Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Next »

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 7:41 AM (reply 120 of 635)



 
A church is a organisation of people, with all their human faults (greed among them).

Granted.

As an organisation, it benefits from having you as its loyal member.

Granted.

It also has the job of teaching you about the supreme being.

Granted.

As it presents the teaching to you a church has the power to scare, guilt or cheat you for its own benefit. In the face of human greed it's hard to think that this power is not used.

It may be hard for you. However, I know that it's not scaring or "guilting" me. I'm also confident that it's not cheating me: I know and trust the eldership, the accounts are open (legal requirement for a charity) and auditable by the Charities Commission, and frankly you're positing a tinfoil-hat conspiracy scenario.

Moreover, you could argue that in a struggle of churches ones that prevail and last, ones that are around today, are the most successful at using their teaching to build their own power.

I probably could, but not with conviction.

In this setting, do you belive your church's entire teaching literally and unreservedly? If not, how do you decide which doctrines to believe or not?

As I implied, I'm a fundamentalist, which is to say that I hold the Bible as the gold standard of divine revelation. Thus disagreements are over interpretation of the Bible. I pray for help in understanding the passages I read, look for arguments which use the context naturally, check that doctrines are consistent with the rest of Scripture and present an argument for interpretation of passages which on face value would contradict them (although clearly there are tensions - technical term meaning "something which looks like a contradiction but isn't" - I'm sure someone will want a follow-up on that, but I haven't time now), look at the Greek of New Testament passages, and consult authors I trust - Grudem, Stott, Carson, et al.
 

Posts:1,135
Registered: 1/16/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 7:41 AM (reply 121 of 635)



 
Yes, it is not a perfect sphere, but an ellipsoid... both are round...
ask a rounded nut when you apply a wrench to it, and see what it has to say to your knuckles...

Nuff said...

Really, in my book RoundObject extends EllipticalObject implements RotationalSymmetry, not
the other way around. Ellipses are not "round", they are "rounded". Its quite a different concept.

If this was a practical discussion instead of a theoretical one, I would probably not have quibbled,
but you must know the shape of the pin head if you wish to discuss dancing angels.

Not a requirement, unless it's to ensure that I stick the dancing angels with the right end of said pin.
But then a good hammer and a nail will do...
or better yet a sledge hammer and a metal stake will do nicely...

- MaxxDmg...

- ' I am not me... '
 

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 7:42 AM (reply 122 of 635)



 
I always say no religious belief is right and no religious belief is wrong all they are is facets of that which we wish to relate to but can not understand...

I you mean that you won't pass judgement on any religious belief in particular, then that's a reasonable position. I you claim that all religious belief is mid-gray, how do you handle claims which are both absolute and exclusive?
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:36 AM (reply 123 of 635)



 
Last time I investigated it I found some very sound
and reasoned arguments for the existance of god. As I
pointed out there are significant ways to challenge
those arguments. And those challenges eventually can
not be met with anything except belief (or assumptions
if you will.)

Take, for example, the argument from design. There
are significant ways to challenge the argument.
However, I also believe that there are significant
ways to meet those challenges that rely on rigorous
thinking (such as the literature I have been pointing
you to). It is not like every discussion that has
implications for religion ultimitely reduces to blind
faith and unfounded belief. We may find that the
data are conclusive in support of a designer. This
conclusion need not be a mere assumption, but could
be based on statistical analysis of the complexity we
see.

I didn't say that there wasn't ways to challenge the challenge. I did however point out that eventually any challenge (either for or against) will eventually run up against an assumption that neither side will agree on.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:42 AM (reply 124 of 635)



 

Are those observations empirical or not? Are they
reproducible (that is anybody could look at the same
processes and see the same results) or not? If not,
then I submit that the theory is not scientific.

What about SETI?

One can easily achieve the same results - nothing.

So it is not scientific?

SETI is certainly a rational project. Prior to
discussion above I would have labelled it scientific.
The fact that they haven't found anything doesn't
mean that the project isn't well conceived or even
scientific. It might just mean that there isn't any
extra terrestrial intelligence that is sending out
radio waves. A negative conclusion doesn't make your
method unscientific.

One could of course continue to run the same experiments and 'refined' ones for the next 20 years in the attempt to demonstrate that astrology does indeed predict human behavior. One can ascribe previous failures due to methology errors, incorrect initial assumptions and measurement techniques thus allowing one to rationalize why one should continue.

And on the same basis it would be just as scientific.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:42 AM (reply 125 of 635)



 
I didn't say that there wasn't ways to challenge the
challenge. I did however point out that eventually
any challenge (either for or against) will eventually
run up against an assumption that neither side will
agree on.

Or at least you assume it would. ;-)
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:47 AM (reply 126 of 635)



 
Not it isn't.

There will probably be ten of thousands of studies
published world wide just this year alone in a variety
of subjects, languages and publishing mediums. It
could well be 100s of thousands.

To try to critically analyze each and every one of
them is not possible. So one has to take a
knowledgable approach to which ones one should
believe or not. If you are not independently
reviewing them, and reproducing them then you are
believing in something even if it is only that someone
else is reproducing the same results.

Fair enough. We should all keep in mind what our
blinders are, however, and be willing to admit to our
prejudices regardless of how certain we are in them.
For instance I admit that I am prejudiced against
astrology without having thoroughly examined all the
literature.


And my point is that most and probably all of the 'science' that anyone knows is based on belief. The world reknown physicist does nothing but 'believe' in their doctor when that doctor recommends something. And that same doctor is often doing nothing more than 'believing' in something else that they have read (or took a course in.) Even the physicist is unlikely to have repeated or even done even once many of the experiments that physics is based on.
 

Posts:7,499
Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:53 AM (reply 127 of 635)



 
One could of course continue to run the same
experiments and 'refined' ones for the next 20 years
in the attempt to demonstrate that astrology does
indeed predict human behavior.

I would have a problem here if you are designing an experiment to test a result for which you state you know... ie, 'in an attempt to demonstrate that astology does indeed predict human behavior.' A better description would be 'in an attempt to demonstrate if astrology does indeed predict human behavior.'

One can ascribe
previous failures due to methology errors, incorrect
initial assumptions and measurement techniques thus
allowing one to rationalize why one should continue.

And on the same basis it would be just as scientific.

And this would pertain to the science of the study of the 'if astrology does indeed predict human behavior' and nothing about the science of astrology itself.

The conclussion, as with SETI, might be, 'nothing we observed show astology predicts human behavior.' This 1st does not rule out the possibility that astrology predicts human behavior, just that the subset of tests done so far has not come to that conclussion (unless you think you have covered EVERY base...which is not the case in SETI). And 2nd, says nothing about the scientific nature of astrology.
 

Posts:1,135
Registered: 1/16/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:54 AM (reply 128 of 635)



 
I always say no religious belief is right and no religious belief is wrong all they are is facets of
that which we wish to relate to but can not understand...

I you mean that you won't pass judgement on any religious belief in particular, then that's a
reasonable position. I you claim that all religious belief is mid-gray, how do you handle claims which are
both absolute and exclusive?

as irrelevant...

unless said beliefs poses some serious threat to my life (such as trying to boil me in oil unless I convert )... at which point, I think it would only would be fair that they get to meet their creator first hand, if said creator exists... but that would be an extreme case...

I follow my own path, that's my belief and I respect that, I just simply extent that respect to their beliefs...
I may not agree with what they say, but it is their beliefs...
and if they don't respect mine, so be it, its only a reflection of their beliefs and of their own character...
and in the end what does that say about them...

I can only speak for myself... and I am in peace...
plus, I don't have to fill some quota on getting converts to fill the pews at church...

After all, there is only me...

- MaxxDmg...

- ' and I am not me ...'
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 8:58 AM (reply 129 of 635)



 
Just thinking off the top of my head here. If you had a sufficiently large, sufficiently random sample (and whatever other prerequisites I'm forgetting) and your study demonstrated no statistically significant difference in behavior that correlates with astrology (if the correlations observed are no stronger than what would be expected from randomness), then the study would be evidence that astrology doesn't predict behavior, and IIRC correctly you could assign a confidence to it - for example the experiment shows a 95% probability that astrology doesn't predict behavior. Did I get all that right?
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:02 AM (reply 130 of 635)



 
I you claim that all religious
belief is mid-gray, how do you handle claims which are
both absolute and exclusive?

as irrelevant...

What would you say about the correctness of such claims? Neither true nor false? It's paradoxical. If I say, "this doctrine is true" then if it it's neither true nor false then it's false, because it claims to be true. But you said it's not false either. So if the claim is not false, it must be true because that's what the doctrine says. etc.

Of course you could always dodge it by saying "it's true for those who believe it and false for those who do not," but that's the sort of thing I hate about subjectivism. :-)
 

Posts:7,499
Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:03 AM (reply 131 of 635)



 
And my point is that most and probably all of the
'science' that anyone knows is based on belief. The
world reknown physicist does nothing but 'believe' in
their doctor when that doctor recommends something.
And that same doctor is often doing nothing more than
'believing' in something else that they have read (or
took a course in.) Even the physicist is unlikely to
have repeated or even done even once many of the
experiments that physics is based on.

Again, not exactly true. No, doctors andother scientists do not do every experiment that led to the current state of the art. But they have done a tremendous amount of experiments whose design is based and dependent on the conclussions from those previous experiments.

For instance in medicine, when studying a specific antibiotic, some scientists will determine that the antibiotic interacts with certain proteins in a certain state of cell division, preventing a group of bacteria from multiplying (for example), but does not effect another group of bacteria based on a differnece in how the bacteria reproduce, or the shape of the protein...

Do the doctors perform experiments to re-create this and show for themselfs how where and when the antibiotic works? No. But they DO perform experiments on test cultures and show the antibiotic affects or does not affect the culture, thus putting the culture into a sub-set of possible pathogens, which can be verified independantly.

Indirectly, anytime this type of experiment is done, it reproduces the results of the experiments that the doctor read about in books, as the test is designed based on their results.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:04 AM (reply 132 of 635)



 

I use the term bones and stones, but to clarify for
you, these sites I am refering to have signs that some
type of intelligent bipedal creature has fashioned
tools, created pottery and contructed dwelling... I
would not go to some site an look at a stone and
declare that its a Hoopak... So you were making
assumptions as to what relics I am refering to...

Although I am sure that there are people that do publish reports on worked tools that they suggest are not human, I doubt you will find any mainstream archeological books or journals that allow the authors to suggest that the human line was not the originator.

No, actually if a single person believes it then it is 'true'.

No, it's true to that person, but if more follow then
it becomes a community belief and has the making of a
religion...

Religion is not dependent on more than one person believing it. And one time the Mormon belief was only practiced by one person.


There are a number of experiments that one can conduct
to demonstrate that the earth is round.

How many have you personally conducted to verify
that?

And when was the last time you repeated the test?

I suspect it is much more likely that you have
choosen to believe the world is round simply because
everyone told you it was. And that is no different
that 1000 years ago when the same sort of person was
told by everyone else that it was flat.

Well... let's see... Okay, first we need to find a
place where the surface of the earth is relatively
even... Oh, I know the Ocean... Okay second we hop in
a plane and fly out towards the middle of it, and
everywhere you look, you can see the "curvature" of
the earth ( but that could be some atmospheric effect
) Next Hop on a plane towards the equator, and wow,
its round here too... And apparently we are closer to
the sun than when we were up north... ( but maybe the
sun is just closes there)... So we go to the other
Ocean and amazing its round there also ( best seen
from a good altitude)... Now lets hop in a helicopter
and fly over the pains. Now our altitimeter works via
radar, so as we cross the plains the altitude
difference is not much, but look, looking at the
horizon, you can still see the curve...

....
What have you done ???

I did not ask for a description of the experiments. I have conducted some of the number of experiments that one can use to generalize that the earth is round. Most people have not. Most people can't describe them. I am sure most people can neither describe the experiment nor can they describe the alternative explainations for that particular experiment (I know I can't.)

And yet most people will describe the earth as round. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage that thinks the earth is round is the same percentage that thought it was flat 1000 years ago.

Both groups are expressing a belief. Just a different one.

There is quite a bit of evidence to support evolution.
At least on a micro scale. On a macro scale, in
particular in regardless to the Evolutionary Theory,
it relies more on a preponderance of evidence. Of
course that sort of 'proof' has lead to a number of
things in the past that are now known to be
completely wrong.

Well it is bones and stones... But it would make
sense, that if it works on a micro scale, then the
macro scale would show similar results.
That the beauty of science, you question everything...

There is no question. Public schools in the US teach that Evolutionary Theory is a fact. Just as 1+1 is a fact.

In all likelyhood most students will not be introduced to the nature of belief systems and logical thinking until the college level. And even there they might not understand it.

More importantly they will not be introduced to the assumptions behind "logical" systems until college. And even more of them will not understand that.

Because of this they are unlikely to ever unstand what the "Theory" part of Evolutionary Theory means. Nor will they understand that will always remain a Theory nor why it will always be one.
 

Posts:7,499
Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:10 AM (reply 133 of 635)



 
Just thinking off the top of my head here. If you had
a sufficiently large, sufficiently random sample (and
whatever other prerequisites I'm forgetting) and your
study demonstrated no statistically significant
difference in behavior that correlates with astrology
(if the correlations observed are no stronger than
what would be expected from randomness), then the
study would be evidence that astrology doesn't predict
behavior, and IIRC correctly you could assign a
confidence to it - for example the experiment shows a
95% probability that astrology doesn't predict
behavior. Did I get all that right?

Pretty close, I would pressume, I have not performed this type of large scale statistical study. Not that I am taking this as a rebuttal for my post, but I was phrasing my response in the context of:

'One can ascribe previous failures due to methology errors, incorrect initial assumptions and measurement techniques thus allowing one to rationalize why one should continue.'

So presumably there would not have been a large enough sample population, a sub-population which may behave specifically different than the general public was used, or whatever.

And wether astrology was predictive or not would not define wether it was scientific. You probably don't have to look too far to find scientifically created systems that don't work, or non-scientific systems that do work.

 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:10 AM (reply 134 of 635)



 
One could of course continue to run the same
experiments and 'refined' ones for the next 20 years
in the attempt to demonstrate that astrology does
indeed predict human behavior.

I would have a problem here if you are designing an
experiment to test a result for which you state you
know... ie, 'in an attempt to demonstrate that
astology does indeed predict human behavior.' A
better description would be 'in an attempt to
demonstrate if astrology does indeed predict
human behavior.'

What exactly do you think SETI is doing?

They are assuming intelligent life exists and seeking evidence of that.

Can you think of any other field of study that has failed for as long as SETI has and yet is still considered to be plausible?

How is that different that assuming that astrology does impact human behavior and then seeking proof of that impact?

One can ascribe
previous failures due to methology errors, incorrect
initial assumptions and measurement techniques thus
allowing one to rationalize why one should continue.

And on the same basis it would be just as scientific.

And this would pertain to the science of the study of
the 'if astrology does indeed predict human behavior'
and nothing about the science of astrology itself.

The conclussion, as with SETI, might be, 'nothing we
observed show astology predicts human behavior.' This
1st does not rule out the possibility that astrology
predicts human behavior, just that the subset of tests
done so far has not come to that conclussion (unless
you think you have covered EVERY base...which is not
the case in SETI). And 2nd, says nothing about the
scientific nature of astrology.

I understand how science works.

I am pointing out basically that SETI is considered 'better' yet with no more results than many other 'worse' beliefs.
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Next »