User Tag List

Page 55 of 55 FirstFirst ... 54552535455
Results 811 to 812 of 812

Thread: Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

  1. #811
    Over 4000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    4,037
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 872 Times in 728 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    200350
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    This mentality is precisely the opposite of scientific or even just plain old rational thought. It's called an appeal to popularity fallacy.
    Actually it's not. It's much closer to a valid appeal to authority.

    If there are, say, 1 million credentialed and professional cosmologists in the world ('just a wild guess), and 990,000 of them preach the standard model and general relativity, and the other 10,000 preach something else that contradicts SM/GR, then knowing nothing else, I know that the odds that SM/GR are correct is about 99-to-1. If I don't have any reason to doubt SM/GR, then that's as good as I can get, not being a credentialed and professional cosmologist myself. It's not an appeal to popularity, but a statistical estimation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Have you ever noticed that the majority are almost always wrong?
    No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the stock market or pop-culture or pop-science. People, by and large, don't think. They feel their way through life, allowing their emotions to carry them hither and yon so long as they aren't alone in their wanderings. The majority can very definitely be wrong and very often is. Scientists are just as human as everyone else and the drive to be accepted and respected by one's peers is a driving force that most aren't even aware of, never mind on guard against.
    Doctors of philosophy in physics must display solid understanding of known physics, and then on top of that introduce new, peer-reviewed knowledge into the human knowledge base, so you're talking about apples and oranges here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Nearly every truly great breakthrough in any field of science you care to name came from the loner, the outcast, the nut, the crank.
    There have been two superstars of physics, Newton and Einstein. After these two, you might argue Planck wrt Quantum, but that's a stretch when compared with the other two men. Nobody else comes close to changing the way that physics is understood than Newton and Einstein. While they may have been seen as loners, outcasts, nuts, or cranks, by someone, at some time, I believe those were minority views, and certainly we don't hear too much about people thinking this nowadays.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    A great many of the things you think are obvious didn't use to be so obvious. Everyone used to know that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the Universe; The Milky Way was the whole of the Universe; Disease was caused by bad humors and that bloodletting helped people get better; Etc, etc. It was the lone thinker who wasn't afraid to disregard the majority who figured out the truth.
    They figured out things using science though, the scientific method. Those examples you've provided were not developed using science. It isn't a lesson in going against the grain, it's a lesson in using the scientific method.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Now, that doesn't mean that we ought to make the opposite mistake by assuming that the majority is wrong by virtue of the fact that its the majority. The point is that the number of people who either accept or reject something is not relevant to whether that thing is right or wrong, true or false.
    It's irresponsible to say that it is not relevant. It's not proof positive, but it is not irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    And whether you're a physicist or not doesn't mean that you are not qualified to make judgments about modern cosmological theories. I don't care how good at math and science you are, if you come to me and tell me that the self-contradictory is the truth, I'm going to know that you've made an error.
    Agreed, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I don't have to know that 2+2=4 nor do I have to have ever heard of an electron to know that the self-contradictory is false. I may not be able to tell you where the error has been made nor even be able to conceptually understand the issue enough to articulate anything meaningful about the error at all but I can be certain that the error exists or that certainty is not possible at all, including for the cosmologist trying to sell me the contradiction.
    What contradiction?
    HE IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    487 . . . the Catholic faith . . . in Christ.

    "...things happen .. and you see the results in the fruits of the happening." Lahey

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Nihilo For Your Post:

    gcthomas (Today)

  3. #812
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,808
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 2,614 Times in 1,728 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1697369
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Actually it's not. It's much closer to a valid appeal to authority.

    If there are, say, 1 million credentialed and professional cosmologists in the world ('just a wild guess), and 990,000 of them preach the standard model and general relativity, and the other 10,000 preach something else that contradicts SM/GR, then knowing nothing else, I know that the odds that SM/GR are correct is about 99-to-1. If I don't have any reason to doubt SM/GR, then that's as good as I can get, not being a credentialed and professional cosmologist myself. It's not an appeal to popularity, but a statistical estimation.
    Appeal to authority is a fallacy of logic just as much as an appeal to popularity would be. I'd agree that it could be considered either one. The point is exactly the same. The point is that who supports a position is not relevant to whether the position is valid. Something is true or false whether all the experts in the world agree or not. This fallacy is nothing but a direct application of the law of excluded middle - one of the fundamental laws of reason that allow you to think and understand and to know anything at all.

    No.
    You should pay closer attention.

    Doctors of philosophy in physics must display solid understanding of known physics, and then on top of that introduce new, peer-reviewed knowledge into the human knowledge base, so you're talking about apples and oranges here.
    No, I'm not either. You're naive as can be if you believe otherwise.

    There have been two superstars of physics, Newton and Einstein. After these two, you might argue Planck wrt Quantum, but that's a stretch when compared with the other two men. Nobody else comes close to changing the way that physics is understood than Newton and Einstein. While they may have been seen as loners, outcasts, nuts, or cranks, by someone, at some time, I believe those were minority views, and certainly we don't hear too much about people thinking this nowadays.
    Einstien wasn't taken seriously by hardly anyone. It's sheer luck that anyone has ever heard of him. One guy - one single guy - happen to read his paper and took it seriously enough to give it the light of day. It was on the strength of that one man's reputation that Einstein's physics career was revived. Otherwise, he'd have fallen into total obscurity and no one would know who he was - no one. Getting published is maybe 10% of the equation, having anyone take what you've published seriously is politics and luck. In science, as with virtually every other field of human endeavor, it's not as much what you know as it is who you know. If you think otherwise, you're sadly mistaken.

    They figured out things using science though, the scientific method.
    This is not relevant to the point. I have no problem with the scientific method. It's the scientists that are the problem. If only scientists would use the scientific method as consistently as they pretend.

    Those examples you've provided were not developed using science.
    So what? That isn't at all relevant to the point.

    It isn't a lesson in going against the grain, it's a lesson in using the scientific method.
    Do you have any evidence at all that the one is exclusive of the other? No!

    It's irresponsible to say that it is not relevant. It's not proof positive, but it is not irrelevant.
    You're flatly wrong! There's a really good reason why there are fallacies called "Appeal to Popularity" and "Appeal to Authority". These fallacies have been understood for longer than the English language has existed. I do not care how many people say that something is true (or false)! A billion people can ALL be wrong.

    Agreed, of course.
    Excellent! There's hope!

    What contradiction?
    Umm, well there's a lot of them. The latest one that has been presented that is relevant to the topic of this thread is the idea that two observers can disagree about the sequence of events and they can both be right.

    No, they can't.

    It's called the law of contradiction. If two truth claims contradict each other they CANNOT both be true. Relativity, therefore, openly and directly contradicts the very laws of reason that allow anyone to know anything in the first place.

    In addition to that and several other aspects of General Relativity itself, modern science pretends like GR and Quantum Mechanics are both true! They flat out cannot both be true. Even Einstein himself and even most honest scientist to this day will readily admit that the two theories are mutually exclusive and yet they both continue to be accepted as valid. How could that happen in the scientific method and peer-reviewed panacea that you seem to think the scientific community to be?

    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Today)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us