Religious Conservatives Not Happy With Cosmos

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Mar 19, 2014.

  1. tim85
    Offline

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173

    Jdr, you're the one who used that example as to why we shouldn't be using majoritarian arguments, and since it was such a weak example, I think it's worth being called out for. I don't think it's splitting hairs to ask someone to explain why we should accept their argument (majoritarian arguments aren't good indicators of anything) as truth when the example they use to prove that (majority thought world was flat) is pretty weak. Also, the post you just quoted here has been edited and quite a bit added to it, for what it's worth.
  2. cocodrilo
    Offline

    cocodrilo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    11,709
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,706
    As I understand it, what exploded was a dense superspot of energy or what is called a singularity. It can't be described because we don't have the physics. We can't go back past what is called the Planck time, which is a fraction of a second after the explosion, because all the known laws of physics break down, the density and curvature of space become infinite.

    It was not matter that exploded, but energy, which congealed into particles, with atomic nuclei coalescing within the first three minutes. But again, there's no way mathematically to describe the singularity because we don't have the physics to go back past Planck time or to when time reads zero.
  3. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Yes, I often edit after I first write something. Maybe I shouldn't but I type fast and often want to clarify things a bit more or soften my language. Still though the point which you keep ignoring is majoritarian arguments themselves, or the fallacy that can occur when invoking them. Perhaps I could have used a better example, but it was only an example that even if now likely untrue, many folks would understand and recognize it--so whether that itself is a myth or not is actually pretty secondary, splitting hairs stuff. But if you are going to call me out on it, then you shouldn't use your own questionable example, agree?
  4. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    That's what you believe but is it fact? Actually, I really don't care if it's fact or not (in this context) except in the sense that if you are going to invoke it as a way to criticize the factual nature of something I posted, then it's not about what you "believe." Or, you could simply acknowledge that my earlier point to gatorman was not to make an argument about the majority of the world being flat but that a majority viewpoint doesn't in itself mean "right" (since that is what he was suggesting) in which I used the example because it was convenient and most people would likely recognize it.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,725
    Likes Received:
    2,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,807
    I watch his show/s on one of those Science channels... love his mind, and his show is very evocative. Thanks for the link Lacuna.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014
  6. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,496
    Likes Received:
    768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,771
    The problem with this argument is that it rests upon grave doubts about human cognition in particular and human sensibilities in general. If large groups of others raised within the same cultural milieu as us prove to be unable to distinguish between sensibility and reality, upon what basis can we as critics be distinguished from this phenomenon ourselves? If the only answer is our consonance with a prevailing paradigm, in what way is that not begging the question?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,815
    Likes Received:
    488
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,131
    The short answer is that we can't. I would only argue that we have elevated a certain scientific approach to observation and knowledge where in times past, there was much more appeal to tradition and metaphysical evidence. We have tended to deemphasize the authority of those things in modernity, but given that scientific discourse is itself a construct of language and discourse then it is not an absolute form of knowledge, though it may be superior to previous paradigms.
  8. tim85
    Offline

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173
    My only point was that you don't prove majoritarian arguments aren't any good by using a bad example. So basically, your claim is that they're not useful, you then use an example out of convenience or whatever else (I don't blame you for that, just saying), and since the example you use is no good - then your claim should then require further proof. So, majoritarian arguments aren't useful because _____. So basically I'm just asking you to further explain why using a majoritarian argument when it comes to human spirituality isn't all that useful.

    The issue is, there's not much else, if anything, you can fill in that blank with in this specific debate, that is really all that comparable. There's not a lot of human things that have been so inherent and consistent in us since the very beginning of recorded history that is akin to the spirituality that is found in every society, culture, that has pretty much ever existed.
  9. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,545
    Likes Received:
    443
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,294
    Don't you hate it when shows about science don't give equal time to non-science?

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/creationists-neil-degrasse-tyson-cosmos-unbalanced
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,120
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,047
    It would only be fair, since the Creation Museum in Kentucky goes out of its way to include evolution.

    http://creationmuseum.org/events/workshops/evolution-not-chance/
  11. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    65,361
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,290
    I remember going to the Museum of Natural History in Sydney, Australia and immediately being accosted with "Evolution is a fact."
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    I'll try to explain by quoting my earlier comments. I wasn't trying to "prove" majoritarian arguments aren't or can't be useful, or that one can't ever invoke consensus, since as I stated to wygator, I've made them before (see below). What I did say very clearly was that we have to be careful about using them (to mean, how we use them), which is to say that we have to be careful because appealing to majority/consensus etc... about some fact can easily become a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) when it might only be that many people believe something as fact not whether it was indeed a fact.

    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014
  13. tim85
    Offline

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173

    You're right, I misread what you were saying, sorry about that.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    All good, thanks! I thought we were kind of missing each other there. I kept having to re-read the comments :)
  15. cocodrilo
    Offline

    cocodrilo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    11,709
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,706
    I tripped and fell down in a museum and they tried to sell me some Newtonian crap about gravity.
    • Funny Funny x 3
  16. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    I get your point and to some extent I agree, especially the problem you raise in the last sentence. Suffice it to say, I wasn't suggesting anything in an absolute sense (as I tend to run away from absolutes, lol) , but what we know about human cognition is even with thought to be widely agreed upon reality, there is still plenty of doubt, confusion, and complexity, and indeed, maybe even necessity of others to help us define what is real, especially with ephemeral, new, unique phenomenon. From an ontological standpoint even defining what is a shared reality comes with some hazards. So to your point about consonance as our only answer, I'd say it isn't and shouldn't be, though it can be one of multiple answers to help understand a "reality" that might be very different than what we believe it to be.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2014
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,725
    Likes Received:
    2,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,807
    Einstein proved him wrong, so...
  18. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    65,361
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,290
    But wouldn't "Gravity is a fact" come off as a might defensive ?
  19. cocodrilo
    Offline

    cocodrilo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    11,709
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,706
    Some people consider gravity to be a well-grounded theory. To which I say, "Have you ever seen a gravitational wave?"
  20. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    65,361
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,290
    Yeah, I mean if they were going to have a teenage girl snit about it the plaque should have read:

    "Evolution is too a fact!"

Share This Page