Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atreyu]

Its odd because as humans, we only see beginnings and endings. We do not observe eternality. We observe evidence that points to a beginning of Universe, however, I think many believe there exists and eternally existent occupied space, irrespective of what state/phases it may transform into.

This makes rational, loigcal common sense also and more so since we humans have only observed physical/energy transforming between fermions and bosons. Include gravity and dark energy in there anywhere you want.

The simple point is, that, it is difficult for us to envision eternally existent something-ness.

Exactly. Hence my position. And until I can envision something it's not 'rational, logical, common sense' to me, and nor is it to anyone else. 'Common' sense implies you can envision it in your mind.

What is 'rational, logical common sense' is to assume a Designer to go along with any Universally inherent designs, unless they can be easily and obviously explained by simple principles such as crystallization, gravity, etc, and I have yet to find such an explanation for the general inherent order apparent in the Universe.

[Rr6]

Rr6-- Its odd because as humans, we only see beginnings and endings. We do not observe eternality. We observe evidence that points to a beginning of Universe, however, I think many believe there exists and eternally existent occupied space, irrespective of what state/phases it may transform into.The simple point is, that, it is difficult for us to envision eternally existent something-ness.

Exactly. Hence my position. And until I can envision something it's not 'rational, logical, common sense' to me, and nor is it to anyone else. 'Common' sense implies you can envision it in your mind.

Human conceptulize many things, whether existent or not. Conceptualising infinite space or eternal time, may be difficult, yet humans do that.

That occupied space exists eternally is not a big leap from the 1st law of thermodynamics i.e. physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.

May you don't believe that that is a cosmic law/principle. Occupied space something-ness exists eternally. Why would yo, or anyone else not agree with this seemingly rational, logical common sense.

Maybe you dont understand that humans only see occupied space transforming from this state to another state with no loss of the specifically defined set of quanta.

What is 'rational, logical common sense' is to assume a Designer to go along with any Universally inherent designs, unless they can be easily and obviously explained by simple principles such as crystallization, gravity, etc, and I have yet to find such an explanation for the general inherent order apparent in the Universe.

Sorry Atreyu, to have a cosmic designer of our finite, occupied space Universe, if it exists eternally. There exists no designer physical/energy as occupied space, because it exists eternally.

My guess is that is your pre-conditioning via religion, parents society and education that prevents you from ability conceive of and eternally existent Universe ergo no designer. Simple stuff.

Same goes for people who have difficult conceptualizing a macro-micron infinite non-occupied space existence outside/beyond our finite, occupied space Universe. Yet those same people will then attempt to pull and infinite occupied space Universe concept out of there back pockets to show how their irrational ideas are possible via ...'anything is possible with an infinite Universe'...


No, anything is not possible and there exists no infinite occupied space Universe.

We have a finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo what is possible is only that which concurs--- complemented by -- with those cosmic laws.

finite = integrity

infinite = no integrity

eternal = ?

time = finite

[Atreyu]

Human conceptulize many things, whether existent or not. Conceptualising infinite space or eternal time, may be difficult, yet humans do that.

No they don't. Not really. They try and fail. All we can do is give a label 'infinity', a symbol. Humans cannot conceptualize an infinite sphere nor endless time.

That occupied space exists eternally is not a big leap from the 1st law of thermodynamics i.e. physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.

May you don't believe that that is a cosmic law/principle. Occupied space something-ness exists eternally. Why would yo, or anyone else not agree with this seemingly rational, logical common sense.

Well, one reason might be because 'space' is simply our own cognitive construct. It doesn't actually exist. Space and time is just the peculiar way that we perceive/conceptualize the Universe, that's all. In the real world everything is here and everything is happening now. How's that for an alternate view? And a more objective one? That takes into account the subjectivity of our cognitive constructs.

Sorry Atreyu, to have a cosmic designer of our finite, occupied space Universe, if it exists eternally. There exists no designer physical/energy as occupied space, because it exists eternally.

My guess is that is your pre-conditioning via religion, parents society and education that prevents you from ability conceive of and eternally existent Universe ergo no designer. Simple stuff.

Same goes for people who have difficult conceptualizing a macro-micron infinite non-occupied space existence outside/beyond our finite, occupied space Universe. Yet those same people will then attempt to pull and infinite occupied space Universe concept out of there back pockets to show how their irrational ideas are possible via ...'anything is possible with an infinite Universe'...

Whether it's infinite or finite has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it's conscious or not. Consciousness can be eternal too, and in fact it's easier to explain than an eternal thing....

[Rr6]

Human conceptulize many things, whether existent or not. Conceptualizing infinite space, or eternal existence of finite periods of time, may be difficult, yet humans do that.

No they don't. Not really. They try and fail. All we can do is give a label 'infinity', a symbol. Humans cannot conceptualize an infinite sphere nor endless time.

Maybe you may have failed to conceptualize infinity, others have not. Our finite, occupied space Universe is embraced by macro-infinite, non-occupied spaceand is a relatively simple concept to grasp, yet so few grasp this simple concept. Less amount of peopl acknowledge this concept, and it is a rare few who concede it as truth.

Ego creates a mental blockage to truth by many humans.

That occupied space exists eternally is not a big leap from the 1st law of thermodynamics i.e. physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.
Maybe you don't believe that that is a cosmic law/principle. Occupied space something-ness exists eternally. Why would yo, or anyone else not agree with this seemingly rational, logical common sense.

Well, one reason might be because 'space' is simply our own cognitive construct. It doesn't actually exist. Space and time is just the peculiar way that we perceive/conceptualize the Universe, that's all. In the real world everything is here and everything is happening now. How's that for an alternate view? And a more objective one? That takes into account the subjectivity of our cognitive constructs.

Yeah, you don't acknowledge 1st law of thermodynamics I mention. This pertains to the ego mental blockage so many have to truth.

To not believe space exists is irrational, illogical non-sense. The 'NOW'. exists eternally because we live in an eternally existent flow of space and time we label/identify as Universe aka "U"niverse. Ergo we may say, that, the "NOW' is always with us.

However, we are not just the now, we are the flow. You need to read Fullers book "I Seem To Be Verb" to better understand your, we, then and Universe. imho

Philosophical mind games are fun, not practical and detrimental when they deny obvious, and commonly accepted truths of our experiences via cognitive abilities and our access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Sorry Atreyu, to have a cosmic designer of our finite, occupied space Universe, if it exists eternally makes no sense. There exists no designer physical/energy as occupied space, because it exists eternally.
My guess is that is your pre-conditioning via religion, parents society and education that prevents you from ability conceive of and eternally existent Universe ergo no designer. Simple stuff.
Same goes for people who have difficult conceptualizing a macro-micron infinite non-occupied space existence outside/beyond our finite, occupied space Universe. Yet those same people will then attempt to pull a infinite occupied space Universe concept out of their back pockets to show how their irrational ideas are possible via ...'anything is possible within an infinite occupied space Universe'...

At--Whether it's infinite or finite has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it's conscious or not. Consciousness can be eternal too, and in fact it's easier to explain than an eternal thing....

I disagree, and again, you obvioulys do not know correct definition of consciousness.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space has no consciousness ergo most irrelevant to consciousness.

Our finite, occupied space Universe, has a myriad set of 1}observer, 2}observed, 3}line-of-relationship, and 4}background circumstances. You don't appear to grasp, or accept this simple definition of consciousness as awareness as otherness as twoness with a set of fourness.

Gravity--- if not also dark energy --- comes the closet to phenomena that we can associate with the whole of our finite, occupied space Universe ergo gravity and its line of mass-attraction relationship to any particle of Universe, is one circumstance of minimal consciousness.

Putting that cosmic gravitational, whole set aside, there is myriad of other twoness/otherness relationships of our finite, occupied space Universe.

You need to read my cosmic hierarchy, ergo my cosmic trinity for starters so you can have more wholistically comprehensive viewpoint. imho.

Here is the cosmic trinity again irrespective of whether you, or others ego will allow in rational, logical common sense truths.
1} "U"niverse
....1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts...ergo spirit-of-intent...

------------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------

...2} macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces the following,

...3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

...< macro-infinite non-occupied space...( "U"niVerse )...macro-infinite non-occupied space >..........

Ignorance is bliss and I see alot of humanity finding their happiness by remaining ignorant. It is like the advice given to people suffering from depression, don't watch evening news.

r6

[Steve3007]

Greta:

Consider the difference between a newborn star and a proto-star on the verge of nuclear ignition. You could say that there is a metaphysical event horizon, where the proto-star reaches a level of gravitational pressure in its core where stability is impossible and it falls into the ignition state. Perhaps something similar happened with life - the metaphorical "ignition" of the first metabolism?

Yes, although I guess when the pressure and temperature in the star's core is sufficient for nuclear fusion to start, that is when it becomes stable; enters a state of equilibrium and stops contracting under its own weight. But that's a nit-picking point. Your wider point here seems to be about identifiable point-of-no-return transition states - the "metaphysics event horizons" as you put it. In the case of the emergence of bio-chemical life from non-biological chemistry, I wonder if it had to be single point of no return? I guess we'll never know. But perhaps there could have been several such events, perhaps of different kinds, going backwards and forwards over this threshold.

In a sense, Faraday and his idea of harnessing the energy of the Sun was ignored . Humanity did, in fact, end up preferring organic technology and opted for burning fossil fuels over solar energy. Perhaps organic technology is something we can supersede by taking energy directly from the source - the Sun. All other energy sources are relatively degraded and diluted "hand-me-downs".

Yes, that's true. But the trouble with sources like oil and coal (that makes them so useful, and therefore addictive) is that they are such concentrated accumulations of ancient solar energy. The living things from which they were formed harvested the solar energy over periods of time that were hundreds of times longer than the rate at which we release that energy when we burn them. That's why they're fundamentally non-renewable.

-- Updated Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:32 pm to add the following --

Error: When I said "metaphysics event horizons" above I meant "metaphysical event horizon".

[Sy Borg]

In the case of the emergence of bio-chemical life from non-biological chemistry, I wonder if it had to be single point of no return? I guess we'll never know. But perhaps there could have been several such events, perhaps of different kinds, going backwards and forwards over this threshold.

Yes, I expect it happened many times and no doubt many were very short lived, barely viable for a short time, but ultimately one instance of abiogenesis prevailed, hence all life shares significant amounts of DNA. I wonder if entities that would later become viruses interacted with proto life?

I like to consider the state of nonliving organic matter just prior to abiogenesis in context with Martin Hanzyck's experiments with proto-life (one of my favourite TED talks): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4.

But the trouble with sources like oil and coal (that makes them so useful, and therefore addictive) is that they are such concentrated accumulations of ancient solar energy. The living things from which they were formed harvested the solar energy over periods of time that were hundreds of times longer than the rate at which we release that energy when we burn them. That's why they're fundamentally non-renewable.

Yes, we developed fossil fuel technology because it got results faster. Even today we are still only getting organised with solar power.

It should be added in context with the thread that none of this suggests a problem with humans as a species. We are seemingly just doing what any other species would have done in the circumstances, given both our empowerment and immaturity (in evolutionary terms - the dinos lasted for hundreds of millions of years).

[Ormond]

"If I find a watch lying on the ground then I have no idea whatsoever about whether a watchmaker exists. I can say nothing on the subject."

Of course you can say something on the subject. You can say you don't yet know whether there is a watchmaker or not.

Clearly that's not true. He does have some idea. NOT PROOF. But some idea.

Ah, so we now have some idea that you are a closet theist! Not proof, but a reasonable guess. You know, reality is rather more complex than a watch, it implies a designer far more than a watch, which is what theists have been saying for endless centuries.

Likewise, just as a watch bares the signs of an object that has been designed - (an object whose parts perform no function individually but which has been put together in a way that suggests fore-knowledge of how they will work when assembled) - so living structures bare the hallmarks of the opposite. They have specific features that strongly suggest a lack of forward planning. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that we have SOME evidence (NOT PROOF) that they came together in the absence of a plan.

You (science) are assuming here that you are operating at a level where you can understand what is going on if only you obtain enough data. What if a "watchmaker" designed evolution to manage the development of life? What if the "plan" is just what you see, a pattern of random mutations which the watchmaker knows will lead to the desired results, without the clever watchmaker having to manage the process?

What I suggest is that scientists are mechanically minded by nature (not a slur, just a broad description) and thus they see mechanical apparatus everywhere they look. Poets and story tellers and artists, all of us, do the same thing.

We then have to make a decision as to whether we constantly keep in our minds the fact that an infinite number of things may be true, without our realizing it, or whether we simply go with what we currently know in the full knowledge that more information may or may not come to light in the future.

What we currently know from hard historical evidence is that our perceptions of reality are being profoundly overturned at an ever accelerating rate. Note how this evidence tends to be casually discarded, as such a documented record of ignorance tends to undermine the social authority of the science clergy.

How about this? I agree that when we have to make a decision on how to spend money, we have to use the best information currently available. I have no problem with that.

The fact that it is built into the fabric of the scientific method that there is never conclusive proof, that all theories are subject to revision and that there are no privileged, unquestionable authorities, makes me wonder again why you would say this. I can well see why you might say it of specific individual people. But what evidence is there that it is true of "the science community"?

I am referring to our RELATIONSHIP with the science community, which tends to be quite similar to the RELATIONSHIP we long had with religious clergy.

I would extend this to SOME members of the science community, who have understandably bought in to this image of sweeping authority. As example, I used to participate on a science forum (sciencechatforum.com). Once the assembled scientists realized I was not a scientist myself, they began chronically trying to teach me HOW TO REASON. They assumed their expert status and authority on a very specific technical topic extended outwards in every direction. A very small sample admittedly.

The proposition "a watch implies a watch plan" is testable. It's not a question about the infinite. It's a question about the nature of watches and plans.

Perhaps it would help me if you could explain how plans can exist without planners? You seem to be trying to divorce the two, and I don't get it yet.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this again in the future so have added a few here. There is no proof that reason is applicable anywhere at any level. There is no proof of anything, anywhere ever. Ever, ever, ever. We use reason where it appears to be useful for achieving our goals. We stop using it where not useful.

Sorry, you are continually diving deep in to argument by exaggeration. All I'm doing is applying the very same test we reasonably apply to holy books to the atheist's chosen authority as well. You totally get why testing the holy book is necessary, but when it comes to challenging your own chosen authority on these topics, you try to make it as confusing as possible.

Pretend you are an alien with no skin in the game and you come across two groups of humans each making claims based on reference to their preferred authority. Then test each authority with equal vigor, with no stake in who passes the test or not.

This process is called...... reason.

It's not complicated, unless we want it to be.

But that's not the same as saying that we have no idea at all. We do have some idea. THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING WE HAVE PROOF OR CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE.

Sorry, classic atheist dodging and weaving. First unproven assertions are made with wild abandon, and when an effective challenger appears atheists retreat in to qualifications.

Current evidence of watches suggests that they are designed according to a plan. Current evidence of living things suggests that they are not.

You've done it again. Current evidence actually suggests that current evidence is most likely wildly unreliable. At one point, the current evidence was that the Earth was at the center of the universe. WRONG! Then the current evidence was that there is only our galaxy. WRONG! The current evidence was that space and time are two completely different unrelated phenomena. WRONG!

When any enterprise proves itself to be wildly wrong over and over again, why should we blindly accept it's "current evidence"??

Again, this is the very same test we reasonably apply to religion.

If new evidence comes to light on either types of object in the future then the balance of probability will shift. Who knows? It may turn out that watches can evolve after all. It may turn out that living things were manufactured according to a plan after all. It may turn out that there's a teapot in orbit around the sun. It may turn out that my grandfather was a banana.

And now we're back to argument by exaggeration.

OK, fair enough. I see now that you are not referring to science but to the cultural perception of it.

Both. We turn to science as the new clergy, and being human, they tend to accept the promotion. We believe what this new clergy says without much questioning, because we have a deep need to believe somebody is in charge and knows what's going on.

We believe science is taking us to the utopia. And they sincerely are trying, with the best of intentions. But because of our faith based relationship with the new clergy, we don't see the obvious, it's not going to work. It's not going to work for the very same reason that giving a ten year boy old a case of booze, the keys to the car and an automatic weapon is not going to work. When dealing with our kids, we get this instantly. When dealing with ourselves, we are blinded by arrogance and a need to see what we want to see.

I don't accept the authority of the science community because I see what few of them can. Science is going to bring us the "end times" religions have long predicted. Not on purpose, not by design, but by a lack of understanding of the nature of divisive nature of thought and exponential nature of knowledge. When "divisive" is combined with "exponential" the result is an explosion.

I suspect there are very few people who regard all of the results of science as an unqualified good.

Then why are we pushing almost all areas of research forward as fast as funding will allow??

I think one of the major problems that the scientific method faces in the modern low signal-to-noise ratio world is lack of patience with the methodical evidence-based nature of the scientific method.

Yes, that's true enough, but not my concern. I lack patience with the scientist's inability to aim their brilliance at where they are headed. It's like a brilliant blind man blissfully racing towards a cliff.

I don't recognize that as an accurate picture of our relationship with all of science. I think you only have to look at the widespread mistrust of the results of climate science research to see that.

Again, our culture is pushing forward in almost every area of research as fast as it possibly can. That's hardly widespread evidence of mistrust in science.

I'm not convinced that you're still using the term "science clergy" to refer to our culture's relationship to science. It sounds like you've switched back to talking about science itself.

Science is just a method, a tool. I'm referring to human beings within and without science, and their relationship with that tool.

[Steve3007]

Of course you can say something on the subject. You can say you don't yet know whether there is a watchmaker or not.

Yes, I could say that and in a sense it would be true. If somebody asked me whether the sun will rise tomorrow I could say "I don't yet know". That would also be true. Useful thing to say?

Ah, so we now have some idea that you are a closet theist!

I wouldn't rule anything out. I do like churches.

Not proof, but a reasonable guess. You know, reality is rather more complex than a watch, it implies a designer far more than a watch, which is what theists have been saying for endless centuries.

Remember, in this particular conversation we're not talking about "reality" (whatever that is). We're talking specifically about living things on Earth. It is still true that most living things are much more complex than a watch. Does that imply a designer much more than a watch does?

You (science) are assuming here that you are operating at a level where you can understand what is going on if only you obtain enough data.

No I'm not. You've forgotten what my (my) line is on this. It's not about "understanding" at all. That's far too nebulous a concept to get my little head around. I don't know what it means to "understand" something. All I (science) know is that there are patterns in my observations and it has been useful in the past to use those patterns to predict future observations. If that trend continues then I will continue to use those patterns to make those predictions. I will probably sometimes refer to the more well-established patterns as "knowledge".

What if a "watchmaker" designed evolution to manage the development of life? What if the "plan" is just what you see, a pattern of random mutations which the watchmaker knows will lead to the desired results, without the clever watchmaker having to manage the process?

That's essentially saying that the "watchmaker" invented the laws of nature and setup the initial conditions to achieve the desired outcome. Yes. It's possible. Many people speculate that it might be true. God as an embodiment of the laws of physics. If you wanted to call that a "plan" then I guess you could. But to me, a "plan" which is indistinguishable from "not a plan" is not a good use of words. I like words to divide things up. I guess it's the reductionist in me!

What I suggest is that scientists are mechanically minded by nature (not a slur, just a broad description) and thus they see mechanical apparatus everywhere they look. Poets and story tellers and artists, all of us, do the same thing.

I think there's a whole potential sub-branch of the conversation there about what it means for something to be "mechanical".

What we currently know from hard historical evidence is that our perceptions of reality are being profoundly overturned at an ever accelerating rate. Note how this evidence tends to be casually discarded, as such a documented record of ignorance tends to undermine the social authority of the science clergy.

Again, I disagree. Our perceptions are not overturned as much as, I suspect, you think. They are added to. When people who lived in one small part of the Earth thought it was flat they were right. The flat Earth model is a special case, for a particular subset of all possible observations, of the spherical Earth model. Newton's "flat space" model of gravity is a special case, for a particular subset of all possible observations, of Einstein's "curved space" model. No doubt that is also a special case too, of something else.

If you're now back to referring to the "scientific method" when you refer to "the science clergy" then you absolutely could not be more wrong. The documented record of ignorance is precisely what science thrives on. Look at the history of science to see this.

I am referring to our RELATIONSHIP with the science community, which tends to be quite similar to the RELATIONSHIP we long had with religious clergy.

I would extend this to SOME members of the science community, who have understandably bought in to this image of sweeping authority. As example, I used to participate on a science forum (sciencechatforum.com). Once the assembled scientists realized I was not a scientist myself, they began chronically trying to teach me HOW TO REASON. They assumed their expert status and authority on a very specific technical topic extended outwards in every direction. A very small sample admittedly.

If that's really what they assumed, they were wrong. I don't know. I haven't seen the conversation.

Perhaps it would help me if you could explain how plans can exist without planners? You seem to be trying to divorce the two, and I don't get it yet.

I didn't say a plan can exist without a planner. I said that an object can show evidence of having been planned or evidence of not having been planned. No plan, presumably no planner.

Sorry, you are continually diving deep in to argument by exaggeration. All I'm doing is applying the very same test we reasonably apply to holy books to the atheist's chosen authority as well. You totally get why testing the holy book is necessary, but when it comes to challenging your own chosen authority on these topics, you try to make it as confusing as possible.

And all I'm doing is showing you that I have no chosen authority. You keep telling me that my chosen authority is human reason and that I am certain that it is applicable to everything. I keep telling you, over and over again, that I am certain of nothing. I can prove nothing. I simply use what is useful when it is useful.

Sorry, classic atheist dodging and weaving. First unproven assertions are made with wild abandon, and when an effective challenger appears atheists retreat in to qualifications.

Please quote my unproven assertions. Could you also have a look at where I've mentioned my attitude to the word "proof". I've mentioned it once or twice.

You've done it again. Current evidence actually suggests that current evidence is most likely wildly unreliable.

Unreliable for what? Making assertions of absolute knowledge? Can you see the straw man that you keep endlessly pummelling?

At one point, the current evidence was that the Earth was at the center of the universe. WRONG! Then the current evidence was that there is only our galaxy. WRONG! The current evidence was that space and time are two completely different unrelated phenomena. WRONG!

Have a look at my earlier comments (and many comments in previous posts) about flat Earth and the development of knowledge.

When any enterprise proves itself to be wildly wrong over and over again, why should we blindly accept it's "current evidence"??

Ditto. Sorry, but I don't know how many more times I can explain my view as to how knowledge grows and how much you've misunderstood the scientific method if you use words like "WRONG!". Kepler? WRONG! Newton? WRONG?

-- Updated Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:28 pm to add the following --

I'll continue later when I get time. I'm starting to think now that it's very difficult to be understood and am looking for ways in which that might happen and how to write more clearly. For example, in that last paragraph, I suspect you'll probably think I'm holding up Kepler and Newton as high priests and accusing you of heresy by saying "wrong" or some such thing.

When you see the whole subject through the lens of this "scientists are worshipped like gods and scientific knowledge is sold as unquestionable truth" myth I can see how that changes the perception of all words. Despite my continued repeating that the most basic, fundamental principle of science is that nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing is certain.

-- Updated Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:19 pm to add the following --

-------
Ormond:

When any enterprise proves itself to be wildly wrong over and over again, why should we blindly accept it's "current evidence"??

OK. I'm going to try again and take this one as one of the most stark misrepresentations of science and turn the question back to you.

Why would you blindly the accept the current findings (or any findings) of science?

The most basic principle of science - science lesson 1 - tells you that you should not blindly accept what you're told. The system is designed around the process of exposing one's ideas to scrutiny. If you're not familiar with the tools required to perform that scrutiny, they're freely available to anybody who in interested. They're not locked away. And the reasons why those tools were designed the way they were are themselves available for scrutiny; not locked away. Nothing is locked away. You are obliged to accept nothing without question.

The system of exposing one's ideas for peer review (i.e. review by your equals, which means review by anybody who is interested enough to pick up the freely available tools and use them) is explicitly setup to be the absolute, precise opposite of "blindly accept".

Given the above, I'll ask again: why would you blindly the accept the current findings of science? Why would you blindly accept the words of a person/system that is screaming at you: "DO NOT BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT I SAY!"?

If you don't do so, but you think most other people do, why? In your opinion, why do most people insist on blindly accepting what these "high priests" are presenting to them? Why do you think that they continuously defy these priests and say "No! I will not question your findings, as you're telling me to. I will blindly accept everything you say whether you like it or not."

It reminds me of that scene from the movie "The Life of Brian" where a huge crowd has gathered outside Brian's house to worship him (believing him to be the Messiah) and he says:

"You don't need to worship me! You don't need to worship anybody! You are all individuals! You can all think for yourselves!"

And the crowd dutifully shouts in unison:

"Yes! We are all individuals! We can all think for ourselves!"

Is this really the relationship you think the general population has with this "science clergy"? Defying the basic principles of science in order to blindly believe in science?

[Mark1955]

It reminds me of that scene from the movie "The Life of Brian" where a huge crowd has gathered outside Brian's house to worship him (believing him to be the Messiah) and he says:

"You don't need to worship me! You don't need to worship anybody! You are all individuals! You can all think for yourselves!"

And the crowd dutifully shouts in unison:

"Yes! We are all individuals! We can all think for ourselves!"

Is this really the relationship you think the general population has with this "science clergy"? Defying the basic principles of science in order to blindly believe in science?

Sadly I suspect this is exactly the sort of relationship many people have with science. Having relaised how laughably implausible most orthodox religions are they are seeking replacement, not something that means they might have think for themselves.

-- Updated 20 Jun 2016 19:51 to add the following --

In the case of the emergence of bio-chemical life from non-biological chemistry, I wonder if it had to be single point of no return? I guess we'll never know. But perhaps there could have been several such events, perhaps of different kinds, going backwards and forwards over this threshold.

Where do you think this boundary is, and in what way do you see it as a boundary.

[Sy Borg]

It reminds me of that scene from the movie "The Life of Brian" where a huge crowd has gathered outside Brian's house to worship him (believing him to be the Messiah) and he says:

"You don't need to worship me! You don't need to worship anybody! You are all individuals! You can all think for yourselves!"

And the crowd dutifully shouts in unison:

"Yes! We are all individuals! We can all think for ourselves!"

Is this really the relationship you think the general population has with this "science clergy"? Defying the basic principles of science in order to blindly believe in science?

Sadly I suspect this is exactly the sort of relationship many people have with science. Having relaised how laughably implausible most orthodox religions are they are seeking replacement, not something that means they might have think for themselves.

Mark, a most cynical view and I was going to argue the point, but I don't think I can

To be fair, many people are too busy to think deeply for themselves, something politicians and media moguls understand well. By the time people are free from all their duties the last thing they feel up to doing is thinking deeply. Given that our societies are built on trust - without which there would be anarchy - it's reasonable that they delegate scientific and philosophical duties to the experts; in a Taylorist economy each person is to be expert (or at least restricted to) a specific task while relying on others to be expert in their fields.

Who are we to believe? If presented with new information, most will find experts who have devoted their professional lives to a topic more credible than laypersons.

How did we get to "science clergy"? Has that anything to do with the role of humans in natural systems?

[Steve3007]

Mark1955:

Sadly I suspect this is exactly the sort of relationship many people have with science. Having relaised how laughably implausible most orthodox religions are they are seeking replacement, not something that means they might have think for themselves.

I think a good argument could be made that the opposite is true and that the general population feel that they increasingly have the right to question the "experts". Look, for example, at our changing relationship with doctors. Doctors are, essentially, medical scientists. In my parents' youth doctors were still held in something close to awe. Now, partly thanks to more widely available medical information, we feel that we can question their expertise much more. I think that we recognize, to a much greater extent than we did in the past, that their knowledge is something that was learned and something which anybody, in principle, could also learn. In the UK, at least, I think the idea that there is a small elite that goes to University and is inducted into the secret world of intellectual knowledge has been almost completely dispelled.

Where do you think this boundary is, and in what way do you see it as a boundary.

My point, really, was that there is no boundary other than the arbitrary one that we impose on Nature.

[Sy Borg]

Mark1955:

Sadly I suspect this is exactly the sort of relationship many people have with science. Having relaised how laughably implausible most orthodox religions are they are seeking replacement, not something that means they might have think for themselves.

I think a good argument could be made that the opposite is true and that the general population feel that they increasingly have the right to question the "experts". Look, for example, at our changing relationship with doctors. Doctors are, essentially, medical scientists. In my parents' youth doctors were still held in something close to awe. Now, partly thanks to more widely available medical information, we feel that we can question their expertise much more. I think that we recognize, to a much greater extent than we did in the past, that their knowledge is something that was learned and something which anybody, in principle, could also learn. In the UK, at least, I think the idea that there is a small elite that goes to University and is inducted into the secret world of intellectual knowledge has been almost completely dispelled.

I would say both are true. There seems to be a strong growth at either end of the spectrum - those that accept scientific findings uncritically and those who believe nothing (or what suits them). We are polarising.

Bear in mind that not just doctors were thought of with awe in the mid 20th century. Also politicians, the Queen and the clergy. It seems laughable today. Engineers, chemists and biologists don't appear to have lost status. Neuroscientists, biochemists and systems experts appear to be gaining status.

[Steve3007]

I would say both are true. There seems to be a strong growth at either end of the spectrum - those that accept scientific findings uncritically and those who believe nothing (or what suits them). We are polarising.

I think both of these attitudes are perfectly understandable reactions to the large amount of information available in the modern world. That is the trouble with assessing arguments on their merits. It takes some effort. We've got used to not having to expend any effort. We can just turn on the information hose and let it wash over us. But, for anybody who does want to expend a little bit of effort and assess the words of scientists on their merits, it is always possible. And they are actively encouraged to do so.

This was my point to Ormond. If these science clergy really do exist then they're an odd kind of clergy. The motto of their sacred order is "Do not take anything I say on trust. If you do so, then what I say is worthless because it depends for its validity on being questioned and probed. Use freely available tools to do your own research."

-- Updated Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:02 am to add the following --

I suppose, if these people that worship the science clergy really do exist, then they could argue that they are just doing what they've been told to do. The science clergy have said "do not take anything I say on trust". They have decided not to trust that commandment and opted to take everything the science clergy say on trust. Maybe that's how it works.

[Felix]

Re: the title of this thread, according to standard evolutionary theory, all but the simplest forms on life on earth are a genetic mistake, i.e., the serendipitous result of random mutation, so humankind would be the grand prize winner in that drawing.

[Steve3007]

Felix:

according to standard evolutionary theory, all but the simplest forms on life on earth are a genetic mistake, i.e., the serendipitous result of random mutation, so humankind would be the grand prize winner in that drawing.

So you're not using the word "mistake" in its standard sense? i.e. something that's gone wrong; an error.