HOME | DD
rationalhub β Carl Sagan on Organized religion..
Published: 2012-07-29 07:16:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 3781; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 347
Redirect to original
Description
The obligatory Sagan quote this week
Will never get tired of posting quotes from him.
Related content
Comments: 29
Obviously, Sagan was ignorant of the Catholic church and the abortion issue. For starters. That has undergone great and even weird changes over the centuries.
And when was the last time one has heard of Limbo or Purgatory? What were they? That's changed.
And what of St. Paul's comment about a "third heaven?"
Is El Lupo still officially listed as being in Hell along with Judas?
Now, from science we hear that FTL is not possible (an absolute). This is based on the Theory of Relativity, and "infinite mass" (in case anyone wants a "peer reviewed study"). Yet, SETI is still going on, even though if that is true intergalactic, or even interstellar, travel can never be practical.
And, Mr. Sagan, the fact that your kind gave us the H-Bomb and biological weapons willingly did not fill me with confidence in you or yours. Not to mention the radiation experiments and the racist Tuskegee experiments.
There may or may not be a god who may or may not be watching. But thanks to your kind, the governments most certainly are, everywhere, with satellites that can see almost anything anywhere.
"People who live in glass houses..."
The point here is that I do not trust or like the Sagans any more than the Pat Robertsons.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not all scientists are the same, and you don't understand the scientific method.
Since religion has dogma and science does not, and science makes no claims to absolute morality, there is no comparison.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry to disappoint, but I do understand the "scientific method," both what scientists pretend to do and what they really do. I'll be blunt: so-called science is subjective. 2+2=4, nobody will argue that- but what about animals in research? Some will swear we need it, while other equally-qualified people like in the PCRM will insist it isn't.
Global warming (actually climate change): Is it or isn't it? Man-made or natural if so?
AIDS, cancer? Some swear cancer is actually a microbial disease, not "DNA damage." I've checked into the qualifications, and some of those people have qualifications that would make Sagan-types cower in fear.
I've noticed that science-worshipers tend to be on the political left- yet these were the same people who fell for the absurd Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax. Why? Because like everyone else they believe what they want to believe. So much for rational analysis and scientific method.
Sorry, but science IS pure dogma. Sagan once lied (again) when he bragged about the scientists and religionists: the very fact that there is debate in the Catholic Church about women priests, the changes over the centuries about abortion and the relationship with Jews shows that it does change- try that with scientists and Darwinian evolution. There is a saying: "science advances one funeral at a time," because until the old-guard is dead and buried nothing changes. We know about the need for cleanliness during childbirth, but how many people have even heard of Semmelweis? Because science destroyed him protecting its dogma.
And yes, science does make morality claims. iStamps was one such person, making the idiotic claim that ethical treatment of animals came from science (yeah, tell that to the animals in labs, factory farms, etc.), before bravely blocking me. Another claimed that revenge was a thing of religion and tribes, but not science.
What such people fail to understand is what they are saying. It is YOU who does not understand: for example, mercy is anti-science. If science-worshipers trying for a society based on "reason and science" gave us yet another Soviet-style tyranny and were finally overthrown, the only possible scientific solution with them would be mass public executions- sparing them rather than ridding the world of them, especially if one does not believe in soul (in which case we are all hard-wired and no reform is possible- and given the fact our world is a slaughterhouse...) is not scientific at all.
And it amuses me that so many in the science community look down upon the "rabble," yet do not hesitate to give them nuclear weapons, biological warfare weapons, spy equipment to rob everyone of any privacy, etc. Isn't such behavior borderline sociopathic?
Sorry for the curt tone, but I am 50 and am currently dealing with a case of cancer as well as a crippled relative. There was nothing conventional medicine could do, just as in the early 1970s when Nixon declared "war on cancer"- if what I am trying, which spits in the face of conventional science, fails, then I can just look forward to digging yet another grave. I'm just too old and too tired of the arrogance of science that kills and kills and kills and causes so many to needlessly suffer.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's hilarious how you're trying to use other made up "controversies" alongside discussions to try to take down science.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_β¦
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientifβ¦
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientifβ¦
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Goals_of_science
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry, but it's time face reality. I don't have to take down science, it did a fine job of that itself.
First, let's take a common "scientific" truth: the "1 out of 10" figure for homosexuality. This figure was concocted by pervert and possible child molester Kinsey. If one does even a basic review of how he came across this figure, it's obvious that, like most scientists, he started with an agenda. He set out to prove it, not to simply ask "what is the actual reality about this?"
What you do not seem to comprehend is just how dangerous this is, because you do not wish to apply basic logic. The actual figures for homosexuality is not 10%, but closer to between 1 or 2%.
But if it's "scientific fact" that the number is 10%, yet only maybe 2% are there, the conclusion drawn by social engineers is that many are "afraid to come out of the closet." This leads to radical and hard-core efforts to "help" people "come to terms" with what they really are. In other words, a quota system has been set up, so these efforts are meant to bring the numbers up to where science "says they should be." This has been a recipe for disaster.
The fact that the science community refuses to finally reject Kinsey and his "science" is most telling. Is it because they do not wish to admit they were duped by a pervert or because it fits in with a political agenda?
You also fail to comprehend the implications of what you are saying. If science is not about ethics, then anyone dedicated "solely to science" is not likely to have any ethical considerations about anything if it "serves science." Perhaps you are unaware of the LSD mind control drug experiments, the radiation experiments, or the infamous racist Tuskegee Experiments done on black people? Using human beings was obviously just fine, and read and remember this part: NO SCIENTIST INVOLVED WAS EVER REALLY SORRY FOR WHAT THEY DID. The Tuskegee Experiments ended only because a whistleblower went to the newspapers with the evidence, so they were "outed." The bad publicity, and fear of militant groups like the Black Panthers (this was the early 1970s), is what stopped it. Even a "Miss Marple" mystery involved real-life experiments done on small children.
And are you just ignoring what happened to Dr. Semmelweis- and why? Funny how science takes the credit for what he knew, but no responsibility for how they tried to destroy the man and what he did.
Now, take a moment to view this video- this only stopped because a militant animal rights group stole the tapes. Since they did not possess psychic powers, the only way they could have known was if someone told them- someone who tried "the proper channels," and got nowhere. I helped close this down decades ago. There were science worshipers there trying to excuse it all that day, of course.
Β www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MbqYLβ¦
No remorse. Hell, even some of the Nazi war criminals during the postwar trials broke down when confronted by what they had done and asked for no mercy. These people don't even have the decency to act sorry! The height of arrogance and borderline sociopathic behavior. Didn't the Church finally apologize for what happened to Galileo at least?
I told you about what I'm trying to do with the cancer victim. Here's how your science works: it I succeed and the treatment really works then it is a "triumph of science." If it fails, then I wasn't trying science, but, hmmm, nonsense or witchcraft? I'm doing the same thing- whether or not it's science depends only on success or failure. Now being "cured" means surviving five years after being diagnosed, and there's word that this may be lowered or the clock started when the cancer would have first appeared. This is not only a lie by science, but a cruel lie. I've worked with cancer victims, and after 35 years we are mostly nowhere.
Darwinian evolution started with the absurd leap of logic that variations in species=species becoming new species. Yet in spite of centuries of human interference, dogs are still essentially wolves. Yet we are supposed to believe that somehow not only can something mutate into a new, viable species, at random in nature, but there was at least one male and one female and they found each other and produced little new species cubs? Do you know what the chances of this happening at random, millions of times successfully AND so the new species fit in with the existing ecosystem, are? And isn't it funny that this has NEVER been successfully duplicated in a lab setting, yet it's still accepted as absolute truth? I don't know how we got here, but we'll never figure it out- or where we might be heading- as long as science clings to its version of Genesis cooked up by someone who obviously applied to sort of society he lived in to "science."
Sorry, but your science is just a cargo cult. This is the belief among certain primitive peoples that in some distant past they had an incredibly advanced civilization with just about everything that can be. Therefore, nothing can be brought to them, it is merely being returned. It is a way of taking credit for everything.
The truth is that the only reason anything was ever accomplished was because some exceptional individual appeared. Edison, Tesla, Semmelweis, Hero, etc. Science never gave us anything, only a small group of people throughout the millenia. And nothing new will happen until such an individual appears again.
Hopefully you do realize that if it suited a scientist YOU could be used for research? It has happened numerous times. Here's some advice- NEVER take a new prescription drug unless it's been out there for at least 5 to 7 years, unless as a last resort.
If you are reading this: at least you deserve credit for standing your ground. Most do not. Again, sorry for the rushed typing.
π: 0 β©: 1
Do you have evidence for all these claims?
Because all you've put forward is a YouTube video of highly dubious veracity.
I'd hazard a guess and say that people aren't sticking around because you don't back up your ridiculous claims and invoke "conspiracy" to try to explain it, not because they're afraid to stand their ground.
It's like how people keep away from the guy screaming about the end of the world on subways. It's not because they can't debate him, it's because the guy's completely bonkers.
I'm saying your conspiracy theory is bullshit and you presenting it as fact casts doubt on your mental stability.
π: 0 β©: 0
The Dalai Lama admits his faith might be erronous, but he's one in a million
π: 0 β©: 0
A guy who playacted space travel in a cardboard set?
If light speed is the limit, then what he was pretending to do would be hopelessly impractical. And the reaction of the science community to the FTL neutrinos was not unlike religion's response to something that threatened existing dogma.
π: 0 β©: 1
What?
"the reaction of the science community to the FTL neutrinos was not unlike religion's response to something that threatened existing dogma."
Duh, every new scientific discovery is not readily accepted without scrutiny - and every scientist is perfectly okay with that. That's how science works. It's not rejection. And FYI, bad example - it was indeed proven to be an error in the calculation. So what exactly is your point?
π: 0 β©: 1
My point is time and time again the science community has reacted that way. The hysteria I mentioned started a year ago, before anyone verified it one way or the other.
That was because it threatened their whole view of the universe. If FTL neutrinos did happen, then they themselves were wrong about so much.
When the Wright Bros. succeeded in their first flight, and news reached Washington, the science community insisted that it was a hoax, since heavier-than-air manned flight was impossible.
Look up what happened to Dr. Semmelweis.
And how can you be sure it didn't happen? Sounds far fetched, a cover-up, but again look up the numerous radiation experiments done on humans last century. If the science community can do something like that...
And the idea of FTL being impossible will no doubt amuse people in the year 3012.
And another thing: if it is impossible, then why do they spend so many billions trying to contact aliens (SETI)? By their own admission interstellar travel can never be practical, so what do they hope to accomplish?
Guess I'm a bit tired of the arrogance. Especially since there hasn't been any real progress in decades. Christopher Reeves, his wife, Steve Jobs, all but a couple of my relatives- they might as well have been back in 1970. It was the rebel, the one who rejected mainstream science's we-alone-have-the-answers, whom advanced us. Just like Semmelweis and Tesla. They were real heroes.
And what of the more than 100 physicists last summer who couldn't find anything wrong? Were they incompetents? Or is it a case of which sect is right?
Nothing changes, really.
Take care and good luck.
π: 0 β©: 1
"The hysteria I mentioned started a year ago, before anyone verified it one way or the other."
Goddamn, that's how SCIENCE WORKS - we don't instantly accept BEFORE it is repeated and verified (which at the time it wasn't) - hence most scientists were skeptical of their results. And they turned out to be right. Simply dubbing it 'hysteria' doesn't make your caase any strong.
"the science community insisted that it was a hoax,"
Citations please.
"Look up what happened to Dr. Semmelweis. "
Ah, yeah more age old story, instead of any examples from modern science. Go back further, and I'm sure you could dig up more examples. Medicine was pretty horrible back then, so this is pretty much a false equivalence.
"if it is impossible, then why do they spend so many billions trying to contact aliens (SETI)? By their own admission interstellar travel can never be practical"
Who said it's impossible? AFAIK what SETI says is that interstellar travel is way too costly, when they are addressing the fermi paradox. Where did they say it's impossible?
"It was the rebel, the one who rejected mainstream science's we-alone-have-the-answers, whom advanced us"
Uh, almost every new theory goes against/is an improvement on previously established thought. MODERN SCIENCE very well acknowledges that. You're seriously confusing skepticism and merciless scrutiny of ideas with 'opposition'. This is and will ALWAYS happen when it comes to science. Regardless of whether it is in line with what we know or is something that contradicts what we know.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry, but the so-called "science" community is anything but unbiased.
Like it or not, they are not Vulcans, but humans, and are therefore subject to ego, arrogance, and prejudice. The attitude was not "hey, can it be...let's be certain, but if so...", but rather NO IT CANNOT BE!!!!! Judgement had already been passed. I am curious about why the story just fell off the media radar.
Take the usual theory of evolution. It is pretty linear, and has a "might makes right" attitude. Darwin was a man of his time and place; a time when colonialism and the class system were very much day-to-day things. It was only natural that that was how he'd look at anything; an Asian Buddhist would have likely come up with a more complex and less linear theory- because of who he would have been. Even questioning DARWINIAN evolution- not the idea itself, but the way it's taught- can get you into hot water. Trust me on that one...
Since the science community has determined that FTL things are not possible, going over that experiment a hundred times would never have been enough for many. Why? Because how can many of them, being smug and bashing other peoples' beliefs, possibly then accept something that proves that what they had been preaching all along was wrong? That would open a very nasty can of worms, and quite frankly you can no more be sure that it was a "miscalculation" (were they that sloppy?) than I can. It may well have happened, but it was suppressed. Again, you are dealing with people, not logical aliens.
Then again, maybe it was miscalculation. Back in the 1990s a space probe was lost in space, and unless it comes back as V'Ger, it's gone. Why? Because nobody took into account that Europeans use the metric system and Americans don't.
Semmelweis: O.K., here's a recent one: the fact that ulcers are often caused by bacteria, and can often be treated by antibiotics. My father died of it back in 1993. A few years later I heard about this in the news. It happens that way, I figured- a cure today cannot save one who died yesterday.
But years later I found out that Australian scientists had found out about this in the EARLY 1980s! It was stubborness and a refusal to accept what went against standard dogma ("The Semmelweis Reflex") that kept this from becoming widely known here.
And my father died because of it. How many others have suffered and died for the same reason?
So no, it is NOT a "false equivalence." It is happening RIGHT NOW. And that is wrong.
It is ironic that those groups who speak of "reason" are often the most irrational. Who created nuclear weapons? Then built bigger and bigger bombs, making the Hiroshima bomb look like nothing? Spy technology so the governments can spy on our every move (look up the "Utah Data Center")? Biological warfare?
Where is the "reason" in doing any of that? There isn't any. Because that's pure insanity. So no group had better claim to be better than another. Carl Sagan was right about the evils organized religion has done, but hopefully he didn't ignore what his own "church" has done, either.
O.K., SETI. What do you mean, who said it was impossible? The mainstream science community, that's who. If nothing can move faster than light, then even communicating with the nearest star would take about 11 years two-way. If you sent a transmission today you'd not get a reply until 2023. Alien life would likely be hundreds or even thousands of light-years away; so how can even communication ever be practical? Any signal we'd get may well be so old, the civilization that sent it would be long dead, as surely as Ancient Rome is here. Only those who thumb their noses at the mainstream thought can believe otherwise; by definition, if one is involved with SETI, then one must believe that FTL is reality. Otherwise, it's a massive waste of time and money.
Let's just hope those aliens would be anything BUT like us, or else- "To Serve Man," anyone? 
And even if we lived for centuries, interstellar travel would still be impractical.
Your last paragraph shows that you are not guilty of what I'm talking about- but too many in the science community are. And it is exactly that kind of thinking that plunged us into the Dark Ages. It is up to us to make sure that egotistical people, who fear and fight anything that threatens existing dogma, can never do it again. That is what I want us to do.
It's time to start doing some real achievement, real advancements, just as they did back in the early and mid-20th Century. If you are going to be one of them, or even if you fail but at least tried, nice going (in advance)!
Enjoy the rest of summer and good luck.
π: 0 β©: 3
"Sorry, but the so-called "science" community is anything but unbiased."
That's true because scientists have conceptions of what is right. After all, you have to have a premise before you can engage in the scientific protocol and verify it statistically to be true or false. What is your point though? That's what peer review is for. Scientists used to think our milkyway galaxy was the whole universe until Hubble spotted "stars" outside of our milkyway, which were later verified to be entire galaxies. How is that a testimony of a flawed scientific protocol? I call it healthy skepticism.
"Take the usual theory of evolution. It is pretty linear, and has a "might makes right" attitude. Darwin was a man of his time and place; a time when colonialism and the class system were very much day-to-day things. It was only natural that that was how he'd look at anything"
You almost couldn't be more wrong. His theories seemed far-fetched at first and weren't immediately embraced. Then his ideas were popularized but after his death it became forgotten. A resurgence of his theories occurred at the beginning of the 20th century and in fact Richard Dawkins helped properly establish Darwinian evolution in the second half of the 20th century. Yes, scientists tend to be very stubborn and you should also keep in mind that there are enough crazy scientists who don't even follow the scientific protocol; I've heard of scientist who continue believing in God and admit they would continue even if God was scientifically proven to be a false conception. Yes, scientists are human and often wrong, but that's why the scientific protocol was developed, why peer review are necessary and why scientific debates can go on for years. Again, this is not a testimony of a flawed protocol; merely flawed practitioners.
"It is ironic that those groups who speak of "reason" are often the most irrational. Who created nuclear weapons?"
This is not a fair argument. The Germans made progress in nuclear fusion and to avoid world domination the US put leading scientist on the project to be the first. Of course the US is not much better than Germany and it was incredibly unethical to use these bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I'm nevertheless glad they were there before Germany. You are absolutely right that these kind of inventions are dangerous and unethical but someone was going to find out about it eventually. Besides, it became the basis for many principles in astrophysics today and may very well offer us cleaner energy in the future. Again, your argument is not a testimony of how flawed science is.
"And my father died because of it. How many others have suffered and died for the same reason?"
You could blame science but that's not fair at all. Blame politics. Science is a protocol while politics may indeed disturb the practice of that protocol. Again, what's your point?
"If nothing can move faster than light, then even communicating with the nearest star would take about 11 years two-way."
I'm glad you gave an argument for the fact that indeed it is possible. No one claimed it was instant communication. There are several ways of sending messages to other stars and indeed all of them are rather slow.
"Any signal we'd get may well be so old, the civilization that sent it would be long dead, as surely as Ancient Rome is here"
SETI's primary function is not to have a dialogue with aliens but to establish that there are aliens.
"And even if we lived for centuries, interstellar travel would still be impractical."
It is now, but who says it will be in the future? You also stated nothing has been happening in science; are you kidding me? We're able to operate robotic arms with our thoughts and we can record people's thoughts in video. What do you mean there is no progress? To be honest I don't follow these subjects closely, but even in cosmology and astrophysics we're making tremendous progress.
"It is up to us to make sure that egotistical people, who fear and fight anything that threatens existing dogma, can never do it again. That is what I want us to do."
I completely agree with that and many people are definitely trying to focus on that. You can't control everyone though and certainly there are many arrogant, stubborn and utterly wrong scientists. We will overcome those problems eventually. Not all of them at one point in time, but slowly but surely all erroneous conceptions will be filtered out.
And to get to your initial post, I don't think anyone would say Carl Sagan has been right on everything. As for the quotes presented here, I think you see those as absolute statements, which they are but they're not a testimony of flawless science. In an ideal world those quotes are true and rather than stating how it doesn't apply to current science I think we should keep them as ideals and do our very best to keep close to it. If we don't science will indeed become more and more like a religion; something which becomes "true" as long as enough people of "authority" think it's true. It's very human but it's not science.
In conclusion, you give some bad arguments and some good ones but I think we would essentially agree that science is not perfect in practice but it does try to be. I very much live by the scientific protocol but obviously I have my fair amount of prejudices and speculations as well. I do wonder if we would ever reach a point science will be replaced by something of a higher truth. I mean, if you look at the double slit experiment and you realize that the very fact that you observe something changes reality itself then to some extent I wonder how you can ever statistically verify something to be true. Up to now this protocol has worked for us and all our technology is a testimony of that, but perhaps to understand cosmology and all out universe and reality has to offer we might need something beyond science.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you read my past two journals, you know what's been going on lately.
I'm rapidly developing a serious contempt for the so-called mainstream science community. It is getting hopelessly smug and arrogant- as was Sagan and Dawkin is- but...
Nothing is being accomplished.
In town is a friend of mine who is diabetic. He has lost his lower legs, and must move about in a powerchair- and with another murderous winter coming around here, and the crummy sidewalks, that won't be easy- plus, he may be losing his sight.
My former neighbor two decades ago was paralyzed in an accident. Christopher Reeve was paralyzed in an accident not long after. A few weeks ago, a Dutch family friend was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. In all three cases, nothing can be done. It is no better in 2012 than in 1972.
The person who was the subject of my journal- same thing. There is nothing they can do for her in 2012 that could not have been done in 1972.
I also used to volunteer at the VA hospital where my father was. Same thing.
How many more are going to suffer and die because of arrogance and the same kind of rigid thinking that doomed Semmelweis?
Read over your own reply, especially the last paragraph. THAT is where advancement will come from. Don't ever lose sight of it.
Thanks. Given what happened here two days ago, this actually helped. Good luck to you.
Incidently, I've heard yet another report claiming that time travel is impossible. What is this sudden obsession with time travel?
π: 0 β©: 1
I must confess I don't know much about medical science but I do know politics and profits prevent certain progresses. Having said that, there are many areas in medical science which has progressed tremendously so I don't quite understand why you're stating a few isolated cases in which nothing can be done. Certainly, we're probably centuries away from being able to completely restore a human body but that is not to say there's no progress.
By the way, I have to disagree with Sagan and Dawkin being smug and arrogant. As far as I can determine Sagan was a friendly guy and in many way humble, but of course in certain areas he could be stubborn and somewhat speculative but I believe he did admit to that to some extent. Regardless, I suppose I understand certain aspects or quotes could be misinterpreted as being arrogant or smug. In Dawkin's case I actually understand more where you're coming from. I don't exactly perceive him to be arrogant or smug but I do think he can be rather aggressive in debates. His statements are usually well formulated, thought-out and true/logical but I think it's quite undeniable he can often be perceived as condescending or arrogant. I personally don't see it that way but I can easily understand some people do as he's not afraid to incidentally offend people in the process of making his point. Anyway, this is not relevant to our discussion but I did want to let you know I oppose your statement about Sagan and Dawkins in some ways. I don't have a good insight into the science community in general. I'm not a scientist and the science I do keep track of usually regards astronomy, cosmology and (astro)physics. Having said that, I couldn't really say whether the science community is becoming increasingly arrogant and whether or not that is rightfully so (to the extent of which arrogance is justified).
> How many more are going to suffer and die because of arrogance and the same kind of rigid thinking that doomed Semmelweis?
I do get your point but I wonder to which extent it's even fair to blame the science community. I mean, the general public does have an influence on scientific research, whether positive or negative. Ignorant people opposing science also brings a lot of dirty politic into the game. In other words, I think there are many factors besides the human nature of the scientists themselves which slows progress down. I do think as we become increasingly knowledgeable it will become easier to make progress in science. I don't think the politics and the lust for wealth will disappear but if science is not constantly being opposed by religious fanatics it might make some impact already. On the other hand, if science wouldn't have to defend itself I guess we might loose track of the scientific protocol eventually, so in that regard it's to be opposed. I mean, people do need to be skeptical and scientists do need to be able to explain their findings or there is no scientific basis. Also, there are many ethical issues which I think prevent progress in medical science particularly.
> Incidently, I've heard yet another report claiming that time travel is impossible. What is this sudden obsession with time travel?
I actually think it's an obsession with cosmology and theoretical physics. I'm only 23 so I don't have a lot of history to compare to the present but I believe astronomy, cosmology and physics has become very relevant again since a little over a decade ago. Perhaps it has something to do with the findings of the accelerating universe or perhaps it's the Kepler spacecraft and other telescopes which give new insights and a renewed interest in our universe and cosmology β including indeed time travel and quantum mechanical aspects of time and reality. By the way, time travel is possible and we're constantly doing exactly that. I suppose people are too keen on the idea of making time jumps but I think you need to look more closely to what time traveling is. It takes a fraction of time for your brain to process the information it perceives so it could be said your actions are based on things which have already happened, so while your body is in this moment your mind is actually behind. That's a tiny aspect of time travel, but what's much more relevant is that time is not universal; the mass of an object has a pulling effect on time. If you stand next to a pyramid you will experience time slower than someone standing in an open field. Obviously the effect is negligible but that doesn't make it irrelevant. A black hole has a tremendous effect on time. Anyway, my point is that time is so relative that it's erroneous to see the now as a universal moment in which everyone resides simultaneously. Essentially although you and I can shake hands in the same reality, we're not exactly living in the same moment of reality. Anyway, it's a long story with an anticlimactic conclusion and I do understand you were actually referring to time jumps but I suppose my point is that theoretical physicists and quite possibly also philosophers are still trying to find out about the nature of reality, space and time and how we do or could propagate through it. Traveling to the future is theoretically established to be possible I believe. It's not about instantaneous time jumps but I suppose that if gradual time traveling is possible by using a great mass or traveling at nearly the speed of light then a time jump might also be possible, though that is definitely not established in theoretical physics. As far as I've read/heard though, many theoretical physicists don't think it's possible to travel to the past. To get back to your question though, I suppose people are becoming obsessed with crazy principles like time travel or traveling at the speed of light because we're becoming increasingly knowledgeable about cosmology, physics and reality which allow further research but also a lot of speculating and fantasizing. I know I do. Not about time travel exactly but I do think daily about the universe and reality.
π: 0 β©: 0
You are a furry. Your argument is invalid.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Like it or not, they are not Vulcans, but humans, and are therefore subject to ego, arrogance, and prejudice."
Again, who said that scientists are infallible? Scientists can be irrational, arrogant and prejudiced too - but what you're doing is projetcting those onto the entire scientific community, which is ridiculous to say the least.
"Even questioning DARWINIAN evolution- not the idea itself, but the way it's taught- can get you into hot water. "
I might need elaboration on that one. Scientists may vehemently criticize if you are presupposing erroneous notions - attacking an idea is perfectly fine as far as the objection is rational.
"Since the science community has determined that FTL things are not possible, going over that experiment a hundred times would never have been enough for many."
Piling on assertions on assertions - sigh. Dude, that's how science WORKS! When someone contests a well established theory, you can't just instantly accept the proposition without making sure that it's devoid of any errors. That's not just the well established ideas, but even new hypotheses are criticized and scrutinized, which may slip under the radar if you're just sticking with the rubbish mainstream science reporting. And it's essential to scientific method, you can't skip that part. And oddly enough, they were proven right and you're still somehow due to your biased perception ignoring the fact that that's how science works.
And as for the ulcer thing, I'm sorry that your father passed away due to ulcer - however here's an article [link] addressing the whole the myth of them being ostracized. If scientists accept a hypothesis immediately without scrutiny, we might as well abandon scientific inquiry as a whole.
"The guy with the fantasy picture of New York with a giant mosque and every building with a minaret, and the rabid pc woman who goes out like an attack dog and doesn't even realize that she is making an utter fool of herself by confusing the people she is attacking?
"Who created nuclear weapons?"
Erm, scientists are NOT the ones who put it into use. The technology could have been used for nuclear reactors and nuclear medicine - it's not the scientists' fault if people put them into warfare. Those fall under the realms of engineering applications. Either way, Sagan talks about finding out the TRUTH and I don't see how all these are relevant. It's still true and it still works.
"Carl Sagan was right about the evils organized religion has done, but hopefully he didn't ignore what his own "church" has done, either. "
*FACEPALM*, really.
"The mainstream science community, that's who. "
You keep on making these claims about mainstream science community, on what basis do you make these comments? I mean have you conducted some polls or surveys or do you have any well cited peer reviewed studies to back your claims here?
π: 0 β©: 1
Why didn't you demand a "peer reviewed study" about Sagan's quotes?
And it must be said: again, you are guilty of a double standard. If scientists cannot be blamed for creating terrible physical weapons while working for governments and militaries (especially during wartime), then why didn't you say the same about what Sagan said about religion, which is a CONCEPT, not physical, like weapons? Why didn't you say it was how people used it?
Double standard.
And did it not occur to you that there is more money in treating symptoms rather than a a cure? That maybe that's why the knowledge that could have saved my father was slowed? Years had gone by, and those Australians were quite competent and likely did their own tests. Your argument is invalid; too much time was between the two events, and the 1980s and 1990s did not rely on Pony Express and carrier pigeon for communications. Willful ignorance killed him.
And you'll only look silly if you keep going on about "peer reviewed studies." It's an evasion, and invalid- take global warming.
You'll have scientists with credentials and PRS saying it does not exist.
You'll have the same saying it does.
And yet another saying well, yes, it's there, but humans are not responsible.
So which "sect" in the Church of Science Reason and Technology do you go with? Answer- what you want to BELIEVE- not KNOW based on absolute knowledge- you choose to go with.
And the refusal of people to realize this is what scares me. Religions can say "God is watching," but thanks to what scientists have willingly built, someone most certainly is. Even on this crummy 2006 netbook I can get satellite images.
Are YOU truly objective? Think about it.
π: 0 β©: 2
"Why didn't you demand a "peer reviewed study" about Sagan's quotes?"
I guess because he's touching philosophy in those quotes and not science.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Why didn't you demand a "peer reviewed study" about Sagan's quotes?"
WTH?
" If scientists cannot be blamed for creating terrible physical weapons while working for governments and militaries (especially during wartime), then why didn't you say the same about what Sagan said about religion, which is a CONCEPT, not physical, like weapons?"
Read my post AGAIN instead of positing your own strawman: "Those fall under the realms of engineering applications.". And it is different because science doesn't make moral/ethical claims - it's amoral - while religious dogma do.
"And did it not occur to you that there is more money in treating symptoms rather than a a cure?"
And more conspiracy theories, of course. That's because most diseases are merely manageable! Some are curable/preventable while vast majority aren't. Jeez. Way to oversimply things to the level that it's not even wrong.
"Your argument is invalid; too much time was between the two events, and the 1980s and 1990s did not rely on Pony Express and carrier pigeon for communications. Willful ignorance killed him."
Keep piling on assertions, as I said I'm sorry that he had to suffer through it - but still your assertions are not evidence. Sometimes it DOES take time to gather evidence to support hypothesis - and do research based on that.
"And you'll only look silly if you keep going on about"
Then you have no clue about how science works.
"You'll have scientists with credentials and PRS saying it does not exist."
Yes, which brings me to my earlier point of how scientists can be irrational, arrogant and prejudiced. Which is why we don't appeal to authority but analyze the evidence and scrutinize them. Hence I asked you for citations.
And more ridiculous assertions without any substantiation - are you done with this irrational nonsense?
π: 0 β©: 1
Nothing irrational or nonsensical about it- you just simply do not wish to face any unpleasant realities about your own side.
In short, you are not unlike the very religions you condemn- is that why you dislike them; because they are too much like you, rather than unlike?
I would not want religious fanatics in charge of the world- but neither would I want those like you in charge, either. For the same reasons.
But such seems to be the way of the world.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah right, I've explained why your fallacious assertions are wrong or wildly inaccurate - feel free to cling on to drawing fallacious parallels. Duh.
"because they are too much like you, rather than unlike"
Or perhaps it has to do with you being dogmatic and not listening why your parallels are faulty? You kept on piling assertions without substantiating almost any of them.
"neither would I want those like you in charge,"
WTH?
π: 0 β©: 1
What disturbs me about you is that I actually have to ask you this: do you believe that the scientists involved in the radiation experiments on humans after WW2 were responsible for what happened to those people?
And if you are going to keep insisting that scientists cannot be held responsible for developing nuclear weapons for the militaries- when there was only one possible outcome-nthen SURELY you believe that they cannot be credited for anything GOOD that they created, either. It's all or nothing.
For all of your smug comments, you really haven't answered anything. I wouldn't want people like you in any position of power because of your inability to understand how one's actions, even if somewhat indirect, still make that that person responsible for the outcome.
It is hypocrisy to blame religion- a CONCEPT in the mind of man- for anything, yet not blame people who create physical weapons for how they are used. They knew what would happen- they just did not care.
Oh, and by the way- you DO realize that if you are going to complain about what happened to Dr. Semmelweis being too long ago to use against the science community, you have barred yourself from bringing up what the church did to Galaleo (don't trust my spelling there) for the same reason?
Quite frankly, I'm beginning to see why there has not been any real advancement for the past few decades.
π: 0 β©: 1
Which part of "scientists can be irrational" did you not understand? If they took part voluntarily in unethical human experiments, then whoever took part in those are ethically responsible. That's not part of science itself, science doesn't make any moral or ethical claims unlike religion - the ethics of conducting scientific experiments are not the part of scientific method itself - but rather ethics/morality, which is the domain of philosophy.
As for the atomic bomb etc. I've already explained - in that SPECIFIC case - making the bomb in itself comes under the realms of engineering rather than science, mostly.
"even if somewhat indirect, still make that that person responsible for the outcome."
Um, where did I deny that? I was addressing your inaccurate assertion of scientists "creating" nuclear bomb. Good god.
", yet not blame people who create physical weapons for how they are used"
Way to put words in my mouth.
" if you are going to complain about what happened to Dr. Semmelweis"
Um, I've already explained why it took time for his paper to become mainstream. That goes for ANY scientist, even if you publish a hypothesis that's in line with current findings. It IS different, because Church persecuted and silenced Galileo, and dogmatically denied (was not being critical, but downright DENIED) even without looking at the evidence that contradicts their holy book. False equivalence FTW.
" I'm beginning to see why there has not been any real advancement for the past few decades."
And you are the one who decides what is 'advancement' and what isn't? There are rarely any 'breaking news' advancements because science has already advanced a LOT, so as time progress such massive advancements would becomes less and less probable. Although we have made a lot of important advancements in general - which is cumulative mostly, not my problem if you don't keep track of them.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm going to have to cut this all short. Due to two medical emergencies here- one that could have been fatal- I have very limited time now at any website; all here can only pertain to the basics.
It has nothing to do with you, but you were owed an explanation since it went this far. Good luck in the future. Wish me the same.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, nothing wrong with having a healthy debate! Good luck to you as well mate, take care of yourself
π: 0 β©: 0
Perfect. I favorited this as soon as I saw Sagan's name, before even reading the text; I've yet to see a quote of his I have disagreed with.
π: 0 β©: 0
