Big Think

sciencesaves on June 27, 2008, 8:15 AM

Good piece Herbie. Those who feel the need to believe should not apply scientific method to religious concepts with the expectation of providing some sort of validation, or evidence as to the legitimacy of the belief.

In order to maintain the illusion, I would think it best to stay as far away from logical methods as possible.

dennis ilic on June 27, 2008, 10:12 AM

Herbie, very well said. I was reading some of the things you said yesterday in another thread to Jesse. I’m very glad you but it all together with this idea.

My friend is very much into science but unfortunately with very little background. He became interested in it at an older age and was simply too old to learn new tricks when it came to calculas and other basics. However, he does understand applying the scientific method. We were actually watching a seminar on black holes from the Perimiter Institute. Have you heard of the Perimeter Institute?

Anyway, to cut to the chase, my friend, who has no religious upbringing, has been using science to find awe and inspiration in the universe. Using it to find a source he could relate to and perhaps belong to. A common beginning sort of thing.
Most of the quasi-scientific things I throw around come from him, but I am just cherry picking things that I can relate to without having the years of background research that he invested.

In conclusion, I get it. Scientific method is not a belief system. Thank you for your patience and blowing my mind to a new octive.

HerbieP on June 27, 2008, 11:17 AM

Thanks SS and HZ. I have only heard a little of the PT it’s a relatively recent Canadian foundation isn’t it?

dennis ilic on June 27, 2008, 11:41 AM

Yeah, it’s the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo Ontario, Canada. You could google it and get their website. I was born and raised in that area. I went to University in that city and now live about 30km away. I actually, drive by the building everytime I go to my parents home.
I think sometimes it is hard to realize how special something is when it is so close home, or always at home. I guess that’s what they mean by taking something for granted.

HerbieP on June 27, 2008, 11:47 AM

I studied at Imperial College in London and by bizzare co-incidence the Charity that I now work for is based just up the road from it. I occasionally pop down there for lectures just to keep my mind alive.

sciencesaves on June 27, 2008, 11:51 AM

Waterloo is a real scientific mecca, I’ve seen some real interesting debates on science/religion, etc. online. They deal with some real cutting-edge issues and studies.

My hometown university is Miami of Ohio, a public college specializing in business-related studies. Mostly greeks (frat/sorority), and semi-spoiled “academics”, mostly socialites, even though it’s a public college.

Training for future consumers and status-quo ’ers.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on June 27, 2008, 12:10 PM

Well said Herbie. Thanks.

Musycks on June 27, 2008, 8:32 PM

Nice avatar HP! one of my favourite pithy little sayings for when a situation turns bad is ‘bugger this for a game of soldiers’!

and the first thing to do when a system won’t support your own conclusions re- science v religion.. is discredit the discipline or the messenger… it’s been working for years. Religious people mostly have to remain scientifically illiterate or face the consequences… pantheism here we come!
rock on guys.

sciencesaves on June 27, 2008, 9:09 PM

I don’t think they’re soldiers. One has four arms, and they certainly aren’t the traditional soldier stances.

I think they’re toy pole dancers, and the Y-shaped things are the poles. An educational toy for young girls not planning to attend college…

(drum roll – cymbal crash!)

Jesse Akers on June 27, 2008, 9:53 PM

" However if your beliefs do enter the realm of science (such as claiming the universe is only 6,000 years old) be prepared to use good science to make your case. Merely using words like ‘energy’, ‘vibrations’ and ‘dimensions’ does not make statements of belief any more credible "

AGREED! do you think i enjoy trying to explain the ken hovinds of the world? I have put it out there before that i agree that part of the “old time believers” plague of not only being scientifically illerit. but biblically, and everything that goes with that….

remeber what socrates had to say about all the “intellectuals” of his had to say about their own field of expertise…….Phd’s sometimes have a hard time even communicating because of this phenemnon

HerbieP on June 28, 2008, 4:25 AM

SS, Musycks, they are figures from the Marx, ‘Mystery Spaceship’, a very big gyroscope I played with as a kid. I saw one in an auction two weeks ago. Mmmm I can feel the texture of that four armed fellow in my mouth now.

Jess do you have a PhD? I know that my thoughts get ahead of my typing sometimes but with paragraphs like: "I have put it out there before that i agree that part of the “old time believers” plague of not only being scientifically illerit. but biblically, and everything that goes with that…." you would certainly qualify. Absurd as it may seem on the evidence here I used to make change typing up other people’s theses and improving the English – suckers.

sciencesaves on June 28, 2008, 7:30 AM

HP, “I can feel the texture of the four-armed fellow in my mouth now”

Thanks for the laugh, you’ve got a keen sense of humor, and I appreciate your style.

Jesse Akers on June 28, 2008, 2:39 PM

a little bit of aspergers and a little lacking in concern, words do not awlays articulate as well as your thoughts would like, i guess we’re still figuring out that language thing huh…

My writing gets ahead of me,but if you look at the posts around here besides PastorJ and you no one pays much attention to the writing, typing is also much faster than written word, so mistakes tend to pile up faster

… a lot of bashing coming from you on someone who agrees with you…;)

Jesse Akers on June 28, 2008, 2:40 PM

“you would certainly qualify”

….any more than muysucs, you, or anyone else on this these threads?

Pastor Jennifer on June 28, 2008, 3:59 PM

Thanks for giving a succinct definition of the scientific method HerbieP. BTW do you think I should change my avatar name to PastorJohn? It seems males don’t get the same vicious responses as women when they critique spelling!!! (illerit was hilarious…where did that come from? … and to complain of bashing…poor thing!)
laughing

Jesse Akers on June 28, 2008, 8:23 PM

pj- disposition not gender is the issue- but keep playing the poor woman card, Pelosi is going to lock up all of us he-man-woman haters for you someday….;)

HerbieP on June 29, 2008, 9:30 AM

Sorry Jess. I actually meant that I hadn’t understoood what you’d written. However after a few more attempts I think that I get it now.

HerbieP on June 29, 2008, 10:56 AM

I take that sorry back now Jess. After reading one of your posts in another place I see that you are back on the same old track of saying that science progresses by revisionism. Try reading what I have written above again please. I think you’ll find that religion ‘progresses’ by revising all that has gone before, desert war god to loving god etc.

Pastor Jennifer on June 29, 2008, 2:46 PM

Oh jesseakers
You are so emotionally and intellectually dishonest.

Pastor Jennifer on June 29, 2008, 3:14 PM

HerbieP
I have read the article that you referred me to about Arthur C. Clark in the Guardian.(no supermarket tabloids don’t cut it) You claim this lent support to your contention that he was a pedophile. I have read it in its entirety and have found no such evidence. Explain yourself please.

HerbieP on June 29, 2008, 5:21 PM

PastorJ when I posted the link to the Observer article I said this:

I don’t like to be a participant in mudslinging and perhaps I have let my personal opinion to come across too strong, for which apologies. In the interest of balance here is a link to a subsequent interview with an Observer journalist:

The article contains this bit:

A curious exchange then follows I ask him if he was damaged by the allegations on the front page of the Sunday Mirror from last March, which accused him of ‘paying for sex with young boys’. ‘Oh,’ Clarke says understatedly, ‘that was very unpleasant, of course, and luckily there was no problem whatsoever I immediately got the police in, and they disproved the whole damn thing’.
Are you suing the Mirror?
‘Well,’ he says, ’that’s why I don’t want to talk about it’.
So how did it come about?
‘Two journalists came to interview me,’ he says ‘I said nothing that I would’ve regretted if they’d quoted it accurately.
I don’t understand their motivation. Or I do. He (Clarke points to a picture of himself and Prince Charles) was coming, and they wanted to create some embarrassment. But every single one of their facts was refutable I have signed affidavits’.

Clarkes’ response in this bit coupled with his reaction on TV convinced me that there was something to the allegation. Like I said you should not put credence in teh Mirror but the Observer’s journalists choice of words is clearly unease keeping away from libel. It’s only my opinion. I told you to keep your hero on a pedastle if you wished.

Jesse Akers on June 29, 2008, 9:04 PM

HerbieP- so science, espically physics, does not include any non-flasifiable claims?? I look forward to your answer to this particualar question….

Revisionist….. did eintstein say something about standing on the shoulders of giants…. not so much revision as shaping…loosley compared to a sculptor sculpting his rock…chipping away things that dont belong, gradually revealing what “lies beneath”….a poor example but I ll work on a better on…do you have a metaphor you like to compare physics or the sciences in general?

Jesse Akers on June 29, 2008, 9:04 PM

PJ-about what??

Jesse Akers on June 29, 2008, 9:08 PM

duz ma speling dstrub u tht moch?…;):(

Jesse Akers on June 29, 2008, 9:10 PM

HerbieP-what post are you talking about?

…and hey if you want to know what I really think about certain issues ask me yourself, don’t judge over what could be a misconstrued conversation on a blogsite…

pokój! on June 29, 2008, 9:58 PM

HP:
I agree with most of what you say here, and have some things to add to
“Believers often compare the process of doubt that they go through to scientific inquiry. They also compare science to belief systems.”

I immediately see the problem there… I have always held that belief cannot be explained by science… If I ever said anything seemingly to the contrary I’d ask for another chance to explain myself…


“First of all science is not a belief system, it is merely a tool for investigating phenomena by putting forth theories and testing them rigorously.”

Certainly not ‘merely’ :) It is our explanations of the goings-on of our selves and surroundings…

“Believers often point out that many scientific theories are ‘only theories’ and that a number have been ‘proved wrong’ in the past and supplanted by other theories.”

I think this can mostly be attributed to trying to hold up mirrors and having the light reflect back into our eyes… and taken out of context of whatever topic these examples were brought up in this makes no sense, though I would have to wonder of the intent of the believer in each example…

“The really big stuff that captures the popular imagination, big bang, quantum mechanics, string theory, notions of spacetime and so on are all highly speculative. Yes they are based on networks of assumptions. They are exciting areas and scientists are prone to speculation like everyone else.”


These are the few cases in which I couldn’t fully disagree with a believer in comparing science to faith… Those who are at the forefronts of these theories must have committed countless hours and their energies to pondering such seemingly extravagant theories to even begin to consider them worthy of their continued pursuit. This can relate in some small way to the excitement of a ‘believer’ when they first begin to accept that maybe there is a more obscure way of looking at their beleifs…

“Just because ideas change rapidly and on a grand scale in these areas does not mean that the underlying scientific method is at fault. The press does not help by printing sensationalist stories. The public is hungry for Hawkins’ latest pronouncement, a public that is largely scientifically illiterate. The public thinks it can pick and mix ideas of many dimensions, black holes, worm holes and multiple universes without a basic understanding of even classical mechanics. Science is plagued by pseudo science and wild speculation and it is difficult for the scientifically illiterate to distinguish.”

You can’t fault the institution for its human errors… hey, that sounds familiar! ;P
I sometimes try to take in the more sensational ideas without first understanding its foundations… it usually leads to me getting frustrated and realising that I’m fighting a loosing battle with my mind…

“Belief systems do not operate like science. God and the spirit world are not theories that explain observed phenomena.”

I agree… as far as that goes…

“If they were, upon formulating a god theory, you would be required to devise an experiment to falsify or confirm your theory. This is what science does.”

Okay but then the theists are not the only ones at fault here… many times atheists attempt to procure “evidence” from the believers, expecting them to either be able to prove God in some scientific way or suspend their belief… this topic therefore should not only be directed towards the believers as the ones who need this understanding…

“It does not point to random bits of evidence and leave it at that.”

If you are insinuating that this is what believers are doing here I would completely disagree… speaking for myself, I’ve always said that I will be unable to provide the logical explanation of my beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I can’t try to communicate why I have these beliefs… sure it may sound nonsensical to the other communities, and probably to other believers occasionally, but that…

I think that in some cases atheists are more at fault for trying to ‘convert’ than those they accuse of the same…

“Even sciences such as geology and astronomy, where is difficult to perform experiments on the subjects of investigation, do try to correlate data and cross reference to check theories. The theories are required to make predictions that can be confirmed by observation.”

yes…

“Beliefs are not required to do this.”

Well we do have the necessity to commune with others as well as prayer… outside input is always welcome and eagerly searched for among the believers that are willing to question their faith…

“However if you do adhere to a belief system that contradicts available science it does not help your position to simply try and discredit science as a tool.”

Very strongly agree here…

“The only credible process open to you is to challenge the science by establishing a testable theory. I do not really consider this to be the function of belief but some believers might.”

I don’t believe any scientific theory could have the ability to kill belief,[:P] so I don’t see this as a necessary means of argument by a believer…

“Science and belief need not operate in the same realms (however logic, philosophy and belief may well do).”

It is when they do that real faith begins to be tested…

“It is perfectly possible to believe in gods and spirit worlds that evade verification or falsification. However if your beliefs do enter the realm of science (such as claiming the universe is only 6,000 years old) be prepared to use good science to make your case.”

Agreed…

“Merely using words like ‘energy’, ‘vibrations’ and ‘dimensions’ does not make statements of belief any more credible.”

well there is meaning behind such words that may be lost between two individuals, so on the whole they should be used with caution anyway…

Nice post!
Shalom

Musycks on June 30, 2008, 3:32 AM

I think maybe all of us are… to quote Harry Nilsson.. ‘trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind’
ripple on.

HerbieP on June 30, 2008, 3:46 AM

Pokoj: Thanks for a thoughtful response. On the whole I think that we are on the same page. Where you have misconstrued me I think that perhaps it’s my lack of clarity. I was not trying to suggest anything about belief but to make clear what a limited tool sceince is and how science and religion are not opposites as some believers whould suggest.

You are clearly not in the category of believer that sometimes frustrates me.

HerbieP on June 30, 2008, 3:49 AM

HerbieP- so science, espically physics, does not include any non-flasifiable claims?? I look forward to your answer to this particualar question….

Yes Jess true science does not contain non-falsifiable claims. Falsifiability has been at the heart of science for over a hundred years now. This is why all science is phased as ‘theories’. Even a well-tested theory is possibly falsifiable at a later date. There can be no certainty in science, that’s why it’s not a religion.

sciencesaves on June 30, 2008, 9:44 AM

Yes, science is always falsifiable.

Religion consists of, and depends upon (unfalsifiable) concept “conclusions” without evidence.

Which one would you rely on if your life depended upon the correct choice, unknown entities, or known scientific theories?

Good thing we have a choice. Many of our ancestors did not.

Belief makes one feel better, but belief does not make one better, it only facilitates a better reaction to applied science, from a neurological standpoint. Optomism from any source provides the same results, as long as the correct substances, and methods of repair are applied to the physiology, medically speaking.

Does this make sense?

Jesse Akers on June 30, 2008, 11:25 AM

Well for non-falsifiable claims that usually begin with induction I will start with an easy one and I know your going to scream creationist, I can already hear it, ignore that assumption and point me to an answer.

Probabilty- does it assume uniformity or not? And is uniformity a valid assumption based on emperical evidence?

Let start with an easy one that should be right up your alley since your were a physics major HerbieP:

The speed of light in a vacuume- is it a valid assumption to claim that
1. there is any such thing as a true vacuume
2. that we could produce such a vacuume and measure the speed of light in it.
3. That this speed is somehow constant from the conception or steady state of the universe, and will always remain constant.

Scalar fields have not been observed yet, but they are a common assumption in modern physics (like the Higgs field, for example)

I m not claiming that they never will or can’t be observed yet, but that they are assumptions that make “models” of the way we understand the universe intelligible. Sometimes models do require assumptions to make sense, however until the assumptions are proven true the rest of the model must be on shakey ground. Just for the fun of it I hope this large haldron collider gives us something to chew on as far as these assumptions go…

I look forward to your reply.

HerbieP on June 30, 2008, 12:48 PM

Jess you haven’t referred to anything that is not a falsifiable claim so I have no idea what you are talking about. The Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson have not been observed. This is a good example if the LHC does not find the Higgs then the standard model will have to be altered or abandoned. This is an example of theory progressing, postulating a testable hypothesis (in this case the Higgs) and then experiment trying to find or disprove it. there are other competing theories that don’t require the Higgs Boson.

Jesse Akers on June 30, 2008, 3:42 PM

…um yes i gave you three, first is there any such thing as a true vacuume…

HerbieP on June 30, 2008, 4:01 PM

Why does it matter that isn’t a scientific theory.

Jesse Akers on June 30, 2008, 5:20 PM

because the speed of light is used as a measuring rod for so many of them…

HerbieP on July 1, 2008, 2:13 AM

Well the answer is yes. You can maufacture a near-as-damn-it vacuum (as far as matter is concerned). For light propagation purposes space (even that in the solar system) is pretty much a vacuum. I don’t know what you have in mind about ‘true vacuum’. Just get it off your chest. The velocity of light in vacuum also comes out of Maxwell’s equations and all you really have to do is multiply frequency by wavelength if you have those. Why don’t you just say whatever it is you are trying to get at? Whatever it is it has nothing to do with the point of science requiring falsifiability. If what you are trying to show is that many scientific theories are based on a number of assumptions you have no need to be so mysterious just say it – I agree with you. Let me say this really clearly because you don’t seem to be able to get it – all scientific theories are based on assumptions. All theories can and will be modfied or abandoned as better fits to observations come along or new observations require explanation. That is how science works. This does not mean that existing science doesn’t work or isn’t ‘true’. German rocket science available at the time dropped V2s on London. Slight improvements got man to the moon. Just because we now have better theories doesn’t mean that these things didn’t happen. Science is now a vast interconnected web of assumptions that rely on and support each other. Adjustment of one does mean a chain of adjustment sometimes. If you are looking for a ‘well if that’s not so then all of science is founded on sand’ then you are not going to find it. All modern technology and medicine works because science is a damned good approximation.

Luke Allen on July 1, 2008, 1:49 PM

“Science and belief need not operate in the same realms”

Couldn’t agree with you more. Why an Atheist gets frusterated with Believer’s is due to our beginning premises. The Non-believer just starts observing natural events and the believer starts from the bible or Koran or whichever Holy Book they subscribe to. This beginning premise is the root to the disdain held by all sides.

Also, I think, but hope not, that I am “category of believer that sometimes frustrates me.” This really isn’t my intention. With your posts I am corrected often and that is thoroughly appreciated by me.

I am learning on bigthink that some things I thought I knew, I knew incorrectly. I am on bigthink just as much, if not more, then when I first logged in, I am just responding less and reading more due to the incredible information out here! Thank you Herbiep for fixing some of my false premises.

PastorJennifer teaches me things I never knew I didn’t know. You teach me things I thought I knew but don’t. Again I apologize if my elementary science backround ever frusterates you.

As a whole though reading through posts Jesseakers is getting far too much…. maybe anger is the best word? He is a bright and intelligent young man that like myself, sometimes makes false assumptions. Please don’t use that against us, we are all on here to try to learn more.

Stay strong and smile always my bigthink family!

HerbieP on July 1, 2008, 4:15 PM

Thank you Luke I appreciate your post. You did frustrate me a little (but by no means the most frustrating poster) when you referred to the electrical ‘fields’ that we generate that can be manipulated and to spurious research. If you want to stay on one thread and specify what you are talking about I will try to explain why it is not good science. I have no problem with you believeing in such ‘fields’ but you have made outlandish claims about imminent proof of their existence and hence that of higher ‘dimensions’ and all the sort of pseudo science gobbledegook that I have taken issue with in this thread.

I will try to give you an analogy of how this pseudo science talk sounds to me. It’s a bit like one of those trendy executive boxers who’ve done a bit of training and think that they are a bit of alright and have absolutely no concept of what it means to be a real boxer (pro or accomplished amateur), how skillful you really have to be, how hard a real boxer punches and how much you have to be able to take it just to step into the ring. I know that you are taking science education seriously and that’s why I respect you.

Luke Allen on July 1, 2008, 5:04 PM

Hey Herbiep:

Here is the problem. I would never speak of what I know is true until there was scientific data. I have spent the last decade of my life working with “the electrical ‘fields’ that we generate that can be manipulated” However, I have shunned most of my fellow workers because unless it is verifiable, there isn’t a need to make claims.

Meaning the legitimate benefits of massage therapy are stress reduction, breaking up of muscle adhesions and realignment of muscle into proper muscular alignment. These benefits are medically approved with a lot of scientific data. Therefore, we don’t, as a profession, need to resort to energy work, yet.

Have I had an energetic connection with another, yes. Do I see energy fields… more often than not, yes. Would I want to make these claims without the scientific data of SQUID… HELL NO! So if you have a reason why the SQUID data is incorrect I look forward to that response and will never claim something is factual if I know there isn’t objective data proving it is factual. Did that make any sense or is it convulated? I often have a tendency at that, I am sorry.

Going with your analogy: It is very advantageous if I get in a fight with a “trendy executive boxers” for him to think he is going to have a shot at winning, otherwise, he would just shoot me.

So I’d advise you not to worry about us “amateurs” because our lack of knowledge is what allows us to “fight” with your information and has you coming out as the winner. If we knew we didn’t know anything, then we would just resort back to the equilvalent of “being shot” with our non-need to even learn science. Then your just stuck with a dumber population. So let us fight my friend without your frusteration.

Ill admit I have no idea why the science behind SQUID is good or bad. I have already read why people think it is good, I look forward to why you think it is bad.

Ill admit I have no idea why the science in answeringenesis.org is good or bad. I have already read why people think it is good, I look forward to why you think it is bad.

Otherwise, just being dismissed as “silly” leaves me to the conclusion that pseudo-science is just whatever certain people can’t comprehend. Meaning the term pseudo-science literally is subjective and without an objective proof; I can’t know the difference. Sorry for being ignorant but if you want a massage in LV I can hook you up! Stay Strong! And I look forward to your response.

HerbieP on July 1, 2008, 5:24 PM

Luke Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices are effectively just sensitive magnetometers. Just saying teh name of a measuring device doesn’t suggest anything. what are you suggesting that has been ‘proved’ using SQUID?

I have no problem with your personal experience of manipulating other people’s ‘fields’ through your powers. I do have a problem if you think that soemone has measured this going on. Yes the human body, and all biological systems, produce a variety of weak electrical and magnetic fields. If it is these fields that you are talking about they have been being measured for a long time. Now with more sensitive equipment more is being found out about them. I’m not suggesting that you are dumber than me or anyone else, just that you are not in a position to judge scientific claims one way or another. I am basing what I am saying on the way you just keep saying ‘SQUID’ without saying precisely what you are claiming. You ahve also mentioned other dimensions and the pineal gland (if I remember rightly) in inchoerent ways. If you can just state clearly just what it is you think that SQUID is going to show.

HerbieP on July 1, 2008, 5:34 PM

As far as evloution vs creationism is concerned (since you’ve also thrown this into the mix). Evolution is a theory, creationism is not, it is an assertion from faith. The two are not comparable and certainly not opposing theories. Evolution is a theory that makes falsifiable assertions. Geneticsists, biologists and palaeontologists are constantly working on elements of the theory. To a serious scientist there is no real issue that life evolves by natural selection. There are still issues about the detail of how it happens.

HerbieP on July 1, 2008, 5:53 PM

Luke do you mean that you ‘see’ these fields with your eyes? If so your eyes are only equiped to see visible light why then would we need SQUID to detect these fields? What mechanism is you eye using to ‘see’ these fields? Are you suggesting that these ‘energy’ fields that you connect with are weak electrostatic fields? If so how can you see them? Do you see electrostatic fields in contexts other than biological? Have you tested yourself in blind testings where a third party has shown you weak fields to identify under rigorous testing circumstances? If not then we are not really talking about science here. If had had had teh experiences that you have these are the first things that I would do.

Luke Allen on July 1, 2008, 6:12 PM

Hey HerbieP

“Yes the human body, and all biological systems, produce a variety of weak electrical and magnetic fields. If it is these fields that you are talking about they have been being measured for a long time. Now with more sensitive equipment more is being found out about them.” Ok, then I think we are in agreement that as we learn more than more will be known and then and only then should we talk about this?

I believe that SQUID is a “more sensitive equipement” that is starting to prove from NIH this statement: “(SQUID) has been claimed to measure large frequency-pulsing biomagnetic fields emanating from the hands of Therapeutic Touch practitioners during therapy.” Sooo is this device or scientific claim not good enough? On what grounds? I’m not saying I know enough about science to know why this claim is wrong but it seems to me to completely contradict this statement from you: “I do have a problem if you think that soemone has measured this going on.” right?

“To a serious scientist there is no real issue that life evolves by natural selection” Your assertion then is that the scientist, PhD’s and such aren’t serious from answersingenesis.org? What qualifies as serious then to you and not just faith based?

Your last questions aren’t really something I should answer, because I don’t think that a field should state what isn’t scientifically provable. If you want me to speculate further I will but I will only under the acknowledgement that I am speculating and not making any scientific claims.

Thanks for the responses HerbieP, hopefully I’m not irritating you, if it does though just tell me and I’ll stop responding and give you the last word on your post. Stay Strong!

Luke Allen on July 1, 2008, 6:49 PM

O and “You ahve also mentioned other dimensions and the pineal gland (if I remember rightly) in inchoerent ways” Other dimensions I am reading your selection you asked before I comment and pineal gland? I never said anything about that at all.

HerbieP on July 2, 2008, 2:30 AM

“Your assertion then is that the scientist, PhD’s and such aren’t serious from answersingenesis.org?” Yes. Just give me any particular example taht you find convincing.

Your statement about SQUID finding long wavelengths is just a ‘claim’ it is not scientific evidence of anything Luke. There are many false calims about all sorts of things. Do you understand the word ‘claim’?

No your speculations aren’t useful at this point. “Would I want to make these claims without the scientific data of SQUID… HELL NO!” What data Luke? Point me in the direction of waht has convinced you, by which I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper. I don’t even know what your hypothesis is. Could you explain exactly what it is taht you are asserting?

HerbieP on July 2, 2008, 2:51 AM

Sorry about the pineal gland thing Luke it must have bene somebody else, but I think I found where some of your other ‘science’ comes from. I checked out the ‘Centre for Enegry Medicine’ site. No this is not a scientific organisation. It collects all kinds of wild ideas and statements and prints things out of context to prop up its various wild claims about energy healing. It sells these therapies and grants its own PhDs it is not a legitimate scientific centre.

"There has always been an interest in detecting and describing the physical properties of putative energy fields. Kirlian photography, aura imaging, and gas discharge visualization are approaches for which dramatic and unique differences before and after therapeutic energy attunements or treatments have been claimed. However, it is not clear what is being detected or photographed. Early results demonstrated that gamma radiation levels markedly decreased during therapy sessions in 100 percent of subjects and at every body site tested, regardless of which therapist performed the treatment. Recently replicated studies identified statistically significant decreases in gamma rays emitted from patients during alternative healing sessions with trained practitioners.
It has been hypothesized that the body’s primary gamma emitter, potassium-40 (K40), represents a “self-regulation” of energy within the body and the surrounding electromagnetic field. The body’s energy adjustment may result, in part, from the increased electromagnetic fields surrounding the hands of the healers. Furthermore, an extremely sensitive magnetometer called a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) has been claimed to measure large frequency-pulsing biomagnetic fields emanating from the hands of Therapeutic Touch practitioners during therapy. In one study, a simple magnetometer measured and quantified similar frequency-pulsing biomagnetic fields from the hands of meditators and practitioners of yoga and qi gong. These fields were 1,000 times greater than the strongest human biomagnetic field and were in the same frequency range as those being tested in medical research laboratories for use in speeding the healing process of certain biological tissues. This range is low energy and extremely low frequency, spanning from 2 Hz to 50 Hz. However, there are considerable technical problems in such research. For example, SQUID measurement must be conducted under a special shielded environment, and the connection between electromagnetic field increases and observed healing benefits reported in the current literature is missing.“

I think that this is what you have been quoting. K-40 is a naturally occuring radioactive isotope. It is found in atmsopheric dust, rocks, even concrete. It naturally accues in the human body. Its natural decay rate cannot be changed by electric fields.

Note:
”…and observed healing benefits reported in the current literature is missing" It doesn’t mean anything Luke. If gamma rays were in fact modulated in this way then the science behind SQUID would not work and the measurements themselves (if they had ever been made) could not be trusted. SQUID depends on science to work that contradicts the claims made for what it is measuring. Even if these ‘measurements’ were true and verifiable the problem would be with the SQUID rather than what is being measured. If weak electrical fields could modulate gamma decay then we wouldn’t need lead shielding from radiation.

HerbieP on July 2, 2008, 5:03 AM

Luke you can usually tell references to real scientific research from the citations. You can trace any claims made back to the published source and check if it is reputable. Apart from the fact that the claims make no sense the ‘Centre for Energy Medicine’ does not give references. To be fair to them in the passage you quote they actually don’t say much, just quote unreferenced ‘claims’ and ‘hypothesis’ without saying who makes the claims or what they are based on.

Luke Allen on July 2, 2008, 10:24 AM

KO! You won I will remove my silly statement from my profile and be more prudent in the future. Sorry for the waste of time HerbieP. Thank you! I look forward to future correspondence with you and hope this weak argument won’t prevent that. Take care.

HerbieP on July 2, 2008, 10:37 AM

Luke you have knocked the wind out of me. I never expect believers to retract like that! It certainly wasn’t a waste of my time because I spent a pleasant hour talking with an old colleague about how SQUID works. Also if it helps you to look at source material more critically then we’ve made some progress. You could easily have ignored my reply or refused resaonable argument, it takes a mature person not to do that – thanks.

Luke Allen on July 2, 2008, 7:45 PM

Hey HerbieP,

I appreciate the compliment. I was VERY disappointed with myself in asserting such a flawed concept. I am happy to be one of the beneficiaries of the conversation between your friend and you.

In the future, please note I have a deep desire to learn what is true and isn’t. I have a deep respect and appreciation for scientist and recognize that I am never really qualified to make claims because all science REALLY interests me. I could be reading Dr. Collin’s Genome research one week and Dr. Greene’s superstring theory the next. This isn’t beneficial because too often I am caught making silly assertions from reading too much different stuff.

However, if you don’t mind my ignorances; I appreciate immensly your discerning and clear thinking mind! Thanks again.

HerbieP on July 3, 2008, 3:36 AM

Thank you for the compliments Luke right back at ya (I really admire boxers).

If you are interested in string theory then ‘Not even wrong’ by Peter Woit might interest you. It is relevant to this thread in that I don’t really consider string theory to be a theory at all. It is a good example of something that lots of non-scientists latch on to and popular science media make assertions about and even the scientific community spends an inordiate amount of time and resources investigating when, as yet, it has no truely falsifiable claims. Only now with the LHC may we be able to test some of its asertions. Of course there are many practicing scientists who would not agree with me about this and I am just an outsider now but I think that string theory (moving in the right direction or not) misleads the general public about the nature of science. Woit’s book is readable by non-mathematicians so you can get an idea of what string theory looks like from someone who is not a proponent.

sciencesaves on July 3, 2008, 8:43 AM

luke, Damn, you’re a well-adjusted guy! I see a lot of maturity and humility, and I have a great deal of respect for those two qualities. Are all boxers as optomistic?

HP, What periodical, (if that’s the right term), publication, that is, monthly magazine or something similar, do you recommend for those of us who are interested in the best real and proven scientific discoveries at the present time?

I’ve read some from a publication titled “Discover”, if I remember correctly, but there are a lot of questionable sources out there in print. Also, do you favor any TV programs like NOVA, or the old COSMOS, over others for the same reasons?

HerbieP on July 3, 2008, 11:37 AM

SS (you have to remember that I’m in England) I occasionally read Nature and I find that I can pretty much keep up with things in other sciences through that. For more populist magazines I read Sceintific American and New Scientist. I’ve never heard of the programmes that you mention but I don’t watch much TV and maybe they are US only?

sciencesaves on July 3, 2008, 1:25 PM

HP, I wasn’t sure whether you’d heard of those or not. They’re both very interesting scientific series, NOVA was made by our public television network, which is dependant upon contributors, and some tax dollars, but remains unbiased, due to the commercial-free format. (No advertisers)
COSMOS was a great series with Carl Sagan hosting. Not sure of the production source, but I respect his viewpoints, I don’t think he would tolerate anything less than proven facts, and conservative speculation regarding cosmology. (check out the great segments on youtube when you get a chance)

Nature mag. is good, and I’ve seen a little Scientific American, some of it is pretty dry, but interesting.

So much of TV is a complete waste of time, unless you’re into the entertainment aspect of it. I don’t watch much either. I would rather enjoy a good movie, or documentary.

I haven’t forgotten where you’re at, I told you many moons ago that I feel like/am somewhat of a displaced limey myself. I’d love to get back there to visit someday, I feel like I fit in there moreso than here in Ohio.

HerbieP on July 3, 2008, 2:33 PM

I agree with you about Carl Sagan. He has alwyas seemed to be a very considred and rational individual. I’ll look out for those programmes. I only have terrestrial TV and no cable, so it’s just the basic English channels and out here in the wilds we don’t even get those in bad weather.

I don’t know much about Ohio but I for one would be glad to see you here.

Luke Allen on July 3, 2008, 2:45 PM

Hey Sciencesaves and HerbieP,

Thanks for the compliments. I appreciate you both and look forward to reading the book Woit wrote: Not Even Wrong. I got it today at the library but have a current addiction to Californication so it will compete with time for a day or two. The funny thing about DVD serie’s is OCD folks like myself can get through a whole season of shows in a couple day. HA!

Is there any scientific journals that one can access online? Do you guys have the sites? I am excited to learn more from you both. Stay Strong.

Jesse Akers on July 3, 2008, 8:53 PM

…gone for two days and all this… anyway getting back to the speed of light and the existence/nonexistence of true vacuumes, herbie- was i understanding you correctly when you said that space was itself close to a true vacuume? How is this tested? And as weird as it even sounds to me I m sure you ve heard of dark matter and such that some believe is the source of unexplained gravitational pulls….

But one question at a time- How do we conclude that space itself is anything close to a true vacuume, espically deep space, outside of our solar system and between galaxies…

HerbieP on July 4, 2008, 3:49 AM

Jess – spectroscopy. But you don’t have to think about deep space. The space between planets is pretty much a vacuum, that’s why astronauts wear space suits.

HerbieP on July 4, 2008, 3:59 AM

Why are you so interested in the vacuum of deep space? If you just get to the point maybe we can get somewhere.

How about I guess? If there is no true vacuum in deep space and if there are wierd phenomena such as dark matter how can we know what the speed of light is out in deep space? Is this where you’re heading? If so don’t bother – we can’t, it’s all a web of assumptions. See you just had to ask. Perhaps you’ve missed all the arguments that Skeptic has had. We can’t know anything, we take tiny steps from acknowledging that ‘something is thinking’ and we make assumptions and move on for practical purposes. Science just extends this process. As it makes assumptions about the very very big and the very very small (essentially things beyond human senses) it makes bigger and bigger assumptions. All that we can do is make a few predictions from theory to test those assumptions. When you get into the realms of things such as dark matter and string theory you have gone beyond true theories and are making models about things for which you can’t yet make falsifiable hypotheses. However these are the things that capture popular imagination, they are not the core of science and they are not even theories yet. Does that help? I really don’t think that you’ve been reading what I’ve written Jess.

HerbieP on July 4, 2008, 4:00 AM

Luke I pretty much read the stuff that I said to SS plus I still attend a few lectures. Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

sciencesaves on July 4, 2008, 9:39 AM

jesse, If you’re reasoning that the human species doesn’t know enough about the universe to determine answers to specific questions, I’ll concur, but we only have limited information to work with at present.

What is the origin of life? There is only speculation based on cosmological data.

Is it possible for there to be a creator entity? It is possible, but highly unlikely, from logical reasoning based upon what we have learned about the formation of the universe so far. It is not necessary in order for life to develop.

Are we here simply because the conditions allowed the evolution of organisms into complex creatures over the course of millions and millions of years? Possible, and seems to be the most plausible theory that we accept as highly likely.

No god required, and we should all be relieved to know that we are not subjected to the whim of some unknown force or entity.

Personally, the thought that there could be some omnipotent being out there would scare the shit out of me, as it should any rational person.

Luke Allen on July 4, 2008, 10:50 AM

HerbieP!

You have been more helpful my friend then any teacher I’ve ever had!

Thank you and I look forward to still debating social mobility and extra dimensions with you. Your probably right but I am studying to try to prove differently. Stay Strong.

dennis ilic on July 5, 2008, 12:51 PM

Sorry, Herbie, just to pop in like this but I gotta question.
(Hand up) Professor HP, do you have any opinion on the engineering or physics of Formula One? The British Grand Prix is tomorrow and I was wondering.
Is there any interest in rubber compounds, adhesion, friction, areodynamics, machenics,
horse power, miniture self contained explosins…? It’s my dirty little anti-spiritual indulgence.
Sorry to distrubt the class.

Luke Allen on July 5, 2008, 12:56 PM

Hey HerbieP,

Because we are in disagreement over dimensions I realized before we could even debate our perspectives that we would need to define the term “dimension” Please include in your definition your view of how many dimensions are known? How many dimensions are there?

I look forward to your response and am dillegently reading Woit’s book and got the questions here from his P.6 statement: “While Special Relativety links together the way spatial dimensions and the time dimensions are measured, Quantum Mechanics links together energy and time measurements.”

HerbieP on July 6, 2008, 10:07 AM

HZ I have no understanding of technology and I don’t like cars although I do have to drive them.

Luke a dimension is merely a variable. In spatial terms, length, breadth, width. In scientific terms a dimension is a spatial axis along which you can measure the distance between spatial features.

In mathematics you can have any number of dimensions and can create spaces with any number of dimensions. If you are asking how many actual dimensions there are in the physical universe, we only have evidence of three spatial dimensions and we regard time as the fourth (a measurement of the time elapsed between events). There are scientific models (such as various versions of string theory) that require more dimensions. However these are dimensions for the mathematical modelling only. One of the problems with the various types of string theory is that we cannot observe anything other than four dimensions and hence when more dimensions are used in theory they are usually descibed as infinitesimally small so as to avoid conflict with observation.

HerbieP on July 6, 2008, 10:15 AM

Luke the quantum mechanical linking of time and energy is a derivation from Planck’s constant. Because the quanta of energy are linked to frequency and frequency is measured in cycles per second, this ultimately leads to the fundamental division of time being related to the fundamental quanta of energy. Planck time is equal to Planck’s constant (h-bar) divided by energy.

dennis ilic on July 7, 2008, 10:17 AM

HP, I know you don’t care, but what will this one sentece harm, Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix.

HerbieP on July 7, 2008, 5:59 PM

HZ I am surprised that a man who loves gardens and growing things is so interested in the environment destroying sport of car racing. You are a man of contradictions. However taken for all in all aparently a great soul.

dennis ilic on July 8, 2008, 10:02 AM

HP, that is why I called it my dirty little secret. However, it is not automobile racing that I enjoy, it is only Formula One. The creme de la creme of motor racing. I actually am very taken in by man’s ability to create these machines. The pureness of it. The extreme of it. The effort in time and dollars invested in it. They are incredible machines which the engineers are continuosly forced to change because of the rule changes made by the governing body.

Imagine if they had a ‘green’ formula one. Where all that money and engineering and technology was invested into making the fastest enivormentally clean cars. The cars would limits on pollution or an eventual zero pollution factor. I image a day when a car can clean the air it passes through it.
Sorry, I hope I haven’t wasted too much of your time with this.

But I am curious: “a great soul”, you mean that figuratively, right?

HerbieP on July 8, 2008, 11:48 AM

HZ how else could I mean it? But it is sincere.

As for transportation I prefer the horse. Horses (particularly throughbreds) are a bit like kids with Aspurger’s (and hence a bit like me). They don’t really relate to each other like pack carnivours. It’s easy to have a relationship with a dog, really really hard to establish one with a horse.

You like the smell of partially consumed hydrocarbons, I like the smell of horseshit (plus you can use it on the vegetable patch).

I’ve seen your truck on your website, you are fond of wheels.

dennis ilic on July 8, 2008, 6:13 PM

No, I like formula one. Not really a fan of the pollution or the smell, more the exceleration, deceleration, and adhesion. And they’re shiny.
As for my truck, necessatiy of work. However, I do like things to look good. All part of the business and the image. Can’t take the artist/designer out of the equation.

As for horses, love ‘em. My son’s a horse. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were one as well. Were you born between Feb. 3, 1954 and Feb. 23 1955?

HerbieP on July 9, 2008, 2:19 AM

No I wasn’t – it’s rude to ask a girl her age but I’m younger than that.

I think that I’m a monkey.

dennis ilic on July 9, 2008, 9:55 AM

‘56 or ’68? Please, just the facts ma’am.

HerbieP on July 9, 2008, 12:35 PM

Okay so you weren’t that far out the first time.

dennis ilic on July 9, 2008, 2:21 PM

Hey, I came across this sentence: “ONTOLOGY RECAPITULATES PHILOLOGY”. Does that mean anything to you?

dennis ilic on July 9, 2008, 2:23 PM

Oh and btw my daughter is a Monkey. Four cycles younger than you.

sciencesaves on July 9, 2008, 6:42 PM

My son, the tiger ‘98
Daughter, the dragon ’00
Wife, the snake ’65 (snicker)
Myself, the rabbit ’63 (don’t I wish…)

Interestingly, it seems that we both married the wrong signs! Perhaps that explains some things…

HerbieP on July 10, 2008, 4:41 AM

HZ isn’t that just a parody of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (that silly notion that embryos go through the evolutionary stages?). Is this a test?

dennis ilic on July 10, 2008, 4:04 PM

My super bad, I was not looking for the parody. I meant to say “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. It was something that you mentioned that lead me to that sentence, which when I went back to find it I must have found the “parody”.
Oh is my face ever red. And not it was not a test, it was a mistake.
Now becuase of my mistake I will have to wait another day. Apparently it does mean something to you.

HerbieP on July 11, 2008, 3:30 AM

A theory proposed by Haeckel in the mid nineteenth century (related with some affection by my A’Level Biology teacher) but discredited now. Nice idea but no basis in reality.

dennis ilic on July 11, 2008, 6:52 PM

I don’t even know what the nice idea is, let alone its basis in reality.

HerbieP on July 13, 2008, 1:55 AM

It’s just the idea that an embryo passes through all the stages of the adult animal’s evolutionary history. So that the human embryo goes through an amphibian stage, a reptile stage and bird stage and so on.

dennis ilic on July 13, 2008, 4:28 PM

And that was just an idea. Nothing proven.

I’ve heard that our DNA contains information from the evolutionary chain. So in human DNA is contained reptile DNA and so forth. Is this along the same lines? And is this also just a theory? Anything prooven?

HerbieP on July 14, 2008, 1:25 AM

Modern genetic theories are much less simplstic than that. All life has much of its DNA in common. The statement that we share 95% of our DNA with chimps is also relativly meaningless. Depending on how you look at it we share a lot of DNA with woodlice (pillbugs).

dennis ilic on July 14, 2008, 2:02 PM

So, the other 5%, is that strictly human, or is that DNA we share with other life, just not chimps?

Pillbugs eh? Are those the ones that roll up in a ball when you touch them?

HerbieP on July 15, 2008, 2:28 AM

“relativly meaningless” means just that. You have to define your terms. DNA is not quite like kids building blocks, deciding on a % similiarity between species depends on how you define your terms, to anyone other than a geneticist to draw any conclusions from such a proportion would be inappropriate. The popular press delights in having articles such as ‘we are 95% chimpanze’ and then some creationist will use it to prop up their argument when in fact they have no idea what they are talking about. We share common ancestors with the great apes, if we have branched off from them a few million years ago the DNA we have in common comes from the time before we branched, any differences we (or they) have developed since must be a result of changes since then – i.e. random mutation and selection.

HerbieP on July 15, 2008, 2:30 AM

pillbugs – sorry HZ I forgot that you are not in the US.

dennis ilic on July 16, 2008, 5:47 PM

HP, thanks for all your time and answers.
No worries about thinking I was in the US. It’s the accent. Hard to tell them apart sometimes.

God save the Queen.

Luke Allen on August 11, 2008, 6:46 PM

Hey HerbieP,

Just wanted to let you know that I’ve been reading and studying the book you told me to and it is taking awhile because I am like a trendy executive boxer trying to box the Champ by taking it in. At any rate I wanted to ask you what you thought of the psychological sciences. Particularly the work of the psychodynamic great Carl Jung. Do you believe you have an unconcious mind? Do you subscribe to archetypical imagery? Or do you find psychology to be too soft of a science to be valid? I look forward to your response.