Ricky Gervais explaining how he became an Atheist

[Kasz216]

The_vagabond7 said:

Kasz216 said:

The_vagabond7 said:

Kasz216 said:

im_sneaky said:
my my, kasz is really being beaten down here. Carry on.

Not... really.  I mean my points remain valid. Dark Energy like Luminiferous Aether are based soley on faith in the current model... when logically it's just as likely if not more so that our current model is just wrong.

Sceince is littered with all sorts of irrational theories based on faith.

Like all the adjustments that were made to the "The earth is the center of the galaxy" model before people accepted the Sun model despite the sun model making perfect sense mathmatically from the outset.

 

 

 

I think the big problem with this reasoning is absolutes, or rather the assumption of absolutes. Dark Energy doesn't require faith because it is the current hypothesis, not a "fact", it is not absolute. It's not a dogma that must be strictly adhered to, and nobody is forcing the belief of it in the scientific community under threat of ex-communication or fiery pit. When it comes to something like higgs particles and Dark Energy scientists would be "higgs Agnostic" leaning towards higgs. I believe in the scientific method, and have great interest in science. But I don't put "faith" in it, I don't follow the explanations "hell or high water" But talking about possible explanations for observed phenomenon, and discussing how it can hopefully be tested in the future  is considerably different from "faith". Because Faith is "The assured expectation of things hoped for, of realities though not beheld" (Hebrews...11:something I think). With Gravitons and dark energy it isn't the assured expectation, it's the possible explanation.

With Religion faith is believing things are fact with little or nothing to back it up. In science they just believe it's the best explanation for the observed phenomenon at the moment, they don't believe it is a fact. There is no "faith" in dark energy. It's an idea.

Oh i totally disagree.   They are absolutely treated as facts.

If you don't adhere to the current hypothisis you are most definitly excommunicated from the scientific community, it's nearly impossible to pubish anything and make a living... you won't catch on anywhere etc.  If you don't believe in Higgs or Dark Energy... colleges aren't going to hire you and nobody is going to fund your research.

The only exceptions are if the work is highly controversial outside of science such as global warming... and even then your shunned by the scientific community but at least you can still make a living and "preach from the outside" mutch how Lutherians and other preached outside of the Catholic Church.

And I disagree with that. Outisde of movies like "No intelligence allowed" that view isn't expressed. Controversy and disagreement are the lifeblood of the scientific community. If what you said was true, then science would be stagnant and static like religion. Never developing, never changing, and only succeptible to cultural influences  rather than ones of discovery.

 

Never seen it... I have however actually read scientific journals....

Also... religion isn't stagnant.... so i don't see your point.

Also your still wrong.  "The math doesn't work" won't get you anywhere.   You need to have proof for you conclusions... and to have proof you need to have money, and to have money you need reputation, and to get reputation you need to publish... and to publish you need conclusions.  Since you can't get out of the ordinary conlcusions you need to start off with the known conclusions that you know may actually be false.

Aether for examle didn't start to go away until Einsten and his Special Theory of Relativity. 

Einsten was of course shunned... by the physics community... until he made discovery after discovery on his own... because the Physcics community didn't want anything outside of the regular model.

They wanted to hear nothing of it perferring to invent aethers and other such things to duct tape together science as they knew it.

 

Now imagine an einstein today... where you need superconducters and millions opon millsions of dollars of technology to do some of this stuff.  Can you imagine an Einstein ever making it out of the patent office?  No.  Those who make differences now are conventional scientists who after having already gotten their reputations with their focus on conventional decide to go off conventional...and even then succeed only when they can get enough followers to "break off" and challenge the status quo.  No matter how correct they may be proven by a later sceintist down the road.

It's strangely analgous to Martin Luther don't you think?

Science is based on the faith that our logic is sound when we construct our systems we use to perceive the world.  The truth is however... our logic isn't always sound... sometimes you get the answer right with the wrong equation.... which is what scientists often do.  Get an answer right with the wrong equation, then make all other answers fit that equation.

Don't ever suggest that the answer is wrong and look for a new one... unless you accidently stumble on it in trying to prove the conventional.

Furthermore... much like Einsteins earliest works... being wrong... once can crush you and your reputation of which you'll never recover from again... further forcing a conservative view on science.