Science is close-minded

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Electric charge is not dogma, if someone comes up with a better idea it will be used, ...

Electric charge is dogmatic. It is only a name. It is a substitute for knowledge. It is a tool of a belief system. It is not a scientific discovery. No one knows what is cause. You may give cause any name you wish, but, by this act, you have not participated in advancing scientific understanding. A better idea would be something that could predict and explain the existence of intelligent life.

James

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by freeztar

James,

Let's say that we assume god as the cause of qualities of the universe we have measured such as mass, electric charge, etc.
How should science go about determining god/cause?
What experiments should be performed?

The name you use does not matter. The advancement of empirical science will go on. The point is that no one knows what is cause. We will continue to learn the effects of the cause for the operation of the universe. The most important of these effects are life and intelligence. What is their cause?

If you can answer those questions seriously, then the most massive of revolutions in science, and theology, shall occur.

I do not know how to answer your challenge about god/cause. In other words, I do not know what is cause. What I do know is that: No one knows what is cause. Any name you may prefer is not an improvement over the use of the name 'God'. We are not prevented from advancing our knowledge of empirical science just because we do not understand the nature of cause. We are not prevented from using what we have learned just because we do not understand what is cause. What we are prevented from doing is creating, changing, or understanding cause. We have what we are given. Science should not be in the business of claiming any knowledge about what is cause. When it does this, it is being unscientific.

Until then, science deals with that which is capable of being rigorously tested. It's not dismissive, it's logical.

It is only empirical evidence that can be rigorously tested. Theory can be tested for how well its equations fit the patterns of empirical evidence. Its equations should fit well because they are designed to fit well. It is when scientists attach theoretical interpretations to quantities in the equations that the damage is done. It can be seen in disunity, indefinable properties, and invented units of measurement. It is these invented units of measurement that lock the distortions of theory into the equations that model empirical evidence. If these theoretical interpretations are declared to be scientific truth, then that is a dogmatic dismissive act.

It is true that the mathematical equations that model the patterns of empirical evidence are logical. Theories may have their own logic, but that logic is not a part of the logical discoveries of empirical knowledge. Theoretical logic is a demonstration of the fact that logic can be a part of mythology. It may not be a common occurence, but it is definitely possible. If scientist do not know what is cause, then when they speculate about their belief of what may be cause, then they should not demand that the rest of us are not being scientific if we are not convinced by speculation.

James

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Electric charge is dogmatic. It is only a name.

From wiki:

Electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction.

It's a property of some subatomic particles which determines the ER interaction.

It is a substitute for knowledge.

Nope. It's a reproducibly observed property, and hence it is within the scientific body of knowledge.

No one knows what is cause.

Well, the dictionary does:
("cause" as a noun)

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

1 a: a reason for an action or condition : motive b: something that brings about an effect or a result c: a person or thing that is the occasion of an action or state; especially : an agent that brings something about d: sufficient reason <discharged for cause>

Science can match with definitions 1a, 1b, and 1d (1c, not so much).

You may give cause any name you wish, but, by this act, you have not participated in advancing scientific understanding.

Indeed.

A better idea would be something that could predict and explain the existence of intelligent life.

There's a scientific theory called Evolution. It's quite compelling!

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

The name you use does not matter. The advancement of empirical science will go on. The point is that no one knows what is cause. We will continue to learn the effects of the cause for the operation of the universe. The most important of these effects are life and intelligence. What is their cause?

Ah, ok...

No, we don't know what was the 'cause' of life. Science has very compelling theories that postulate this, though we will most likely never know (as in fact) the truth.

I do not know how to answer your challenge about god/cause. In other words, I do not know what is cause. What I do know is that: No one knows what is cause. Any name you may prefer is not an improvement over the use of the name 'God'. We are not prevented from advancing our knowledge of empirical science just because we do not understand the nature of cause. We are not prevented from using what we have learned just because we do not understand what is cause. What we are prevented from doing is creating, changing, or understanding cause. We have what we are given. Science should not be in the business of claiming any knowledge about what is cause. When it does this, it is being unscientific.

It is only empirical evidence that can be rigorously tested. Theory can be tested for how well its equations fit the patterns of empirical evidence. Its equations should fit well because they are designed to fit well. It is when scientists attach theoretical interpretations to quantities in the equations that the damage is done. It can be seen in disunity, indefinable properties, and invented units of measurement. It is these invented units of measurement that lock the distortions of theory into the equations that model empirical evidence. If these theoretical interpretations are declared to be scientific truth, then that is a dogmatic dismissive act.

Indeed. Science does not accept a theory until it is met with falsifiable experiments. Even then, it is never accepted as truth (or at least, should not be).

It may not be a common occurence, but it is definitely possible. If scientist do not know what is cause, then when they speculate about their belief of what may be cause, then they should not demand that the rest of us are not being scientific if we are not convinced by speculation.

I agree.

I'm curious, what makes you feel this way?

[REASON]

James,

First of all, electric charge is a name given to an effect, not a cause as you have so aptly noted. So to substitute the the term "God" in this instance would be improper based on your own argument. I'm not aware that there is a dogmatic scientific name applied to the cause of electric charge in subatomic particles. But suggesting that using the term "God" is as acceptable as any term, where there is no current explanation, is presumptuous in my estimation.

What's interesting to me about your position is that it seems to become impossible to ever scientifically define a base cause for anything. As soon as someone attempts to so so, it is immediately classified as dogmatic or restrictive from your point of view and is dismissible. At least it appears that way to me. I conceed that I may either be reading too much or not enough into your statements.

I think one of the important points that has been made relative to the idea of naming undefined aspects of nature is that using the term "God" carries with it a whole lot of historical baggage. While you may have a clear understanding of what you mean when you apply the word "God" to something, most people are going to think you are referring to something completely different that is more reminiscent of their dogmatic religious programming. Something you probably aren't intending. This only leads to a breakdown in communication. So if you feel it is inconsequential what terminology is used to convey undefined causation, why should anyone choose the term "God" with all of it's confusing implications?

No matter how far you go with defining root cause, stopping at God suggests an unwillingness seek further refinement in understanding. So from the stand point of science, it is simply impossible to arrive at the conclusion of God. This isn't being closed-minded, it's the nature of the method.

God can only exist as a concept. Is that not acceptable?

[James Putnam]

From wiki:
Electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction.
It's a property of some subatomic particles which determines the ER interaction.

This is an example of believing to have fundamental knowledge about cause. What wiki should be reporting is that: Electric charge is the name attached to a series of patterns that appear to have the same unknown cause. It appears, at present, to be unrelated to at least three other groups of patterns, none of which seem, at this time,to be due to a single cause that we are able to identify by experimentation.

Nope. It's a reproducibly observed property, and hence it is within the scientific body of knowledge.

Yes the patterns ascribed to electric charge are reproducible. That is what makes them useful to us. However, reproduction is not sufficient evidence to declare its cause is correctly identified.

Science can match with definitions 1a, 1b, and 1d (1c, not so much).

Yes there is a reason and a something or a thing or an agent. But, what is the reason? What is the something? What is the thing? Or: What is the agent? The attachment of a name does not answer these questions.

Indeed.

There's a scientific theory called Evolution. It's quite compelling!

We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life?

James

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

This is an example of believing to have fundamental knowledge about cause. What wiki should be reporting is that: Electric charge is the name attached to a series of patterns that appear to have the same unknown cause. It appears, at present, to be unrelated to at least three other groups of patterns, none of which seem, at this time,to be due to a single cause that we are able to identify by experimentation.



Yes the patterns ascribed to electric charge are reproducible. That is what makes them useful to us. However, reproduction is not sufficient evidence to declare its cause is correctly identified.



Yes there is a reason and a something or a thing or an agent. But, what is the reason? What is the something? What is the thing? Or: What is the agent? The attachment of a name does not answer these questions.





We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life?

James

James, what is the point of your argument? Is it that you think god is the cause of everything or that you don't think science is the way to find anything out? Or is it that you think science makes claims it cannot back up?

[Moontanman]

This is an example of believing to have fundamental knowledge about cause. What wiki should be reporting is that: Electric charge is the name attached to a series of patterns that appear to have the same unknown cause. It appears, at present, to be unrelated to at least three other groups of patterns, none of which seem, at this time,to be due to a single cause that we are able to identify by experimentation.

You are asking why the electron has a charge? the best I can tell you is if it didn't you wouldn't be here to ask the question. The universe is put together with certain knowable laws. The interaction of these laws results in the universe we see and live in. The cause is the fundamental laws of the universe. No one knows why the universe has the laws we have, all we know for sure is if they were different in even a small way we wouldn't be here to question them. For me that is a very unsatisfying answer but it's all we got at this time. I'm not sure if "why we have these laws" is a knowable thing.

Yes the patterns ascribed to electric charge are reproducible. That is what makes them useful to us. However, reproduction is not sufficient evidence to declare its cause is correctly identified.

I have never heard any one claim to know the cause, what's your point?

Yes there is a reason and a something or a thing or an agent. But, what is the reason? What is the something? What is the thing? Or: What is the agent? The attachment of a name does not answer these questions.

Can you prove there is a reason other than it's the way the laws of the universe cause the basic parts of matter to behave? Does there need to be a more basic cause of the charge?

We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life?

James

First of all DNA has no direction or purpose. On top of that DNA or evolution or what ever has no purpose or direction to form intelligent life. Chemicals when exposed to excess energy will push toward complexity. Some molecules can be pushed to more complex forms than others. Carbon and it's compounds can be pushed by energy to complexities that allow reproduction. Reproduction doesn't mean DNA or even RNA but they are the end result of energy building ever more complex molecules. No purpose, no ultimate goal. You are asking the wrong questions from an assumption that is not valid. Read Peter D. Wards really great book "Life Not As WE Know It" for a very detailed explanation of the chemical processes involved. If you do you will realize you are assuming a question that is totally invalid and makes no sense at all.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life.

The question with real merit is: what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

[alexander]

Originally Posted by James

Well your diagnosis of my mental state has nothing to do with my mental state. It probably says more about your attitude than it does mine.

Good to hear that, though i don't think you should get defensive on this, i only have a hand full of words to judge your mood on the subject, no emotion, or mental state observation can be made of that, and it seemed that your words were put in that kind of a mood.... As for me being depressed, i've come to a conclusion that my lack of will to attempt to live a normal life, is driven by deep frustrations about the way that our society works, and generally, human nature as a whole. I've lost faith in people, though came to an equilibrium, not depressed or suicidal, never really angry, or maniacal, never really excited, outgoing, but only to those who deserve it, shit, i need to stop boring you. On, to catch up with other replies...

The work I do goes on regardless of what others may think. That was what I was communicating by my words.

Excellent, therefore you belong here

Originally Posted by Cathryn

Sort of like a Muslim denying jihad is Islamic.

Jihad is Islamic, problem is, people in the middle east that declare jihad, have no right to declare it; their scriptures have been tainted from the originals by war-mongering totalitarian dictators... and they still think its "Islam", when it's far from it, perhaps a form of, but not pure Islam... next to Buddhism, Islam must be the next most peaceful religion, according to the original scriptures... but yeah, back to topic here

Originally Posted by sanctus

I can even prove that this is true: search for posts by Irisheyes she was admin until she had no more time.And she also is a strong believer...

Originally Posted by MikeC

Science can be hijacked like government are with INFLUENCE dollars.

Science therefore can be influenced, you can't "hijack" science, it's not a physical deity, it's a way of thinking....

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

true religion is not dogmatic, its a personal experience. One should seek to understand our own intrinsic nature, since this entails introspection it should be understood as such. Once we understand our nature we can then attempt to live with what we know.

I'm putting that on a shirt, more people need to understand that!

Originally Posted by James

And, naming anything as electric charge or mass or spacetime causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject being found. We cannot move forward and learn the true natural properties of the universe so long as the materialistic belief system maintains a stranglehold on what is permitted to be declared as being scientific.

The inexplicableness of force interaction cause does, in no way, excuse the above-implied theories (all of physics) from not having a good scientific stance.

First of all, calling the cause god, or whatever the cause is, is fine, call it whatever, it matters not, it does not change the existence, or explicability of the phenomenon. I agree, we can observe it and describe the behavior of it, and i also agree that science, as of yet, can explain it. So for now, that may as well be god, though it should not discourage science to explain it...

This, however, does not fundamentally flaw physics as a whole, though the cause is unknown, the effect has been described in extreme detail. It's like you have a big pile of black boxes. You don't know what's in the black box, but if you can describe the properties of the black box, as well as how it interacts with another black box, and then take a third black box, and predict what the outcome of that third black box, interacting with the first 2, will be, and then observe your prediction to come true, while you don't know how the black boxes do what they do, you have just described the properties of those black boxes well-enough to where, you can describe all the properties of a building made of those boxes, and any interaction of that building with other black-box buildings. Now you can do the same thing for white boxes, and then discover that white boxes interact with each other in similar fashion, but under different circumstances.... you can form well-formed scientific theories and facts about the boxes without knowing exactly how they do what they do... call it whatever, but it'd not necessarily flawed, at all... then you mix in another scientist, who, using your methodology and model, predicts the behavior of his black boxes, and they interact in exactly the same way. Yes it is based on the assumption that black boxes do what black boxes do, and no knowledge of how they do them, but in the end the scientific method for describing the behavior, and perhaps predicting other behaviors, can not be called flawed, and only one assumption is made, with facts not directly using that assumption.

I should probably also mention that by fact, above, i mean, to say that the behavior is as it is described, is factual, even though we may form theories about how the behavior is materially facilitated...