Perhaps you would get a more responses posting your more detailed questions on a science based discussion board. It is no wonder that you get faith based questions on this board.
Perhaps, dear Twitch (again, peace to you!). But I wonder: did anyone notice that I didn't START the thread... but only commented, per MY perspective... due to the TOPIC of the thread - a show, which I just happened to catch? Since the TOPIC was brought up ON this board, well... stands to follow that comments/responses should be associated. Well, that's what MY "critical thinking" tells ME.
You draw an analogy of part of his theory to the name you call god (don't know if you're gonna ask him that one)
I did. Both. Draw the analogy. Because of what I've seen. Which I posted on the board a bit ago. Which is why the show... and thread... were of interest to me. The show did not negate what I saw, but actually lended more credence to it. But so what? Where is the "crime" in that, given that this IS a board where beliefs... as well as non-beliefs... are discussed??
Fair enough, you did say that.
THANK you, truly, for bothering to go back and READ what I posted... so as to understand where I am coming from AND my intent! THANK you!
Your statement is essentially that scientists can be at odds, which I do not dispute,
Which was my only point...
however was your point solely about the ancients or do you have the same opinion of scientists today?
Unfortunately, I have the same today. I review of the positions on such things as string/knot theory, a universe vs. multiverses, and others, show this. That there ARE differences, however, doesn't bother me, not at all. I get that...
In both cases you say science is like religion. Again, there in printed text.
In how they "SELL" their theories/beliefs, yes, I do say that. And I stand by that statement....
One could say there is a theme there and one not solely attibutable to a tv show or this thread alone.
No theme. Just a personal observation... based on FACTS.
Theories which are unproven have a tough go of it, as shown by your point about Aristarchus and even so today. Without the numbers, without unbiased verification, without general consensus and without exceptions, a theory is just that. All bets are off until it's proven.
For some, yes. BUT... if it's proven TRUE... wasn't it true ALL ALONG? I refer to my flat earth reference...
Once it is however, it gives something that religion hasn't and can't give, a universal truth about the laws of our universe.
See, I am not so sure I can agree with that. For example, according to the Bible, the earth was always round. Okay, so it wasn't PROVEN until thousands of years later. Was it TRULY flat during such "dark" years?
Well, strong convictions can seem religious, more so the less one has undeniable proof for. But your viewpoints do seem to have a common thread of I-speak-with-the-Lord mysticism; what response do you expect really?
I expect people who run around trying to convince others that they are more critical thinkers, even higher thinkers... to give ME the benefit of the doubt, look PAST their perceptions of ME... and look at what I'm asking. Again, I could be a zip, dang, idiot; doesn't mean my questions aren't valid. And one doesn't know, does one... if one doesn't even bother to CONSIDER the questions...
In the first place, I took issue with a minor error in fact about Gallileo and that it was inferred that scientific rivalry impeded progress when in fact religious repression played a major role in that case IMO. I don't doubt that politics didn't factor in but you made no mention of the Inquistion either, which in my opinion is a rather important fact to leave out and at the very best, downplay.
I didn't include the Inquisition because, from what I read, it wasn't like the Inquisition was after Galileo; rather, it appears that his enemies simply USED the Inquisition... to exact revenge on him. So that, from what I understand, the Inquisition was the end... but the means TO the end. The end... was shutting him up... NOT because what he believed WAS so controversial... but because it disagreed with the beliefs of a specific person... and cuttingly so. What ultimately occurred with Galileo was the result of someone's bruised ego; not religious suppression. Religious suppression was simply the effect... caused by the tool (the Inquisition)... brought to bear by the insecurities and embarrassment of a mere man.
In fact, I made it clear that I did not have all the facts, in regards to the show. However, I also point out that your comments clearly equate science with religion, which I am fairly certain, was not in the show.
No, my comments equate the SELL of science... with the SELL of religion. And, again, I can't see much difference.
inasmuch as it was a response to your request for thoughts on your theories, it has as much weight as any other. I did not address the show, only the ideas presented arising from it. Seems valid enough.
I can't say I agree... because your CONCLUSIONS regarding the ideas presented arising from it were inaccurate. Had you saw the show, you would most probably have said, "Okay, I see where she's coming from. That's not really what it's all about but, yeah, this show... and, admittedly, others... can make it seem so." But, well, that's ME, how I would have approached it.
Most everything in the media has an angle. Indeed everything we do is based on angles, to a degree. The idea that scientific process and laws rise above this and seeks our certainties which it has provided, is ultimately a process and not a destination. How it gets there is trial and error of course. I'm sorry if you can't see past this.
Well, my "blinders", if you will... is all of the so-called "integrity" that we're supposed to believe exists in relation to science. I'm only holding science to the standard IT says it follows. It never said they have to empirically prove everything. If they tell me clouds are evaporated water... I'm good with that; I don't need to watch an experiment myself to believe it.
Nothing wrong with asking questions.
Apparently, some here disagree with you...
I'm sorry this particular program and your responses here left you wanting.
The program and others' responses, yes. But thank you for the sentiment, truly!
I'm glad to see you admit to putting your own truth out there, as do I and everyone else.
I do the best I can, dear one. I tried to be a truthful as I could. I do know that all cannot handle that, so I had not plans to take offense. I just didn't/don't understand the personal insults and insinuations. Truly, I don't. IMHO, they're really nothing more than ad hominems and red herrings. Which I find interest, too, given all the hype about "critical thinking" thrown around here these days.
I'm sorry you see people's opinions here as you do. That is likely the subject of different topic. I chose to address ideas you've presented and hopefully presented a worthwhile position.
As insults? Ad hominems? Red herrings? But they were! But no, no different topic. I feel the same way about some of them as they do me: can't talk to 'em. Ah, well... But I thank YOU for trying to make another attempt. It is truly appreciated.
No worries and back atcha. I enjoy the mental exercise from time to time, if only for it's own sake.
I do, as well. It's like solving the New York Times crossword for me, sometimes. Keeps me on my toes... and able to think "critically" - LOLOLOL! (Though, again, I can't where a whole lot of "critical thinking" went on with some others... in light of the comments from those who didn't even see the show... let alone accurately read my comments.)
Oh and if you really want feedback, pretend that it's the absolute truth. You'll get far better publicity and responses. Ask any scientist, or troll...lol
Ah, yes... play the OTHER kind of "reindeer games". Of course. I'll keep that in mind!
Again, peace to you, dear Twitch... and thanks for the second "go"!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA, who doesn't really believe in Rudolph, though...