact, if you add them up, the scientists are vastly more efficient at killing people. In general, religions tend to be quite hot on urging us *not* to kill people. The Christian faith preaches "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control". Those are good things, right? I could, if I chose, go on and on about the hundreds of millions of people who died because of scientific advances. But I'm not going to do that. I don't wish to rubbish science, because I think it's a force for good, when used properly. But so is what we are calling 'religion' -- when used properly. >>>> No one can figure out what the aliens were doing here, >>> >>> Nobody has established that aliens are here, or even that they >>> exist. >> >> The Drake Equation suggests that there is a reasonable probability >> that aliens do exist; but our knowledge of the universe suggests >> that, even if they do exist, they are unlikely to find their way >> here. > > Showing a probability that something exists is not the same thing as > showing evidence that it actually does. I agree entirely. Nobody has established that aliens are here, or even that they exist. Nevertheless, the Drake Equation suggests that there is a reasonable probability that aliens do exist. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced by the Drake Equation. As far as aliens go, I'm a bit of a sceptic. But I wouldn't want to be bigoted about it -- if they exist, fine, they exist, and I don't have a problem with that, as long as they leave me alone to get on with my life without being eaten, shot at, gassed, poisoned, nuked, or whatever other advanced forms of killing these advanced intelligences have managed to dream up in their science laboratories. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 12:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54F5EB54.5050909@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #57842 |
On 03/03/2015 09:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: ... > Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations are > inherently out of scope. I strenuously disagree. Science is a methodology for understanding reality - if the supernatural is real, the scientific method should be just as applicable to the supernatural as to the natural. > OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, so > it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural explanations, even > if the specific one at had has yet to be debunked. If you were correct, and "supernatural explanations are inherently out of scope", then it wouldn't be possible for science to debunk a supernatural explanation. You can have "out of scope" or "debunked", but not both.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 11:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md4rml$8gi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57853 |
On 03-Mar-15 11:11, James Kuyper wrote: > On 03/03/2015 09:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations >> are inherently out of scope. > > I strenuously disagree. Science is a methodology for understanding > reality - if the supernatural is real, the scientific method should > be just as applicable to the supernatural as to the natural. > >> OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, >> so it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural >> explanations, even if the specific one at had has yet to be >> debunked. > > If you were correct, and "supernatural explanations are inherently > out of scope", then it wouldn't be possible for science to debunk a > supernatural explanation. You can have "out of scope" or "debunked", > but not both. *sigh* I wrote "supernatural explanations for natural events" but removed the latter half because I thought it was superfluous. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54F5F680.7050708@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #57854 |
On 03/03/2015 12:40 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 03-Mar-15 11:11, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 03/03/2015 09:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations >>> are inherently out of scope. >> >> I strenuously disagree. Science is a methodology for understanding >> reality - if the supernatural is real, the scientific method should >> be just as applicable to the supernatural as to the natural. >> >>> OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, >>> so it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural >>> explanations, even if the specific one at had has yet to be >>> debunked. >> >> If you were correct, and "supernatural explanations are inherently >> out of scope", then it wouldn't be possible for science to debunk a >> supernatural explanation. You can have "out of scope" or "debunked", >> but not both. > > *sigh* I wrote "supernatural explanations for natural events" but > removed the latter half because I thought it was superfluous. You'll need to be a little more detailed in your explanation. If I perform a simple global search-and-replace of "supernatural explanations" => "supernatural explanations for natural events" on your message, the same global search-and-replace on my answer makes it an equally valid response.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 11:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c089642f-8e16-46eb-85a1-6cead77dbe3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57853 |
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:12:03 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote: > On 03/03/2015 09:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations are > > inherently out of scope. > > I strenuously disagree. Science is a methodology for understanding > reality - if the supernatural is real, the scientific method should be > just as applicable to the supernatural as to the natural. > imagine a super-futursitic Doom written with top-notch AI, so that the game characters can develop their own scientific theories. They realise that fundamentally reality is quantised into "bits" and obeys reproducible equations, and there can be nothing in the world that is not bits. They've no access to the human C programmer. But the human C programmer has access to them. He can even put little clues into the game world about his existence. But they can't fit that into their science. > > > OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, so > > it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural explanations, even > > if the specific one at had has yet to be debunked. > > If you were correct, and "supernatural explanations are inherently out > of scope", then it wouldn't be possible for science to debunk a > supernatural explanation. You can have "out of scope" or "debunked", but > not both. > Science can show that a supernatural explanation isn't necessary. If I'm an expert on cats, I can say that Marge the Moggie is a normal cat, behaving normally, with normal physiology and so on. If it's alleged that Marge is a witch's cat, then ultimately I can't answer that, but I can say that Marge's miaowing is consistent with there being mice in the church rather than some expression of hatred at the scriptures. However if I can't explain Marge's miaowing in church, then my status as a cat expert doesn't allow me to conclude that Marge must be a witch's cat, unless I'm also an expert on witchcraft. All I can say is that I've observed the cat miaowing in church, I find the behaviour unusual, and I don't have a good explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md6hir$fut$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57861 |
On 03/03/15 20:43, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:12:03 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 03/03/2015 09:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> >>> Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural explanations are >>> inherently out of scope. >> >> I strenuously disagree. Science is a methodology for understanding >> reality - if the supernatural is real, the scientific method should be >> just as applicable to the supernatural as to the natural. >> > imagine a super-futursitic Doom written with top-notch AI, so that the > game characters can develop their own scientific theories. They realise that > fundamentally reality is quantised into "bits" and obeys reproducible > equations, and there can be nothing in the world that is not bits. > They've no access to the human C programmer. But the human C programmer > has access to them. He can even put little clues into the game world > about his existence. But they can't fit that into their science. /Why/ can't they fit that into their science? They might not come up with a good enough or complete theory - but it would be considered as something very difficult to explain, rather than "supernatural". It is like cosmologists considering the universe before the big bang, or multiverses, or additional dimensions. It is hard to figure it out, but scientists are not in doubt that there is a scientific explanation - even if many may doubt that we will ever find one. The same applies to the Doom characters. (But bonus points for getting back on topic!) >> >>> OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, so >>> it's rational to be skeptical of _any_ supernatural explanations, even >>> if the specific one at had has yet to be debunked. >> >> If you were correct, and "supernatural explanations are inherently out >> of scope", then it wouldn't be possible for science to debunk a >> supernatural explanation. You can have "out of scope" or "debunked", but >> not both. >> > Science can show that a supernatural explanation isn't necessary. If I'm an > expert on cats, I can say that Marge the Moggie is a normal cat, behaving > normally, with normal physiology and so on. If it's alleged that Marge is > a witch's cat, then ultimately I can't answer that, but I can say that Marge's > miaowing is consistent with there being mice in the church rather than some > expression of hatred at the scriptures. > However if I can't explain Marge's miaowing in church, then my status as a > cat expert doesn't allow me to conclude that Marge must be a witch's cat, > unless I'm also an expert on witchcraft. All I can say is that I've observed the > cat miaowing in church, I find the behaviour unusual, and I don't have a > good explanation. > That's easy - all cats have a hidden daemon inside, even if they are not witches' cats. The speed at which they turn from cute and cuddly into a ball of spikes is all the evidence needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 12:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md7kid$894$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57861 |
On 03-Mar-15 13:43, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:12:03 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 03/03/2015 09:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> Science is study of the natural world, so supernatural >>> explanations are inherently out of scope. >> >> I strenuously disagree. Science is a methodology for understanding >> reality - if the supernatural is real, the scientific method should >> be just as applicable to the supernatural as to the natural. >> > imagine a super-futursitic Doom written with top-notch AI, so that > the game characters can develop their own scientific theories. See _The Thirteenth Floor_. The ending was too sappy for my tastes but otherwise probably more thought-provoking (and relevant to this sort of discussion) than _The Matrix_, which is the more common reference. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 19:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md4tvv$70j$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57842 |
Le 03/03/2015 15:59, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : > OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, so > it's rational to be skeptical of_any_ supernatural explanations, even > if the specific one at had has yet to be debunked. Please note: Supposing that aliens exist and they observe us is not "supernatural" in any way! Obviously supposing that we are the ONLY intelligent beings in the whole universe is stupid. Then, aliens must exist somewhere. Supposing that the many unexplained sightings are a consequence of their existence is just a logical step. It is NOT a "supernatural" explanation by any means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web