@ LucasFine, fine, I'll be the scientist who calls bulls**t on your apologist attitude.The difference between arrogance and confidence is that arrogance is baseless. Scientists have every right to be confident. The triumphs of science as a method of building understanding about our world and our universe make every other attempt in human history pale by comparison.You may have an undergrad degree in science, but without a PhD you _aren't_ a scientist. If you were a scientist, you would understand that scientific claims are always made with confidence intervals, either directly or by citing sources that do so. So your claims about how you "can't count the number of times I've seen stories from scientific journals claiming to know the size of the universe" are complete nonsense. You're conflating real scientific sources with non-scientific ones, i.e. something you saw on the internet or TV.As for the actual confidence we do have, it's absolutely breathtaking. The standard model of theoretical physics, for example, makes predictions that when tested are accurate to 12 orders of magnitude. For illustration, that's like estimating the distance across the continental United States to an accuracy of the width of a human hair. If we weren't able to do these things, the computer you're using to access Digg wouldn't be able to flawlessly perform more than 1 billion calculations per second, would it? Of course not.
Wait. Did you just write what I think you did: "50 years from now, assuming no global catastrophes, we are likely to reach the technological singularity, after which the human brain will look like a toy by comparison"You ARE my perfect example. Thanks for proving my point, Mr. Arrogance. Hey, let me know when you cure the common cold.
There are two sides to every coin, and science and technology have produced some absolutely heinous weapons that have no use other that to inflict pain, torture, maim, kill, etc in addition to life saving advancements that have improved the lives and well beings of millions.The point I'm making is NOT that science and technology are bad, the same way that religion, in and of itself, is not bad...just that everything that can be used for good will also inevitably be used for ill as well. It's the vocal minority that exhibit the traits you find so distasteful.
Not only understanding and communication, one side needs to admit that they have nothing they are basing their assumptions on other than 2000 year old text and 4000 year old text.
It's unbelievably naive of you to suggest that all scientific advancements were made with altruistic intentions. You're cherry-picking your arguments to fit your preconceived notions of the "evils of religion."I believe in God. I believe in evolution. I believe that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. I also believe that religion should not be taught in a science classroom, but a theology classroom. I don't think anyone should believe in God because I do. I think people should be free to choose what faith, if any, to follow.What I do believe is that most people on BOTH sides of the religious debate are tolerant, open-minded individuals who are following what they believe is the proper course. At the same time, both science and religion have their extremists and people who are so polarized one way that everyone who disagrees with them must be a mouth-breathing fool.When you make these broad generalizations about people of faith, you lower yourself down to the level of the people you're disagreeing with.
bombulaJul 14, 2009
@ LucasFine, fine, I'll be the scientist who calls bulls**t on your apologist attitude.The difference between arrogance and confidence is that arrogance is baseless. Scientists have every right to be confident. The triumphs of science as a method of building understanding about our world and our universe make every other attempt in human history pale by comparison.You may have an undergrad degree in science, but without a PhD you _aren't_ a scientist. If you were a scientist, you would understand that scientific claims are always made with confidence intervals, either directly or by citing sources that do so. So your claims about how you "can't count the number of times I've seen stories from scientific journals claiming to know the size of the universe" are complete nonsense. You're conflating real scientific sources with non-scientific ones, i.e. something you saw on the internet or TV.As for the actual confidence we do have, it's absolutely breathtaking. The standard model of theoretical physics, for example, makes predictions that when tested are accurate to 12 orders of magnitude. For illustration, that's like estimating the distance across the continental United States to an accuracy of the width of a human hair. If we weren't able to do these things, the computer you're using to access Digg wouldn't be able to flawlessly perform more than 1 billion calculations per second, would it? Of course not.
mcmannus00Jul 14, 2009
Did the narrator sound like a British MacInTalk to anyone else?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2009
I tempted to replace my avatar with a black and white photo of myself.
lucas123Jul 14, 2009
Wait. Did you just write what I think you did: "50 years from now, assuming no global catastrophes, we are likely to reach the technological singularity, after which the human brain will look like a toy by comparison"You ARE my perfect example. Thanks for proving my point, Mr. Arrogance. Hey, let me know when you cure the common cold.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2009
There are two sides to every coin, and science and technology have produced some absolutely heinous weapons that have no use other that to inflict pain, torture, maim, kill, etc in addition to life saving advancements that have improved the lives and well beings of millions.The point I'm making is NOT that science and technology are bad, the same way that religion, in and of itself, is not bad...just that everything that can be used for good will also inevitably be used for ill as well. It's the vocal minority that exhibit the traits you find so distasteful.
moralogicJul 14, 2009
Not only understanding and communication, one side needs to admit that they have nothing they are basing their assumptions on other than 2000 year old text and 4000 year old text.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2009
It's unbelievably naive of you to suggest that all scientific advancements were made with altruistic intentions. You're cherry-picking your arguments to fit your preconceived notions of the "evils of religion."I believe in God. I believe in evolution. I believe that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. I also believe that religion should not be taught in a science classroom, but a theology classroom. I don't think anyone should believe in God because I do. I think people should be free to choose what faith, if any, to follow.What I do believe is that most people on BOTH sides of the religious debate are tolerant, open-minded individuals who are following what they believe is the proper course. At the same time, both science and religion have their extremists and people who are so polarized one way that everyone who disagrees with them must be a mouth-breathing fool.When you make these broad generalizations about people of faith, you lower yourself down to the level of the people you're disagreeing with.