Bleak, Inspirational Science

[Allo Allo]

I have been on a knowledge exploration - The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins (books suggested by John) and that opened all sorts of other vistas! Emotionally I feel like I do when I find myself on a bleak and lonely fell where the silence thunders and I feel supercharged with inspiration...

I have been reading the ideas of...

Robert Trivers

David Deutsch

Sir John Crebbs

Matt Riddley

Daniel Dennet

and others.....

But I have just listened to Richard Dawkins talk on TED and can only say

Wow! (http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=r_dawkins)

If you have time to listen - you will feel good all day!

M O0

[Allo Allo]

If you have time to listen - you will feel good all day!

M O0

More:-

Daniel Dennett (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486&q=Daniel+Dennet)

Stephen Pinker (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3554279466299738997&q=Robert+Trivers)

M

[tkingdoll]

Yay!

Dawkins is very cool. I went to a talk he did when The God Delusion came out, he and his wife read excerpts and then answered questions. Very compelling man, I could listen to him all day.

Don't forget to read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. It's out of print in the UK but you can get it from amazon.com or ebay. Best book ever.

[Allo Allo]

Yay!

Dawkins is very cool.

Don't forget to read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. It's out of print in the UK but you can get it from amazon.com or ebay. Best book ever.

Ok - I'll source one - I find libraries useful! I thought Sagan was rather sneered at by his peers?

If ordinary people can be swayed by the glitz of the new age – psychics, gurus, promise and rituals and the showy rhetoric of religious fundamentalism, science needs to get scientists dusted off, looking good and OUT THERE. In UK Dawkins is one, I really enjoy him too! There must be other scientists with charisma enough to interest the fluffy minded?

I have found Robert Wright’s interviews to be stimulating. I have “met” some very great “thinkers” and scientists this way. Robert Wright himself is pretty interesting, a sardonic and amusing speaker - enjoy - here (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=7649291049306277988&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D7649291049306277988%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H21dZlUKD7vBvnDxm5_LaDWUSpwyyA)

Here are some of his interviews – with challenging questions….

John Maynard Smith (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-5719510285700008320&esrc=sr3&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5719510285700008320%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H23HA6XGlBcw5y_Xfh_DN41FFbDyWw)

Arthur Peacocke (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-150936448344699981&esrc=sr10&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-150936448344699981%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H23SClVRkspDfevI5R4RwXU_HhQ_1w)

Edward O Wilson (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-4975549474851602314&esrc=sr11&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4975549474851602314%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H20aP_xJm1d_fOyvsMGm0XO5dT0z5g)

Freeman Dyson (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=350379535220823176&esrc=sr15&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D350379535220823176%26q%3DRober t%2BWright&usg=AL29H21gml0bkljm48chTBiCNZfE73ONPw)

Robert Pollack (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=771597158793240432&esrc=sr21&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D771597158793240432%26q%3DRober t%2BWright&usg=AL29H21AP6NdMAyaLer3ew6wnokWHJIZ3w)

Francis Fukuyama (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=5053194139940095896&esrc=sr34&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D5053194139940095896%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H21p3hqTH76ShwK73hRkgzGCuMfwWw)

Owen Gingerich (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-119670381733443867&esrc=sr35&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-119670381733443867%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H22qey2Cp_elFgOdvdI4ux8m0-uoXA)

Ursula Goodenough (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=5442606210806397832&esrc=sr36&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D5442606210806397832%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H22wkdIz6MfaYtUuk4bF85Amj158fA)

John Haught (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=9180346162419927275&esrc=sr37&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D9180346162419927275%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H20nki-1Md6M4RO19a0wds8pAqbuNQ)

Andrew Newberg (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=9122930135704146433&esrc=sr38&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D9122930135704146433%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H22gjOdS_0Ef1W0xpLDdnVmW8EKUQg)

Lorenzo Albacete (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=2073071402444415837&esrc=sr39&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D2073071402444415837%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H22TtPhlQR9Bf7OfTrtmzcLgurT6Pw)

Kieth Ward (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=2881306110571988554&esrc=sr41&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D2881306110571988554%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H236lH8DFdOwnLifdX6CXwBFgSzL2Q)

Omid Safi (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-7139268560599794053&esrc=sr43&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-7139268560599794053%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H20eXUSdbXPvgfbx0qqKMUeIiubpQA)

John Polkinghome (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-625904119099996720&esrc=sr45&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-625904119099996720%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H20wpXK7vLK6a6ASB3h7Ymz5nBplHg)

Huston Smith (Man’s religions – difficult speaker – but worth watching) (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=5723928558446879967&esrc=sr46&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D5723928558446879967%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H22czQ8RfklapC9sXsLD0Q3N0RCc_g)

Brian Swimme (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-5414889156623608171&esrc=sr53&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5414889156623608171%26q%3DRobert%2BWright&usg=AL29H21UsLPcJG-ktvoIR-Hccc2jyCjTLg)

Joseph Goldstein (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=1099853386257692151&esrc=sr57&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D1099853386257692151%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H2246kjGrnptsQYmbWlIpTAbTm5RJw )

Sharon Salzberg (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=6401896320203355759&esrc=sr49&ev=v&q=Robert+Wright&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D6401896320203355759%26q%3DRobe rt%2BWright&usg=AL29H22YNbLE_RbJwgg2UQP67dQ4WfGVpw)

Daniel Dennett (Short) (Included again even though I can’t “bond” with this man! The one “sensible” thing he says is that Ethics might be like Mathematics – it is “discovered” by us.) Here (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-9136959594507340339&esrc=sr40&ev=v&q=%22Robert+Wright%22&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-9136959594507340339%26q%3D%2522Robert%2BWright%252 2&usg=AL29H23-pJkBBanPK1KlyvIh7Q_87hH2pQ)

M

[Araneus]

Richard Dawkins is an excellent lecturer, I even recommended him to the two Jehovah's Witnesses that appeared at my door and asked questions about evolution for half an hour (not altogether unsuccessfully, I was able to educate them on a few important details even if their overall beliefs were not altered).

[Allo Allo]

I have found Robert Wright’s interviews to be stimulating.
Here are some of his interviews – with challenging questions….

M

I'm an idiot! My post was a lot of work! I've collected and listened to these talks over quite a time - but I have just discovered you can just click here (http://meaningoflife.tv/) and get the whole lot - and even little bits of whole interviews under topics of discussion on the right of the window!

That's life made easy....!

Araneus, in arguments with Jehovas Witnesses, you cannot really get anywhere I've found. That kind of religion closes minds. The best thing to get rid of them is to pretend you have Tourettes and make sure you yell out all sorts of shocking things like "quark!" or "gluon!" or "Darwin!" and possibly "gene!" or "meme!". "Dawkins!" sounds pretty good too if you just yelled it out so suddenly they stepped backwards in surprise and tumbled down your front steps!

M

[Araneus]

Araneus, in arguments with Jehovas Witnesses, you cannot really get anywhere I've found. That kind of religion closes minds. The best thing to get rid of them is to pretend you have Tourettes and make sure you yell out all sorts of shocking things like "quark!" or "gluon!" or "Darwin!" and possibly "gene!" or "meme!". "Dawkins!" sounds pretty good too if you just yelled it out so suddenly they stepped backwards in surprise and tumbled down your front steps!

I wasn't trying to get rid of them; I just mentioned I was a scientist when they offered me their magazine and they started asking about evolution, which I was quite happy to explain even though there was obviously no chance of influencing their beliefs.

[tkingdoll]

I like Stephen Pinker and James Gleik for popular science writing.

For philosophy, I turn to the graphic novel writer Alan Moore :D

[Allo Allo]

I wasn't trying to get rid of them; I just mentioned I was a scientist when they offered me their magazine and they started asking about evolution, which I was quite happy to explain even though there was obviously no chance of influencing their beliefs.

I'm REALLY MEAN with my time - if I think its going to be wasted I don't waste it!

M

[Allo Allo]

These are new ideas on science? – or does everyone else know this except me? I thought it worth watching whether you like Wiki or not– but its long – and Kevin Kelly hasn’t got the pizzaz of Dawkins - its on the future of scientific method - Science (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6119231548215342323&q=science)
What do you think?

[Dr B]

I am suprised no one has mentioned it yet - but I would recommend a good grounding in scientific theory and some recent challenges to it. I would suggest

Karl Popper
Thomas Kuhn
John Searle

then move on to look at

Kurt Danziger
Gerd Gigerenzer
and the philospohy of people like Focoult

That should keep you busy - make sure you read the primary sources and not net-based sources giving other peoples impressions. O0

[Allo Allo]

make sure you read the primary sources and not net-based sources giving other peoples impressions. O0

Oh, Hello Dr B, Where have you been? Nice to see you back!

So I take it you thought it pretty crummy hey? I thought “The next 50 Years of Science” video was interesting in focusing on what computers and the internet COULD do in a human “networked” laboratory – a superconciousness. And I do realise it’s only someone’s idea but he’s not a complete moron surely?

Well, yes thanks for these suggestions of source material – since I first appeared (eight months ago) on the Skeptics forum and fell under Skep-attack all round, I started dismantling my own ideas (encrustations from my life experiences, university in the dark ages – and the experiences of others, known as “anecdotal evidence”!), I have attended my OWN University every day. I think I work harder than any student in a university – well I KNOW I do!

So, because it’s a lonely trip – no professors or other students like me around for miles! my solution for light relief is to watch videos and “meet the people”. I remember struggling with Krishnamurti once on “Consciousness” (in written form) so I was delighted to find him on video. Problem is I have NO IDEA what he is talking about on video either! So I’m not wasting my time on THAT!

So what SHOULD I waste my time on?

I have been discussing with my husband whether I should do something with the Open University – mmm – but WHAT??? It would solve the problem of my having no focus. I have become a mental grasshopper. Also – it won’t be leading to a career – only knowledge... and nowadays, knowledge is changing so rapidly that anything we think we might “know” is already obsolete - real knowledge is impossible (pure scepticism)! So perhaps I shouldn’t be “bovvered”? I should just decline into old age and become like my mouse My Mouse (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:uUjd92yskVKaQM:http://www.theharrowgroup.com/articles/20030616/20030616_files/image004.jpg)?

I have posted some questions on this board like: - “What is the task of consciousness in evolution?” (I don’t mean “function”) I was hoping someone would point me in the right direction where I can find the answer. Or, even better, just give me the answer!

Thanks for your reading list – all help gratefully accepted!

M

Thanks Tracy for the Carl Sagan suggestion. I’ve always liked him.

[Melanie]

That's a pretty cool mouse!

[Admin]

I have been discussing with my husband whether I should do something with the Open University – mmm – but WHAT??? It would solve the problem of my having no focus.

The OU is excellent. O0

I did my first stint about 12-15 years ago studying science (mostly Chemistry). I've taken my studies back up again this year doing Psychology (BSc hons).

You normally have to start with an introductory (level 1) course and you can choose to take whatever you want after that. I did the Science Foundation Course and found it to be excellent (I'm a science-head mind you).

If you're trying to look at things from a more scientific point of view then you could do far worse than start there.

Having said that, I've done a few OU courses and I've found them all to be very good indeed so it probably doesn't matter too much what you pick - I expect the standard of the course will be high.

Back in the early 90s the Science Foundation Course included a small selection from Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Earth Science.

I found myself measuring the diameter of the moon from my back garden, looking through a microscope at cells that were dividing, learning about plate tectonics and continental drift and working out the empirical formula of Tin Iodide in the kitchen!!

It was a great course and it really broadens your perspective on what's 'out there'.

[Allo Allo]

The OU is excellent. O0


Yes – thanks John – I see that they are bringing in a new course in January 2008 – or I could do the “old” one Discovering Science (S103 - 60 points) Sept 2007 in September. Would there be an advantage in waiting? (Like updated course material?)
In either event I could fill my time with
Fossils and the History of Life (S193) 10 points May 2007
or
Introducing Astronomy (S194) 10 points May 2007
or
Introducing Environment (Y161 10 points) June 2007
or
Starting with Maths (Y162 - 10 points) June 2007
Can’t see anything else that catches my eye.
I have a BA already - and unless I live to be a hundred, I’m unlikely to change that into anything higher – and to what purpose? I’m doing this for FUN. I was always useless at Math. Our son was an academic disaster (especially maths)– but suddenly, in his late twenties, put himself into university and his "brilliant!" top subject? Well, Math!
Maybe I could get a grasp now I’m older too! The idea intrigues me. I really am drawn to Science.....
This leads me to another thought. If I do this for “personal development”, I fill my mind with lovely yummy knowledge – and then I snuff it, it will be all gone (according to science). What a hell of a pity! It would prefer to think something of it (and my life experiences) would be contained somehow, somewhere, otherwise its just self indulgence.
Oh well, perhaps Philosophy would be better?
M
PS - I'm on the verge of registering for a short course - and they have "reserved a place" for September - I have to be pretty speedy to start anything in May...

[Cuddles]

If you're planning on doing anything sciency I'd recommend doing a maths module first, especially if you say maths isn't really your strong suit. The biggest problem with the layperson's understanding of most science is not that the concepts are tricky, just that they don't understand the maths behind things and therefore can't understand where a lot of stuff comes from.

Also, don't be too sure you won't get another degree. My Dad decided to do some OU courses for "fun". (Pure maths? Fun? I hope insanity isn't hereditary.) Now he's nearly got a BSc out of it.

[Allo Allo]

If you're planning on doing anything sciency I'd recommend doing a maths module first, .....

Also, don't be too sure you won't get another degree. My Dad decided to do some OU courses for "fun". (Pure maths? Fun? I hope insanity isn't hereditary.) Now he's nearly got a BSc out of it.

OK - you are right - good as done!

About Math - it's "God" to my son - it's HIS mysticism!

M

[Allo Allo]

I'm posting off here because I kind of feel this was my own special thread.....

I have spent a year since I first joined UK Skeptics in an orgy of unstructured learning. Because of encouragement given to me by members of this site I signed up to start Science with the Open University to fill in great gaps in my knowledge in a structured way. My course starts NOW.

I am hoping that posting here has honed up my writing skills – less “journalism” – more succinct. This site has changed since I first came here – I was member number 98 I think (in my first incarnation). After six months I deleted myself in a huff – and came back again at the beginning of 2007. Now there are many more members, which is great!

I thank UK Sceptics for challenging me to get my thought processes sorted out, to be more correctly sceptical by practising the art of critical thinking. I have read every post and got to know of many things and ways of thinking that I didn’t know before.

I would have liked this site to be a sceptical thinking place where a question on anything bounces around in discussion. Of course, often this is not what happens – the question becomes still born because of preset ideas that skeptics will not tolerate to think because it’s woo, pseudoscience, or sCam.

I think my expectations are too high! One great thing I have learnt here is the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic – the latter have stopped thinking and react rather than respond. The latter are the ones who have forgotten that a real human being is on the other end of the post.

I am, of course talking about the persecution of Psychic Sarah that goes on – and on – and on. I think we should have a right to free speech – that is why I am posting this! EVERYONE has the right to free speech - but they have other rights too (see below). I truly cannot bear the Psychic Sarah threads any more. If you want to spread the word – do it with dignity and compassion for god’s sake…your continual predation is disgusting to me and I am having no part to it.I shall be taking a good long rest....

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Source: United Nations Department of Public Information (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/APROweb.nsf/pages/udhr)

Thank you to those who unwittingly or wittingly opened up new vistas to my thought.

[median]

M

Sorry to hear that you are withdrawing for a while.
Haven't got time for a full reply but will post later

MedianO0

[Cuddles]

I would have liked this site to be a sceptical thinking place where a question on anything bounces around in discussion. Of course, often this is not what happens – the question becomes still born because of preset ideas that skeptics will not tolerate to think because it’s woo, pseudoscience, or sCam.

I think my expectations are too high! One great thing I have learnt here is the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic – the latter have stopped thinking and react rather than respond. The latter are the ones who have forgotten that a real human being is on the other end of the post.

That's a nice straw man you've got there, although not in the least original. As is explained to people who come out with this nonsense over and over again, we do not dimiss ideas because they disagree with our preconcieved views, we dismiss them because they're utter crap and we've heard exactly the same claims made over and over again by people who blatantly have no clue what they're talking about.

Do you really think we should take every single claim about orbs and homeopathy seriously? There comes a point when all you can say is "This has been disproved millions of times. Here's some links. Come back when you have something new." This doesn't make people "pseudoskeptics" or "closed-minded". It just means we've seen it before and can't be bothered giving the dead horse even more of a beating.

[bindeweede]

They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Has Psychicsarah shown any sign of this? Or any other psychics, or believers in the paranormal? Or are they just deluded or self-obsessed?

[Admin]

I would have liked this site to be a sceptical thinking place where a question on anything bounces around in discussion. Of course, often this is not what happens – the question becomes still born because of preset ideas that skeptics will not tolerate to think because it’s woo, pseudoscience, or sCam.

We've been through this before though: Are skeptics disbelievers? (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=skeptics_are_disbelievers.php)

The thing is AA, once you do your science course (you'll love it btw), you will gain a better insight into how to evaluate things - like homeopathy for example - and you will find it much easier to come to a justifiable conclusion on such things. i.e. you can look at both sides of the argument and reach a solid conclusion.

Guess what will happen then?

Yip, if you state that 'homeopathy doesn't work' (because you can understand the science (or lack of) behind it), you will be accused of the same closed-minded attitude that you are now accusing us of (!)


I think my expectations are too high! One great thing I have learnt here is the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic – the latter have stopped thinking and react rather than respond. The latter are the ones who have forgotten that a real human being is on the other end of the post.

I am, of course talking about the persecution of Psychic Sarah that goes on – and on – and on.

Well, I've heard of this 'persecution' that is supposedly going on but I have seen no evidence of it.

Perhaps you could provide some specific examples?

I'm not talking about robust challenges to her points, or calling her a liar when indeed she has been lying, etc. but specific examples of abuse or persecution.

Remember, she's a self-serving, amoral parasite who's been attempting to use this forum, and everyone on it, to promote herself in cashing in on the tragic situation of Madeleine McCann in direct opposition to the parents' express wishes. So she's bound to cause some 'heat' - but let's see examples of this persecution.

You see - I don't think there are any and the couple of people like you who think there is are simply not seeing the bigger picture.

[MRT]

I don't understand the title of this thread. Why is science 'bleak'? Is it a quote or something (I'm hopeless at quotes - comes from having no memory!). I don't think science is bleak at all. I've loved science since I was a kid and I've never once thought of it as bleak.

Believing in something that demonstrably untrue - now that's bleak!

[bindeweede]

I don't understand the title of this thread. Why is science 'bleak'? Is it a quote or something (I'm hopeless at quotes - comes from having no memory!). I don't think science is bleak at all. I've loved science since I was a kid and I've never once thought of it as bleak.

Believing in something that demonstrably untrue - now that's bleak!

I was putting a reply to this together, but it took me so long, the connection timed-out. Anyway, to summarise, I did a PGCE in 1972, with main subject Music, and Subsid Environmental Studies. The most enjoyable and stimulating course I did was "The History and Philosophy of Science". I'm currently reading "GOD - the failed hypothesis", as reviewed and recommended by Dr. B. Stimulating, even if I don't get 100% of it.

Sorry, the point being, I don't see science as bleak.

[Muttley]

I'm currently reading "GOD - the failed hypothesis", as reviewed and recommended by Dr. B. Stimulating, even if I don't get 100% of it.

Who's Dr. B. Stimulating?

I've never come across him/her before.:smiley:

M.

[bindeweede]

Who's Dr. B. Stimulating?

I've never come across him/her before.:smiley:

M.

I suppose you could ask that question in 2 different ways;D.

I should have made it a bit clearer, but I'm sure you get my drift.

I've finished it, and enjoyed it. It is written in a very clear manner, considering some of the concepts it is trying to cover. The only chapter I've felt the need to read twice was the first, where the author explains how scientists go about testing a hypothesis, and all the care that goes into getting the "model" correct.

[Tin Lizzie]

Believing in something that demonstrably untrue - now that's bleak!

Believing that something is untrue based on the fact that it has yet to be proved true - plain grim!

[Dr B]

Believing that something is untrue based on the fact that it has yet to be proved true - plain grim!

I see you have not yet read the documents I directed you and others to on logic and reasoning. Check them out on the main website and think about the issues.

Skeptics do not believe it to be 'untrue' in the way you suggest - just that there is no reason to believe it true.

You see, the absence of evidence is logically meaningless for both camps.

However, skeptics / scientists usually also direct you towards positive evidence for a contrary and more likely hypothesis - this is logically correct and now means you have reasons for why certain conclusions may be true ;)

Once again - think about it. Logic can be abstract and hard - it takes effort - but is well worth it O0

[Tin Lizzie]

I see you have not yet read the documents I directed you and others to on logic and reasoning. Check them out on the main website and think about the issues.

Skeptics do not believe it to be 'untrue' in the way you suggest - just that there is no reason to believe it true.

You see, the absence of evidence is logically meaningless for both camps.

However, skeptics / scientists usually also direct you towards positive evidence for a contrary and more likely hypothesis - this is logically correct and now means you have reasons for why certain conclusions may be true ;)

Once again - think about it. Logic can be abstract and hard - it takes effort - but is well worth it O0

Oh don't get me wrong; logic is a very clever thing, even though it still doesn't provide 100% proof of anything. O0

[Dr B]

Oh don't get me wrong; logic is a very clever thing, even though it still doesn't provide 100% proof of anything. O0

;D;D;D;D I dont think you realise just how funny what you have just said is............

[Tin Lizzie]

;D;D;D;D I dont think you realise just how funny what you have just said is............

'tis okay. I love being funny & it beats getting all shirty & grumpy just because we haven't all shared the same experiences O0

[Allo Allo]

Thanks for my birthday wishes everyone!

Just to unravel "Bleak" in the title of this thread before my once again disappearance....

If you had read the first post in the thread your insight would have told you I was using "Bleak" as in "Austere" – no frills, no decoration, no illusions, no cuddly blankets of own beliefs, no extra twiddly bits added on to make a pretty picture – but seeing the real thing, stripped away to only bare facts. It had suddenly dawned on me how liberating science is in freeing us from the burden of being too mentally comfortable. I was having a peak experience. I felt exhilarated. I described the feeling as similar to sitting high on a hill where there is a vast vista of sky and fells, silence and inspiration.

The moors and fells have exquisite beauty when they are bleak. Perhaps you've never seen them?:-\

That is taking “bleak” in the context it was used. So a bleak scientist would be a very good one I reckon! ;D

It was TOTALLY complementary!