Can a scientist be religious?

Mar 12, 2012
Robert Asher. Credit: Robert Asher

An empirical answer to the question “can a scientist be religious” is easy: yes. Religious scientists are actually quite common. However, many would prefer to know whether or not it is rational for them to be religious. Here we need some qualifications on what exactly ‘religious’ means. If it requires belief in an omnipotent, human-like entity who interferes in the workings of nature, suspending a law here or a rigging a miracle there like a mechanic might fix a car, then I’d say no, religion is not rational. Given what we know about our world and cosmos, based on methodologies on which we depend in nearly all aspects of our lives, it’s not rational to believe that stars hang from a metal firmament in the sky, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that human virgins have sons, or that decomposed cadavers can come back to life.

Most of those who feel committed to their religion are able to reconcile the incompatibility of certain scriptural claims with what they know about our world. Like St Augustine in the 4th century, they understand that in a conflict between our interpretation of human-mediated religious texts and our understanding of natural law, something has to give, and this generally means a change in the former, not the latter.

Relatedly, many recognise that a ‘miracle’ – when defined as a spontaneous failure of natural law – is usually an artefact of ignorance, rather than something intrinsic to an object or event. Sixteenth-century Aztecs made the mistake of elevating their ignorance about Spanish horses and pikemen to the miraculous, a fact that (along with smallpox and some angry neighbours) led to the destruction of their society. Reverence of phenomena because they seem inexplicable today makes the same mistake. Conversely, the vista of the Grand Canyon should not be considered less miraculous because we understand erosion; wine is no less sweet when we know that fermentation intervenes between it and water. In my view, the existence of natural laws, and indeed of rationality itself, is a legitimate basis for worship; ignorance about nature is not.

Charles Darwin is sometimes portrayed as a boon for atheism because he articulated a mechanism by which humanity could no longer pretend to lack a connection with the animal world. We are animals – very peculiar ones to be sure, but animals nonetheless. If your religion demands otherwise, then at least in some particulars it is wrong. It is notable, therefore, how Darwin made it clear in the Origin of Species that “I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one” (1860, p. 482), or in an 1879 letter that “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist… In my most extreme fluctuations have I never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.” By the end of his life, Darwin apparently did not accept a personal God or the typical Christian explanations for the existence of suffering. Yet, despite frequently being cast as an atheist today, his publications and letters clearly disavowed any such thing.

This is in part because he was modest (and accurate) about the scope of evolutionary biology, which concerns the diversification of life after it started. Darwinian evolution does not concern life’s origin or the existence of God, yet the perception that it does is widespread. This misunderstanding makes it harder to appreciate how compelling the evidence for his theory really is. Darwin made many predictions about what later scientists would find regarding patterns in the fossil record, development, and anatomy among species, and we know that patterns of genetic diversity match his predictions as well.

In my book Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist, I review how science has proven him correct in the essential details and describe how biological complexity has arisen from natural processes. While I believe these processes were unrelated to a human-like, master intelligence, I do not thereby deny the existence of God. Comprehension of a natural mechanism is independent of a potential agency behind it; we can no more assert atheism due to our understanding of evolution than claim the non-existence of Thomas Edison due to our understanding of electricity. In my book, I reiterate Darwin’s own argument that his theory presents a mechanism by which life has diversified, representing a cause which does not specify any potential agency behind it. Evolutionary biology – along with the natural sciences in general – does contradict superstition, but it does not rule out belief in God.

One of the challenges we face as a society is to honestly identify the conflicts between religious belief and scientific literacy, and help draw the line between religion and superstition. In the case of Christian faith, a good starting point is to recognise the obvious benevolence of scripture; for example, do not slander others (Matthew 15), be humble (Romans 3) and truthful (Matthew 5). These passages are no less sublime because of others that seem to condone snake handling (Mark 16), misogyny and primogeniture (Deuteronomy 21). At least some scriptures seem genuinely timeless and inspired; other passages seem more intertwined with the local time and culture in which they were written. Every generation of Christians (and those of other faiths) will grapple with such passages, some reasonably suggesting that maybe the ‘objectionable’ ones don’t mean what we think they mean. Like any other human endeavour, religious interpretation should be accorded the capacity for self-reflection and correction as we learn more about ourselves and our cosmos. Like any other natural science, is a part of this process.

Explore further: Sniffing out a partner at a London pheromone party

More information: Dr Robert Asher is a palaeontologist and lecturer at the University of Cambridge Department of Zoology and a curator at the University Museum of Zoology. His book ‘Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist’ was recently published by Cambridge University Press.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Courts endangering religious freedom, academic claims

Jan 26, 2012

Studying recent cases in the UK, USA, Canada and mainland Europe, Oxford University philosopher Professor Roger Trigg has identified a trend towards curtailing religious freedom in favour of other social priorities ...

Europe's forgotten 'religion'

Aug 25, 2011

Hundreds of millions of people in Europe alone are “non-religious”, but non-religion remains an understudied field. To mark the launch of a new journal on the subject, associate editor Lois Lee discusses its significance ...

Professor examines the complex evolution of human morality

May 19, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Although the question of what makes humans different from other animals doesn't have a single obvious answer, one seemingly conspicuous human trait is morality. Darwin, in his book The Descent of Man, an ...

Recommended for you

How to win a Tour de France sprint

Jul 22, 2014

The final dash to the line in a Tour de France sprint finish may appear to the bystander to be a mess of bodies trying to cram into the width of a road, but there is a high degree of strategy involved. It ...

User comments : 160

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.8 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2012
Pascal's Wager and the (modern) concept of 'utility' makes it an easily rational decision.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (20) Mar 12, 2012
Pascal's Wager and the (modern) concept of 'utility' makes it an easily rational decision.

Yes, but not the way you think it does: Pascals Wager is actually a reason not to believe in a god.

To put it in the words of Homer Simpson: "Suppose we've chosen the wrong God. Every time we go to church we're just making Him madder and madder."

Since there are many concepts of gods if you just choose one at random the likelyhood is overwhelming that you have chosen the wrong one. So you'll be in for heaps of trouble (much more so than if you had not chosen at all, since by not choosing you're not continually offending any deity that happens to be real).
So, while you cannot win if you ignore Pascal's wager you are MUCH more likely not to lose big time.

If you want to play Pascal's Wager then your best shot is atheism.
Waterdog
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2012
The ways of God are many and mysterious and beyond the knowledge of men. This is true, but God does not object to us trying to understand these mysteries, and gave us a mind to do so with. It's too bad that so many religious people seem to reject using thier brains. The bible is a wonderful text, but it has be translated and retranslated by fallible men and I can not but believe that the inconsistancies in the bible are the result. The theory of evolution does not contradict the bible, but in many ways confirms it.
ryggesogn2
Mar 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (17) Mar 12, 2012
The ways of God are many and mysterious and beyond the knowledge of men. This is true, but God does not object to us trying to understand these mysteries, and gave us a mind to do so with.

Erm. This makes no sense
1) "you cannot understand it no matter what"
2) "Here's a brain: have a go"

See the contradiction?
And you think that it's a mystery why religious people reject using their brains? How would you feel if I said: "Here's a wall. You may push against it. But no matter how hard you push it won't budge"
Would you even try?

The theory of evolution does not contradict the bible, but in many ways confirms it.

The bible is irrelevant to evolution (and to anything else).
Amy_Steri
5 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2012
What would any god(s) appreciate more? Honest unbelief based on a lack of real evidence, or sly self serving "belief" based entirely on the fear of punishment. Try as you might, it is impossible to force a true belief in anything. You either really do believe, or you fake it and hope that will be sufficient. Do you really think that a god wouldn't see through such a flimsy "faith"?
CardacianNeverid
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2012
No. Doing science today does not mean that you can check your brain at the (lab) door.
Amy_Steri
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2012
In reply to Waterdog:

Do you honestly think that the instructions in the bible of when and how to kill, enslave, and/or rape your enemies are a result of mistranslation? Do you also believe that the doctrine of Hell makes any kind of sense when you consider how many baptized true believers participated in many of the worst crimes against humanity in history?
gotrootdude
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
Science is a methodology which anyone can preform. Logic and critical thinking are separate individual skills that few possess.
Imagine being born in a society where the majority confessed that a 100ft invisible dragon knocks down trees. One day a tree falls in the backyard, so you assume it must be the 100ft invisible dragon. Of course, you've never seen the 100ft dragon.
I like to call the 100ft invisible dragon the basis of religion. As long as you don't know any better, it is easy to attribute it as the cause for every fallen tree.
Ryan1981
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2012
There is no proof that god doesn't exist, therefore a true scientist will always take into account the possibility that god exists. I have been raised without religion, I still tend to feel that god doesn't exist but sometimes I hope he does since it is a comforting thought. I haven't read the bible, I am very hasitent to do so since a lot of conflict in the world is based on what is written in there.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2012
Can a scientist be religious?
Apparently yes, but they shouldn't be known for it, especially when they're over 50's and the people are getting fired.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2012
There is no proof that god doesn't exist, therefore a true scientist will always take into account the possibility that god exists.

There is no proof that Santa Clause doesn't exist, therefore a true scientist will always take into account the possibility that Santa Clause exists.

See how that doesn't make any sense? Scientists do NOT have to take into account things for which NO evidence has been forthcoming. That would be contrary to science. You only have to take something into account once evidence exists that hints that that something might be real.

God doesn't make any sense anyhow: He saves us from a hell he created in the first place? That make sense to anyone? How is it 'forgiving' if he's the one that puts forth the mode of punishment in the first place?
SoylentGrin
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2012
Pascal's Wager is bad math. It's like saying that since there's two possibilities of rolling a one on a die, either you will or you won't, the odds are 50/50.
When you multiply the odds by the 100,000 gods proposed in mankind's written history, the math gets even worse.

I would attribute the quote if I could remember it, but: "They can't all be right. They can, however, all be wrong."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) Mar 12, 2012
A better question is can a scientist be humble?
SoylentGrin
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2012
A better question is can a scientist be humble?


Why? Does a scientist's humility affect their ability to do science? I can see where religious beliefs *could* affect the avenues of inquiry they would make.
What is 'humble' anyway? If it's the acknowledgement that they could be wrong, all scientists should be approaching investigations with that in mind. Again, something that religious beliefs may interfere with, since those are usually held under the heading of Absolute Truth (something that doesn't exist in science).
If 'humble' means something else, what and how would it make a better scientist?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 12, 2012
all scientists should be approaching investigations with that in mind.

"Should be" but DO they?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (24) Mar 12, 2012
Absolute Truth (something that doesn't exist in science).

Scientists have faith the laws of nature don't change.
Scientists have faith their process leads to the 'truth' which means they believe there IS an absolute truth.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (16) Mar 12, 2012
"Should be" but DO they?

Yes, they do.

Skepticism is the number one tool in a scientist's toolbox. This includes skepticism about one's own work (and even one's own mind).

Scientists have faith the laws of nature don't change.

No. Where did you get that?
Scientists have faith their process leads to the 'truth' which means they believe there IS an absolute truth.

No. this has been explained to you before numerous times (by scientists). Stop rehashing lies.
SoylentGrin
5 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2012
Science is a search for answers. By definition, scientists don't think those answers have been found, or they wouldn't be looking. Even if a model were to be found that accounted for everything we could think of, it would still be an open question. It wouldn't be The Answer, it would be "a model that appears to account for all the data so far".
At the heart of it, I believe this is the cause of animosity towards science from religion: Science is nothing but a search for answers, while Religion is trying to convince people it has already found them.
Science isn't the one making the claim that there is an Absolute anything.**

** With apologies to all those coming tantilizingly close to the search for Absolute Zero. Still not the same as "Absolute Truth".
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2012
Nature is a series of nested vortices which exude dualistic paradoxical behavior, the solution to which is the unification or singularity. At every level of query man gains understanding by transcending the paradox and incorporating the emergent singularity in his being. This evolves his psyche.

Intolerant Abrahamic religions fixate man on a thesis, thereby via dialectics engorging the antithesis and blocking man from evolving by realization of the emergent singularity, or unification.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2012
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2012
At the heart of it, I believe this is the cause of animosity towards science from religion: Science is nothing but a search for answers, while Religion is trying to convince people it has already found them.

It's probably the fear that those answers which religion has supposedly found will be shown to be nothing but hot air - so they do what all con men do: try to fight the one uncovering their con.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (26) Mar 12, 2012
Religion is trying to convince people it has already found them.

Don't know much about religion? Religion is a search for answers such as 'What is the meaning of life?' 'Why are we here?'

Science is afraid to ask such questions.
But the religion of science does try to convince they have the answers.
SoylentGrin
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2012
Religion is a search for answers such as 'What is the meaning of life?' 'Why are we here?'


Religion tries to answer those questions. To say it doesn't is blatantly disengenuous. Every religion out there is a religion *precisely* because it tries to answer those questions. "Meaning of life? A: What Book X tells you it is." "Why are we here? A: To serve/worship/accept as savior/pass test/etc."

Any religion that doesn't attempt to answer those questions with its doctrine doesn't even come close to being a religion, and you know it.

Imagine someone on a quest to figure out "why we're here", and encounters a Holy Man/Prophet/practitioner of a religion.
"Why are we here?", he asks. "Dunno," says the holy man. "Alright, see ya!" You KNOW this wouldn't play out. The rep of religion would have a ready answer exactly because that's HOW they get converts.
Calenur
3.9 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2012
Religion is trying to convince people it has already found them.

Don't know much about religion? Religion is a search for answers such as 'What is the meaning of life?' 'Why are we here?'

Science is afraid to ask such questions.
But the religion of science does try to convince they have the answers.


'What's the meaning of life' and 'why are we here are' two of the most pretentious bullshit questions one can ask. Why does it have to be anything more than we are the end result of billions of years of chance? Do you need that much validation?

A much better question (which scientists are asking) is 'How did we come to be?'
mjo
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
The author is right of course, that the process of evolution does not prohibit the existence of a single or multiple gods. But for a true Scientist (i.e., one who forms conclusions based on observations and not philosophy; one for whom there exists a null hypothesis, and it is that nothing exists until it is proven (not that everything exists until it is disproven) to believe in God is in actual fact by all definitions impossible. That "scientist" is actually something else.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 12, 2012
a true Scientist

Such a creature does not exist.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 12, 2012
Why does it have to be anything more than we are the end result of billions of years of chance?

Do you know of any other living thing that can ask the question why it is there?
OverweightAmerican
3.4 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2012
This is just another article from a religious person who claims to be a valid scientist and tries to defend their faith using rational arguments but ultimately fails.

Anyone who tries to justify "beliefs" is not a scientist. They are an emotionally insecure person.

Historically, the idea of a God is just a story that was made up a few thousand years ago that some people still believe in this day and age when they should know better.

From a scientific perspective it is not even reasonable to say that the idea of God is a theory or hypothesis because there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Any hypothesis requires at least a logical explanation, or reasoning behind it before it is tested.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Mar 12, 2012
This is just another article from a religious person who claims to be a valid scientist and tries to defend their faith using rational arguments but ultimately fails.

Anyone who tries to justify "beliefs" is not a scientist. They are an emotionally insecure person.

Historically, the idea of a God is just a story that was made up a few thousand years ago that some people still believe in this day and age when they should know better.

From a scientific perspective it is not even reasonable to say that the idea of God is a theory or hypothesis because there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Any hypothesis requires at least a logical explanation, or reasoning behind it before it is tested.

Science is a subset of the human condition. All is heuristic. A 'scientist' who denies he has faith lies to himself.
SoylentGrin
5 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2012
Why does it have to be anything more than we are the end result of billions of years of chance?

Do you know of any other living thing that can ask the question why it is there?


So, you know the mind of other creatures now, too?

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that cetaceans have a sentience. Many creatures mourn their dead. Elephants are prone to depression and what appears to be emotional anguish. Even some birds have displayed some pretty self aware knowledge (see Alex).

So they can't express their thoughts in human language, and their behavior is, by definition, inhuman. And to be sure, such exceptions are rare.

But you are real quick to denounce others as not being 'humble' enough, or being too arrogant... when you then turn around and claim to know the mind of god and beast alike.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 12, 2012
An empirical answer to the question can a scientist be religious is easy: yes. Religious scientists are actually quite common.
Well sure the human brain is especially prone to significant defects. Scientists can be as cognitively deficient and schizoid as anybody else. They can be totally rational during the day while playing with jars full of toenail clippings at night, and no one would be the wiser.

Similarly they could be busy during the week exploring reality while on Sunday they could be happily WORSHIPPING the supreme creator of everything because the scientist might believe that worship is what this being craves. And praise. He may even think this being requires PRAISE.

Yeah our brains are THIS defect-prone.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
Religious scientists are actually quite common.

In theological studies. Maybe. Nowhere else are they common.
Simonsez
4.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2012
Understanding there is no way to prove or disprove matters of "spirit," "soul," or "supernatural" with current science, especially in pitting science against faith, I have to agree with most of the comments that religions in general do not support scientific evidence they feel endangers their belief system.

What I fail to understand is why people on both sides of this issue seem to think the twain must meet. Science should stick to explaining natural phenomena and religion to explaining the supernatural. There are plenty of modern intellectuals who understand that the ultimate goal of science is not to disprove the existence of the divine, but instead to understand the nature of existence no matter its origins. Believers who get in the way are doing both a disservice, and scientists who lower themselves (or atheists who try to use science) to attack believers are no better.

It's like racism in the U.S. - it will never go away unless both sides agree to leave it in the past.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2012
Of course worshipping and praising gods is the equivalent of playing with jars full of toenail clippings, and if we could acknowledge this then we WOULD be the wiser wouldn't we?

Just because these defects are so common does not mean they aren't defects. Ask any religionist about the cognitive acumen of believers in any religion besides his own. He will have reached the exact same conclusions about their state of mind, as we have about his.
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2012
"If triangles had a god, they would give him three sides"... Montesquieu (1721) One of this planet's greatest challenges is the synergistic unification of paradigms, and to stop triangles, squares and pentagons to cease dogmatic mutual prosylitising and destroying each other...
Pressure2
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
Religion is trying to convince people it has already found them.

Don't know much about religion? Religion is a search for answers such as 'What is the meaning of life?' 'Why are we here?'

Science is afraid to ask such questions.
But the religion of science does try to convince they have the answers.

Because evolution has led to us. Why? Because the future belongs to the fittest, the best adapted to surviving. That is why we are here.

A reason? Why does there have to be a reason? It is just what naturally happened by the laws of evolution. You may need something beyond that. I say chill out, enjoy life while you have it. It will be over before you know it. And then you won't know it. There is nothing in the beyond but the memories of you, that you leave in the people you left behind.

RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2012
My concept of God is that he is passive and doesn't participate in the affairs of mankind. Perhaps he is just an observer of our history and how we are functioning as a species and prefers the role of anonymous benefactor. He would allow mistakes to be made and horrible crimes to be committed from each of us to each other; even toward Nature itself. . .in the hope that each of us learn from those mistakes in order to evolve and improve our species. Perhaps it is his will that we discover the things that he himself has accomplished through science, and it is that science that will one day enable us to find him. . .no matter where he is. IF there is a reconciliation to be had between God and mankind, it would be our choice whether or not to make that move toward him, maybe for our own sake. God's passivity would exclude any real overtures to have us believe in his existence. It is man who wrote about God and it is man who must prove his existence. He will not physically appear to save us
theskepticalpsychic
Mar 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
from ourselves. The way of man is the way of the world and our world is not the only one. We are really quite alone on our world. . .but the observation goes on and we have free will to make war on each other. If there was a wager going on to see how long mankind lasts, the odds may be against our survival unless we evolve and prove that we are made of better stuff.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
One man's pretension is another man's desperation.


We are all pretenders and we are all desperate. . .that's why we have scientists.

As an agnostic, I am sitting on the fence of indecision. . .waiting for further proof, one way or another.
ormondotvos
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
"One of the challenges we face as a society is to honestly identify the conflicts between religious belief and scientific literacy, and help draw the line between religion and superstition."

There's a line?
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2012
Belief is something like the dark matter, which cannot be seen, but you're suddenly finding, it's forming half of Universe matter.. It's because belief is immanent part of scientific method. The scientists formulate hypothesis, i.e. the subject of belief and after them they do validate them with observations and rational arguments. In this sense the facts are condensing from hypothesis in similar way, like the observable matter condenses from dark matter in AWT. Even verified theories are based on deductions and implications of postulates, and the postulate is nothing else, then the subject of belief, which is accepted as it is. It mean, the belief is everywhere in science, it's just balanced with rational arguments there in similar way, like the longitudinal waves are balanced with transverse ones inside of particles of AWT. The religion is system of hypothesis based on belief, which is not balanced with rational arguments. It's based on postulates, which are called a dogmas here.
Sinister1811
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2012
"Can a scientist be religious?". Well, not if he's trying to prove the existence of God, or believes that there's a certain reality to Intelligent Design. ;)
Agile_Mathew
1.1 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2012
God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Through science we discover how He does it. There are physical laws and there are moral laws. Both are upheld by Him. It will exist until the time He appointed for them. Moral laws are eternal as Jesus the Son of God said about it in Mat.5. But physical laws will change, for He said 'the heaven and earth will pass away'. But to live and make progress here, we need to know them and use them. That is why science and technology.
gwrede
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2012
What can I say? Man made god into his own image.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2012
Moral laws are eternal as Jesus the Son of God said about it in Mat.5.


And why should we believe that any god had anything to do that book? It has many errors both internally and in regards to the real universe.

Oh Zephir, that guy was fired for harassing his subordinates with his silly false beliefs. If he had only been discussing with willing people, me for instance, he would be justified in his claims. In fact he has made contradictory claim in his case.

Claim one is that ID is not religion. Which it is.

Claim two is that he was fired because of religious persecution. Which is true but it was HE that was guilty of persecuting people.

The guy is going to lose his case because he was the guilty one.

Ethelred
Doug_Huffman
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2012
SylentGrin tries to apply frequentist statistics to an unique event and, in doing so, makes a proper objectively naive Bayesian prior estimation. More study Grasshoper.

At every turning you will or you will not die. Who lives the longest has the best informed prior estimation of the next turning. Who fails to do the arithmetic is doomed.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2012
that guy was fired for harassing his subordinates with his silly false beliefs.
This is your private interpretation - but can you provide some evidence for it? For example the testimony of some of his former subordinates? Even if he would provide some DVD's to his subordinates, is it really so annoying activity? I'd perceive such present rather as a manifestation of trust and friendship from my boss. It wouldn't oblige me to anything.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2012
This is your private interpretation


No. It is what happened. He was told to stop harassing his subordinates and didn't.

For example the testimony of some of his former subordinates?


They testified to JPL and JPL fired him. It is likely some will need to be called as wittinesses if the case goes far enough.

Even if he would provide some DVD's to his subordinates, is it really so annoying activity?


If he keeps doing it after they told to stop YES and that is what he was accused of.

I'd perceive such present rather as a manifestation of trust and friendship from my boss. It wouldn't oblige me to anything.


You also claim you never used sockpuppets to create the impression that you had support. So your thinking can only be considered to be unreliable. HE was obliged to stop. This isn't the Czech Republic. Here people have freedom of religion and he was denying to his subordinates.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
You also claim you never used sockpuppets to create the impression that you had support. So your thinking can only be considered to be unreliable. HE was obliged to stop. This isn't the Czech Republic. Here people have freedom of religion and he was denying to his subordinates.
Absolutely correct! The golden rule is keep your mouth shut at work and do the job you were hired to do.

********************************

Now we get back to where did the universe, multiverse, omniverse or superverse originate? Did someone or something exist before the existence of one of those structures? Did that person or thing help create our existence?

Also, how and where do ghosts exist? Do they exist in or travel through the preatomic/post-atomic realm? Just to be clear, one could call preatoms "pre-subatoms" and post-atoms "post-subatoms" etc., etc..
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2012
Now we get back to where did the universe, multiverse, omniverse or superverse originate


We don't know BUT it could be that they exist for the simple reason that they can exist. If they are mathematically valid why shouldn't they exist?

Did someone or something exist before the existence of one of those structures?


Perhaps in the since that things come to exist because they can. An all powerful complex god is not something that is mathematically valid.

Did that person or thing help create our existence?


No. Unless it is possible to generate new universes from within another by a process that does not require an all powerful god as those are self contradictory.

Also, how and where do ghosts exist?


They don't. So far the evidence is nonexistent.

Do they exist in or travel through the preatomic/post-atomic realm?


That would require their existence in the first place and there isn't evidence to support it.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2012
Just to be clear, one could call preatoms "pre-subatoms" and post-atoms "post-subatoms" etc., etc..


Would could call a leopard a rose but it would still quite different and make noise.

Without evidence this is all just words. Even my ideas are just words but at least they fit what is possible. Ghosts don't unless you have some REALLY strong evidence that has escaped the notice of everyone else.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2012
We don't know BUT it could be that they exist for the simple reason that they can exist. If they are mathematically valid why shouldn't they exist?
You need to think outside of the (lets call it) superverse. I would say box (supercube), but that is where Heaven resides.

Perhaps in the sense that things come to exist because they can. An all powerful complex god is not something that is mathematically valid.
Why is that? Again you need to think outside of the superverse!

No. Unless it is possible to generate new universes from within another by a process that does not require an all powerful god as those are self contradictory.
Again you need to think outside of the superverse!

They don't. So far the evidence is nonexistent.
I have personally seen several types of ghosts (ETs) beam themselves in and out of our atomic realm.>>
TabulaMentis
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2012
As a note, one or two of those ETs I saw was associated with the Gods of the Trinity!!!

Would could call a leopard a rose but it would still quite different and make noise.
Welcome to the world of theoretical physics.

TabulaMentis
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2012
Why is that? Again you need to think outside of the superverse!


Again I did. The principles of math and logic do not require our or universe.

Again you need to think outside of the superverse!


You need to think. Without evidence its all bullshit.

I have personally seen several types of ghosts


Really. And you can produce some evidence?

As a note, one or two of those ETs I saw was associated with the Gods of the Trinity!!!


You are a completely unreliable source. I sorry but something went wrong in your brain.

Welcome to the world of theoretical physics.


That isn't physics, nor is logic, nor anything related to anything real except for the reality that you have abnormal connections and chemistry in your brain.

We, I and others, have suggested this before. Please get help.

I am sorry I forgot just who you were before replying in the first place.

Get help.

Ethelred
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2012
HE was obliged to stop. This isn't the Czech Republic. Here people have freedom of religion and he was denying to his subordinates.
LOL, you turned the situation on its head. The process like this one would be really unthinkable in our country. The Czech Republic is atheistic country with compare to USA (we have less than 10% of practicing catholics), but it's tolerant as well in this regard. For example, our best known astrophysicist and chairman of Czech skeptical club is religious as hell at the same moment. You can imagine him like religious version of Richard Dawkins, for example. The situation, when someone would be fired just for spreading of some DVD's in Czech Republic would be thinkable only in American owned company.
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2012
The principles of math and logic do not require our or universe.
What you just said does not make any sense.

You need to think. Without evidence its all bullshit.
Atheist sarcasm.

Really. And you can produce some evidence?
Next time I will ask them to pose so I can get a picture especially for you.

You are a completely unreliable source. I sorry but something went wrong in your brain.
More atheist sarcasm.

That isn't physics, nor is logic, nor anything related to anything real except for the reality that you have abnormal connections and chemistry in your brain.
You need eye glasses so you can read what I said.

We, I and others, have suggested this before. Please get help.
You are the one who needs help!

I am sorry I forgot just who you were before replying in the first place.>>
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2012
I am sorry I forgot just who you were before replying in the first place.
No you did not. A couple of weeks ago you pointed out an article I blogged in in which I talked about anomalies I had seen before. Your honesty is now being put in jeopardy.

Get help.
More atheist sarcasm.

TabulaMentis
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2012
I forgot who was responding too. Sometimes I loose track of all the cranks here. You may be the only one that can helped as your problem is a medical problem.

You need help. Paranoid schizophrenia can be helped with drugs.

This is what I forgot about.
http://www.physor...firstCmt

No sarcasm. I am quite serious and I don't lie except for a good joke.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2012
LOL, you turned the situation on its head. The process like this one would be really unthinkable in our country.


I didn't turn anything on its head. The guy was harassing his subordinates. If you have so few religious nutcases perhaps you simply don't understand just how much of a pain they can be in person.

He no more has the right to proselytize his subordinates then he does to pressure them for sex. If he stopped doing that he might have kept his job. Can't be sure as JPL had to lay off a lot of people. This is normal there. As projects end the workers jobs end.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2012
No sarcasm. I am quite serious and I don't lie except for a good joke.
You are the one who has a serious problem. I suggest you avoid subjects about theoretical physics. It seems to have a bad effect on you.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2012
The guy was harassing his subordinates.
This is just a witch-hunting, you gave no evidence for it. IMO this guy is old chap, NASA is short of money, so they found an evasion and fired him. If the offering of DVD's to workmates is an illegal activity, then the freedom of individuals in the USA is even lower, than I expected..;-) At any case, in Czech Republic it's perfectly legal.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2012
This is just a witch-hunting, you gave no evidence for it


Bullshit. YOU posted enough links. The guy was told to stop. By JPL. Its in the news articles. Sorry its my brother that lives across a river from JPL not me so I can't ask.

IMO this guy is old chap, NASA is short of money, so they found an evasion and fired him.


Your opinion is worthless. They laid off over a 100 hundred others on the Cassini Project. They could lay him off anytime they wanted.

If the offering of DVD's to workmates is an illegal activity,


It isn't. Being pushy about it and not taking no for answer WHEN YOU ARE THE BOSS is something people can sue for. So people that can get their employers sued because they insist on being a pain get fired.

At any case, in Czech Republic it's perfectly legal.


Stupidity is legal here as well. So is firing idiots.

Look, no one claimed it was illegal. They claimed he ignored a direct order to stop. That is how people get fired.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2012
This is just a witch-hunting, you gave no evidence for it. IMO this guy is old chap, NASA is short of money, so they found an evasion and fired him. If the offering of DVD's to workmates is an illegal activity, then the freedom of individuals in the USA is even lower, than I expected..;-) At any case, in Czech Republic it's perfectly legal.
Periodically I will work for aerospace industries and work on military bases. They have rules and that JPL scientist violated work policy which are given to employees in writing and are posted on signs in various locations.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2012
They claimed he ignored a direct order to stop.
? A link, please.
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2012
A link, please.
The written agreement between JPL and the employee, periodic update notices and signs posted are the job site is all JPL needs to provide as an advance notice. One violation could get the scientist laid-off or fired. If I remember the article correctly, the scientist repeated the violation time after time.
Estevan57
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 14, 2012
Excessive proselytizing, like other bad behaviors, can be cause for termination in many workplaces.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Mar 14, 2012
Excessive proselytizing, like other bad behaviors, can be cause for termination in many workplaces.


Unless the proselytizing is to form a union.
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2012
Unless the proselytizing is to form a union.
Unions will only go so far to protect those who have signed agreements with the company for which they work.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2012
In my experience just the proponents of mainstream science on this (and every else) forum are apparently more conservative and religious, whereas the so-called crackpots are more willing to think outside of box. This bias is quite apparent. And the proponents of mainstream science argue less often, while hiding itself behind various anonymous and censor practices. It's not adherence to existence God, but various traits of behavior, which are doing the people religious.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 15, 2012
In my experience just the proponents of mainstream science on this (and every else) forum are apparently more conservative and religious,
Considering that YOU are religious and most of your opponents aren't, me included, that has to considered par for the course. Pure bullshit.

whereas the so-called crackpots are more willing to think outside of box.
Generally Crank don't think about how their own theories might be wrong. You for instance. I admit might be wrong.

This bias is quite apparent.
As a Crank you are rather a bit biased on that and anyone can you see it is your usual abusive bullshit when you shown wrong.

And the proponents of mainstream science argue less often,
Everyone argues less than you now that Oliver is gone.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2012
while hiding itself behind various anonymous and censor practices.
Ah yes that lie of yours. YOU have two sockpuppets at present. You replaced yet another that was banned with Kinedryl. You initially created the early sockpuppets to create the impression that several people were in agreement with you. Something you lie about every time it is brought up. You used them to attack others and downrank them.

Basically you love to accuse others of acting as you do.

It's not adherence to existence God, but various traits of behavior, which are doing the people religious.
So stop doing it. Stop using sockpuppets. Stop lying about others and stop spamming the site with bullshit that involves 'variations in the density of infinite density' and that's the good part. The bad part is when you try to push that same nonsense into the realm of the psychological. Do your variations in infinitely dense snake oil also cure gout, tremors and cancer?

Ethelred
MarkyMark
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2012

They don't. So far the evidence is nonexistent.
I have personally seen several types of ghosts (ETs) beam themselves in and out of our atomic realm.>>

Man that was some Hippie rush you had!!! Did you know Cannabis can damage your brain?

Sorry put proving god as things stand right now doesant have a GHOST of a chance!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 15, 2012
Did somebody call me?
You need to think. Without evidence its all bullshit.

Atheist sarcasm.
That wasnt sarcasm. Did you know that a symptom of senility is an inability to recognize sarcasm? And I am not being sarcastic when I say this. Perhaps your god is being sarcastic in giving you these symptoms (Ah - now that was sarcasm. Did you recognize it?)
You need to think outside of the (lets call it) superverse. I would say box (supercube), but that is where Heaven resides.
ahaahaaahahaha that was especially funny.

TM says
You are the one who has a serious problem. I suggest you avoid subjects about theoretical physics. It seems to have a bad effect on you.
-Uh huh. Contrast this with:
As a note, one or two of those ETs I saw was associated with the Gods of the Trinity!!!
-Ahaahaaahaahahaha again more humor. By the way check your manual - the trinity is ONE god in 3 persons - not 3 gods in one uh thing.
skydivr4096
1.6 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2012
The question of whether a scientist can be religious is an interesting one. However, one thing that a scientist certainly cannot be is an atheist. A proper scientific answer to the question, Is there a God? is I dont know, not yes, there is or no, there isnt. The long version of the proper answer would be, I dont know, and frankly, I dont give a rats @$$, because I only study those things which I can observe or measure, and so there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Because the existence of a supreme being cannot be proven or disproven, it is not scientifically proper to say that God does not exist. Besides, if a supreme being does in fact exist, then someone who states that, scientifically, there is no god would be quite mistaken. When I say supreme being, I have in mind the concept generally, without regard to any particular god as described in the bible or in any other religious text.
skydivr4096
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2012
Wow, this is going to take some time to post, as it does not allow posting follow-ups within 3 minutes. I have a six-parter here (including this one!). Also, it is not pasting in my quotation marks, which makes for a more frustrating read. :\
skydivr4096
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2012
To the person who responded to one of the comments by substituting the phrase Santa Claus for God, your analogy is faulty. With Santa Claus, we KNOW for a FACT that this is a STORY that was MADE UP by a person, and that said story is not plausible; whereas, with a supreme being (again, as to the concept generally, and not the biblical God), it is quite plausible that one could exist, separate from the fairy tales that have been propounded by the various religious traditions. If you truly understood what science is and how a scientist is supposed to think, you would realize that: 1) it is possible that a supreme being could exist; and 2) therefore, the statement God does not exist is not a scientific one and does not belong anywhere in science.
skydivr4096
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2012
Furthermore, the world as we scientifically understand it is not inconsistent with the idea of a supreme being. For all of these reasons, the proper viewpoint of science with respect to the God question is one of agnosticism and not atheism. Some of you give the distinct impression (forgive me if I am misreading your comments) that you are atheists BECAUSE you are scientists this is absolutely ludicrous and is a perversion of what science is supposed to be about. In all cases, if you are an atheist, your atheism is simply your personal belief, which is not based on any science, reason or logic.
skydivr4096
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2012
PART 5 OF 5: If your belief WERE based on such things, then you would be an agnostic, for the reasons I just described. It does not offend me when people have crazy or illogical beliefs; what does offend me, and what should offend everyone who loves science, is when so called scientists make a statement in their capacity as scientists, under the color of science and not simply off the record, that, scientifically, God does not or cannot exist (or, alternatively, that God does or must exist). Again, it is one thing to have a personal belief but it is quite another to state something with scientific certainty when, by the very nature of the question, there cannot possibly be any scientific certainty with regard thereto. This is a very important distinction that some people here are just not understanding.
So, scientists cannot be atheists.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
With Santa Claus, we KNOW for a FACT that this is a STORY that was MADE UP by a person

So? How is this different with the god story? This was also made up by a person - and it is no more plausible than the story of Santa Clause. WHY exactly do you think a supreme being is plausible?

Think about it: To be 'plausible' there must be a REASON for something to be. But the god-creature is supposedly the reason for everything (including itself). So if you're arguing plausibility then a supreme entity is the most IMPLAUSIBLE thing possible.

f you truly understood what science is and how a scientist is supposed to think, you would realize that:

Meeeep. I have been a scientist. Have you?

it is possible that a supreme being could exist...

That's not how science works. Just because something hasn't beeen disproven is not enough to call it a possibility. Fragodeldums have not been disproven - but they do NOT need to be considered a possibility, either.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
However, one thing that a scientist certainly cannot be is an atheist.
Your second sentence on this site and you lied. Not a good sign.

. A proper scientific answer to the question, Is there a God? is I dont know, not
yes,
There is a problem there. First most Atheists do NOT say there absolutely is no god.
They say the odds are WAY against it. Second it isn't actually a scientific question IF we are talking about all possible gods and very few Atheists are like to say that a Deist can't exist. They just don't think it is likely or needed to understand anything. Deist gods simply can't be tested and simply don't add anything to human understanding. Most gods can be tested. The god of Genesis does not exist. Neither does Odin.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
The long version of the proper answer would be, I dont know, and frankly, I dont give a rats @$$, because I only study those things which I can observe or measure, and so there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God.
Ah you have now described, pretty much exactly, the thinking of most Atheists I see around here or anywhere else.

Oh and by the way I am Agnostic.

Because the existence of a supreme being cannot be proven or disproven,
Depends on the god. I bet yours is contrary to the evidence available as you keep capitalizing god.

Besides, if a supreme being does in fact exist, then someone who states that, scientifically, there is no god would be quite mistaken.
And the opposite is true for almost all people that believe in sufficiently specified god. Jehovah, as described in Genesis, simply does not exist.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
When I say supreme being, I have in mind the concept generally, without regard to any particular god as described in the bible or in any other religious text.
I think you are being disingenuous there. Its that capitalization of 'god'. You are thinking of a specific god or you would not do that.

Also, it is not pasting in my quotation marks, which makes for a more frustrating read. :\


[ q ]the actual quote goes here and remove the spaces [ / q ]. I use Notepad , with a spell check, and created a macro for quoting. That cut WAY down on my unclosed quotes. Notepad is a free text editor. Word is not a good choice as the hidden formating sometimes comes along with the text and that screws things up.

With Santa Claus, we KNOW for a FACT that this is a STORY that was MADE UP by a person,
He could have used Jehovah but lots of people actually in that fantasy god. Generally the posters are fully aware of what you said.>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
That sort of post is mostly directed at the Fundamentalist Christians. Moslems too but they don't know about Santa. I have yet to see a fundamentalist Jew posting on a science site.

If you truly understood what science is and how a scientist is supposed to think, you would realize that: 1) it is possible that a supreme being could exist;
Pretty much every one here is aware of that. You don't understand the thinking of intellectual Atheists. You seem to think everyone is a Madalyn Murry O'Hare type.

Furthermore, the world as we scientifically understand it is not inconsistent with the idea of a supreme being.
Nor does it require one so a belief in one is not in the least scientific. Which is another thing you don't seem to understand.
For all of these reasons, the proper viewpoint of science with respect to the God question is one of agnosticism and not atheism.
I keep telling the Atheists that.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
Actually I don't do it often since I know perfectly well most are actually Agnostic in that particular sense. Even Richard Dawkins is. I bet Dr. Johnathon Miller would agree with me on this and he seems to be more of an Atheist than Dawkins.

For those of you don't know Dr. Miller is a well known Atheist AND was member of the great Brit comedy group Beyond the Fringe. Look him up on Youtube. Its worth it. Funny or serious he is brilliant.

(forgive me if I am misreading your comments) that you are atheists BECAUSE you are scientists
You are misreading. Most of the active poster aren't scientists. Many are students and some of us just read a lot.

this is absolutely ludicrous and is a perversion of what science is supposed to be about.
The perversion is mostly yours. You are creating a straw man to attack.

In all cases, if you are an atheist, your atheism is simply your personal belief, which is not based on any science, reason or logic.
Wrong.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
It is based on science AND personal belief. Logic and math produces statistics. The physical evidence does not support ANY god at all and prove the non-existence of most. Thus the odds any random god existing are low.

You are the one not using reason.

If your belief WERE based on such things, then you would be an agnostic, for the reasons I just described.
You would be preaching to the choir except I am pretty sure you are not Agnostic and thus being a bit of a hypocrite. It's those capitals again. And you really are wrong on the 'reason' argument. The odds are against any fully specifiable god existing. Only vaguely defined gods like the Deist god or Einstein's Initial Principle have any chance of actual existence and no god at all is needed to explain the Universe. Adding a god in has never explained anything since at that point the god needs explanation.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
, that, scientifically, God does not or cannot exist
Too bad. People have opinions on this and have expressed them far better than that straw man you are waving the wind. Heck I have done better than you and I am Agnostic.

Again, it is one thing to have a personal belief but it is quite another to state something with scientific certainty when,
Please show where that has been done. You are creating a straw man.

So, scientists cannot be atheists.
Oh bullshit. Since scientists are OFTEN actual Atheists and not the usual Agnostics or near Agnostics labeled as Atheists it is quite clear that Atheists can be scientists.

Just because some narrow minded people here make a rather silly claim that scientist can't be religious that doesn't justify the bullshit masquerading as reason for your claim.>>
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
The greatest scientific mind of the last 133 years was Albert Einstein, we celebrated his birthday two days ago. In summing up his General Theory of Relativity with regard to the cosmology of the Universe, he CLEARLY stated that it is "a spherically closed finite system" governed by the Law of Conservation of Energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy incorporating everything scientists & engineers have established in Thermodynamics clearly establishes that "infinity" cannot exist within our spherically closed finite Universe, however it is clear a lot of people do not believe this. It takes a lot of "faith" to believe "infinity" can be squeezed into a "finite" space no matter what established science demonstrates via Conservation of Energy, thus said, "infinity" becomes your "god", because it requires a sincere belief in something supernatural for "infinity" to exist within the scientifically established structure of a finite universe.

Ethelred
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
So just what is your religion? Please note I gave mine and I bet you are not Agnostic despite your attempt to imply that. If you are Agnostic you need to develop your skills at avoiding religious thinking of that sort that produces capitalized general gods. Only specific gods should be capitalized.

Now another question is will you actually respond or was that the usual hit and run? A suspicion that you are just a hit and run poster may explain why no else replied to your post.

----------------------------------------------------

AAP
So if you're arguing plausibility then a supreme entity is the most IMPLAUSIBLE thing possible.
I gave you five but that is clearly hyperbolic not merely implausible. The most implausible thing on this site is that I might agree with Marjon on the Chicago Anti-School of Anti-Economics. It is possible. I could loose my mind and go insane.

Added to make this exactly 1000 characters because brevity is the last refuge of the humorless twit.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
There are other considerations why gods are the most implausible option possible. We tend to identify plausibility with Ockhams Razor. Gods are the complete opposite of a 'simple explanation'

The sentence 'god did it' may sound simple, but the complexity of a god-entity is mindboggeling. It's like saying: "Gnomes paint grass green" - while this is a very simple explanation of why grass is green it is also incredibly complex because it presupposes gnomes.

Not being able to prove a negative is NOT the same as "it's remotely possible and must therefore be considered as possibly valid"

As long as there is no positive or negative information either way on an issue it isn't an issue at all. THAT is what atheism is. Not an active disbelief in gods.

Coincidentally that is also how science works. Without testability/falsifiability it isn't (part of) science.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2012
In summing up his General Theory of Relativity with regard to the cosmology of the Universe, he CLEARLY stated that it is "a spherically closed finite system" governed by the Law of Conservation of Energy.
And since the theory itself does NOT require a closed universe why should we take his word on the Universe being closed?

The Law of Conservation of Energy incorporating everything scientists & engineers have established in Thermodynamics clearly establishes that "infinity" cannot exist within our spherically closed finite Universe
Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Singularities must have infinite density, if they exist, yet do not violate any laws of thermodynamics.

thus said, "infinity" becomes your "god", because it requires a sincere belief in something supernatural for "infinity" to exist
Nonsense, the universe does not have to be closed. The present evidence implies that it is open. It may be closed but we don't know that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
THAT is what atheism is. Not an active disbelief in gods.
That depends on the Atheist. MM O'Hare clearly had a VERY active disbelief in gods. Your idea is better fit with the word Agnostic.

Besides that silly Never Was An Atheist Atheist C. S. Lewis called himself an Atheist and that is enough reason to choose Agnostic.

Ethelred
peter09
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
In an infinite universe it is theoretically possible for anything to exist.

Therefore I could base my life around an infinite number of entities that demand that I acknowledge them in someway -> little green men in bowler hats on a planet far away.

I prefer to be more prosaic and limit my beliefs and behavior to that which has evidence for its existence. Things that have no evidence for existence therefore do not exist (despite being theoretically possible).

So I am an atheist.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
Besides that silly Never Was An Atheist Atheist C. S. Lewis called himself an Atheist and that is enough reason to choose Agnostic.

I dunno. Agnostics already entertain the idea of gods. I find that way too affirming. I'm not an agnostic on unicorns or gnomes or Froodelfums. Why should I be an agnostic on gods?

About infinities: Infinities are a model. The map is not the territory. Including infinities in a model is sometimes OK, because you only use the model where the infinities don't occur. At singularities the models we have break down. We don't know whether this is due to:
a) singularities actually not existing
b) other factors becoming important when you approach singularities (just like Relativity starts to matter when you get close to C - but not much before that)
c) there being a better model that actually works even at singularities
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
I dunno. Agnostics already entertain the idea of gods.
I do. Bullshit. Quit using Creationist definitions they make up to pretend there are more believers in the US than there are.

I'm not an agnostic on unicorns or gnomes or Froodelfums.
Except for the last there others should have evidence of their existence. Unless you meant to include rhinos or deformed goats. You will have to more specific about Froodefums before anyone can tell if they exist or not.

Why should I be an agnostic on gods?
Because that what your definition of Atheist actually described. Agnostics.

Perhaps you fudged on your definition and actually go by something else.

About infinities: Infinities are a model.
No. They are mathematical concept. One that comes up in some models. Such as every single version of QM I have ever seen.

The map is not the territory.
In this case its the Infinite Hotel and not a map or a territory. You need read up on infinite math.>>
bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2012
Boring. Red flags to a bull. Especially the predictable responses from you Ethelred. It just takes a bit of science vs religion and you repeat the same old mantra over and over. Not to say you are mistaken though maybe narrow minded and predictable. Why bother with the long diatribes? Just tell the fools to fuck off or is it important for you to re-educate and encourage this type of fruitless debate.

How do you feel?
or perhaps like the Vulcan Spock, you not understand the question.
bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
.. or maybe you are a paid agent of Physorg that encourages website traffic with your (scientific) zealotry. I dunno. Are you?
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
Unless you meant to include rhinos or deformed goats. You will have to more specific about Froodefums before anyone can tell if they exist or not.

Unicorns and gnomes are made up (as are Froodefums). However, unicorns and gnomes do have some history and are based on word of mouth stories (just like the bible which was written hundreds - and sometimes thousands - of years after the events depicted therein). Froodefums have existed for all of 1 hour (because I just made them up). How long ago something has been invented (or how many people beieve in it) should not matter in whether we accord it a status as an - even remotely/unlikley - creditable issue.

They are mathematical concept.

What exactly is the difference between a model and a mathematical concept used to describe reality?

The Infinite Hotel is not a real, physical entity. That concept does not try to model reality in any way.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
Including infinities in a model is sometimes OK, because you only use the model where the infinities don't occur.
Actually in all forms of QM they actually divide infinities by infinities and call it renormalization. Since it is involved in all particles in QM the model IS being used where the infinities occur.

At singularities the models we have break down.
Yeah those infinities are a problem too. Not for me but for some.

a) singularities actually not existing
That is like saying Froodelfums don't exist. You have to get more specific.

b) other factors becoming important when you approach singularities (just like Relativity starts to matter when you get close to C - but not much before that)
Relativity matters in the GPS system.>>
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
As for atheist/agnostic:

There are several definitions of atheism: Active disbelief (which is a belief in itself), or simply lack of belief.

Agnosticism is the stance where you say: "it hasn't yet been decided" or "it cannot be decided" - but it still acknowledges the issue.
(The first type of agnosticism also falls into the trap of thinking that a negative can be proven - so it's not really a logical stance to take)
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
c) there being a better model that actually works even at singularities
Can't happen for those that think infinities can't exist.

You left out the specification for a) that might actually have meaning. The Planck length may control the smallest possible volume and thus remove singularities from the QM infinities list. I don't think it makes renormalization go away though.

Unicorns and gnomes are made up (as are Froodefums).
No. Unicorns and gnomes are mythological and seem to have been influenced by misinterpretations of reality.

However, unicorns and gnomes do have some history and are based on word of mouth stories
See. You do know better.

Froodefums have existed for all of 1 hour (because I just made them up).
Ahh but you didn't say that.

How long ago something has been invented (or how many people beieve in it) should not matter in whether we accord it a status as an - even remotely/unlikley - creditable issue.
Where did I even imply that.>>
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
As for Santa ...
What we believe ... is true.

Or did you forget the joy and fantasy of being a young kid.

Go on, justify telling a 3 year old .. "no kid, Santa is just a rip off bullshit developed by a christian bunch of liars in cohorts with big business to increase consumption.

You would be one sick dickhead to even consider imposing such a concept on a child, enjoying the carefree days that we will never get again.

Kid says ... okay, does that mean i don't get my Buzz Light Year action toy cause thats not real.

Mean spirited shitheads you lot.

Sailing on my silver ship, way beyond the moon ...
(I sing as the boy goes to sleep happy with the belief)

Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
I said it had to be defined. NOW you have defined feagh as being something you made up.

What exactly is the difference between a model and a mathematical concept used to describe reality?
Something I understand and you don't. You have a problem with the idea that math is a princple behind reality and not a model. You can make a model with math. You can't make math with a model, you can only visualize it that way.

The Infinite Hotel is not a real, physical entity.
No shit? Its an EXAMPLE to help people get the principle that there isn't a limit to New=old 1 iterated forever.

That concept does not try to model reality in any way.
Of course not. Reality is dependent on mathematical principles not the other way around. Go ahead. Try and find something real that doesn't conform to mathematical principles.

--------------------

Blueballs

Piss off. If you can't contribute anything but insults go play with the other third graders.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2012
I said it had to be defined. NOW you have defined feagh as being something you made up.

What exactly is the difference between a model and a mathematical concept used to describe reality?
Something I understand and you don't. You have a problem with the idea that math is a princple behind reality and not a model. You can make a model with math. You can't make math with a model, you can only visualize it that way.

The Infinite Hotel is not a real, physical entity.
No shit? Its an EXAMPLE to help people get the principle that there isn't a limit to New=old 1 iterated forever.

That concept does not try to model reality in any way.
Of course not. Reality is dependent on mathematical principles not the other way around. Go ahead. Try and find something real that doesn't conform to mathematical principles.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
Out among the stars I sail,
Way beyond the moon
In my silver ship I sail
A dream that ended to soon
Now I know exactly who I am,
And what Im here for
And I will go sailing no more

All the things I thought Id be,
All the brave things Id done
Vanished like a snowflake,
With the rising of the sun
Never more to sail my ship,
Where no man has gone before
And I will go sailing no more

No it cant be true
I could fly if I wanted to
Like a bird in the sky,
I believe I can fly
Why Id fly

Clearly now, I will go sailing, no more
peter09
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
Clearly now, I will go sailing, no more.....
Yeah - take the blue pill ... welcome to the real world.

bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
@Ethelred

When you actually get a formal education the I'll accept your criticism. In the meantime your arrogant guesswork has no standing. You silly old man.

CardacianNeverid
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2012
Ethel or Deathclock or whatever you call yourself now, stop being such a sanctimonious old fart and quit spamming with consecutive posts which clarify nothing and which just dig a deeper hole for yourself. You're not a crank and you're not an idiot, but you're also not as smart as you think you are. Even blueTard has a point in his first response. Stand back and get some perspective.
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
I said it had to be defined. NOW you have defined feagh as being something you made up.

What exactly is the difference between a model and a mathematical concept used to describe reality?
Something I understand and you don't. You have a problem with the idea that math is a princple behind reality and not a model. You can make a model with math. You can't make math with a model, you can only visualize it that way.

The Infinite Hotel is not a real, physical entity.
No shit? Its an EXAMPLE to help people get the principle that there isn't a limit to New=old 1 iterated forever.

That concept does not try to model reality in any way.
Of course not. Reality is dependent on mathematical principles not the other way around. Go ahead. Try and find something real that doesn't conform to mathematical principles.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
@peter09

What? Take a pill and become a part of some Borg? My world is better than yours because i can believe in whatever i want.
Smell the roses.

Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2012
Agnosticism is the stance where you say: "it hasn't yet been decided" or "it cannot be decided" - but it still acknowledges the issue.
No. It is 'there is no evidence either way. That simple. There is no reason to believe. Nor to ACTIVELY, in the O'Hare sense, disbelieve. And Atheism aknowledges the issue by saying no. I say no evidence so who why believe. You say no evidence so disbelieve. There is a difference. I go on the evidence, where there is none there is nothing to decide. You decide. Without evidence.

(The first type of agnosticism also falls into the trap of thinking that a negative can be proven - so it's not really a logical stance to take)
That is pure fantasy on your part. Where the hell did you get that idea?

Ethelred
CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2012
Agnosticism is the stance where you say: "it hasn't yet been decided" or "it cannot be decided" - but it still acknowledges the issue.
No. It is 'there is no evidence either way. That simple. There is no reason to believe. Nor to ACTIVELY, in the O'Hare sense, disbelieve. And Atheism aknowledges the issue by saying no. I say no evidence so who why believe. You say no evidence so disbelieve. There is a difference. I go on the evidence, where there is none there is nothing to decide. You decide. Without evidence.

(The first type of agnosticism also falls into the trap of thinking that a negative can be proven - so it's not really a logical stance to take)
That is pure fantasy on your part. Where the hell did you get that idea?

Probably from thinking about the situation clearly and logically. Try it.
peter09
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
@peter09

What? Take a pill and become a part of some Borg? My world is better than yours because i can believe in whatever i want.
Smell the roses.



:-)

Some people we lock up for taking that stance on life.

But getting back to the issue - science has to have a consensus view, its no use allowing world views that are not demonstrable and repeatable and falsifiable into the agenda. Thats why religion cannot be part of science.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
Ethel or Deathclock or whatever you call yourself now,
Same thing I have for twelve years you utter ass.

stop being such a sanctimonious old fart
Stop being an idiot. Ohh that is a bit hard for you isn't it.

and quit spamming with consecutive posts which clarify nothing and which just dig a deeper hole for yourself.
Not my fault you didn't understand it.

You're not a crank and you're not an idiot, but you're also not as smart as you think you are.
You aren't smart to tell.

Even blueTard has a point in his first response.
No. He just doesn't like religious discussions and he likes to take it out on me.

Stand back and get some perspective.
Go learn what Agnostic means.

And what tit for tat means. You started this.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
When you actually get a formal education the I'll accept your criticism. In the meantime your arrogant guesswork has no standing. You silly old man.
I have one. I am not guessing on what Agnostic means and you can take your ad hominims and shove them.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
Can't happen for those that think infinities can't exist.

I'll let reality decide what can and can't exist. Belief has nothing to do with science.

Where did I even imply that.>>

Wghen yo just said that it makes a difference whether it has a mythology associated with it (and even speculated - umfounded - where such mythology came from)
What we believe ... is true.

So. Science isn't about truth, either. It's about what works. (It's easily demonstrable that science CANNOT conclusively find laws that are absolutely/undisputably true). Truth is an abstract concept.

idea that math is a princple behind reality and not a model.

Math is a tool. Nothing more. It is not an underlying force of nature. The babylonian way of science is a (much more cumbersome, but arguably much more precise) way of doing science. AND it does not require math

Reality does not depend on math. Math is just our (current) way of looking at reality. Nothing more (or less)

CardacianNeverid
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2012
Same thing I have for twelve years you utter ass -EthelDeathtard

So, not denying it...

Stop being an idiot. Ohh that is a bit hard for you isn't it -EthelDeathtard

What am I, rubber and you're glue? Moron.

Not my fault you didn't understand it -EthelDeathtard

I did. It's just that your position is myopic.

Go learn what Agnostic means -EthelDeathtard

I know what you want it to mean. It just so happens that I agree with AP's position and you're too rigid to see it, so you spew your usual tripe.

And what tit for tat means. You started this -EthelDeathtard

No, you stared it by downranking my posts in other threads as soon as I gave your posts here what they deserved here. Your huge ego could not deal, so you lashed out. But if you want MAD, that's fine, I don't care either way.

bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2012
Reality is dependent on mathematical principles not the other way around.
- Ethelred

Nominated for dumbest concept in 2012 in the physorg comments ... so far.
Onceler37
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Jesus said seek the truth for it will set you free. He meant question EVERYTHING. Question the Bible, everything that you are taught and form conclusions based on what your questioning has brouht.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Science isn't about truth, either. It's about what works.

What provides the salary for further research, being more specific. After all, the religion has been based on the same principle: it was maintained, until it generated a profit to their proponents.
Math is a tool. Nothing more. It is not an underlying force of nature.
Tell it to Max Tegmark, not me...
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
Among other things, then, the article is saying that having the Creator and manipulator of all reality make changes as He sees fit is "not rational". They automatically consign miracles to the realm of non-existence or "artefacts of ignorance". Without "disproving" a single one! Just like they automatcally insist "there is no God" without proof, and literally weasel around it by saying, "That's too big a statement to prove, so we are allowed to say it and claim it is proved true without having done so". They have none of them proved that the sun will definitely rise tomorrow, yet they plan for the next day! Not one astrophysicist or biologist or chemist in a thousand will vbe able to say they saw or understand the reason by pi is a transcendental number, but they believe it! In fact, the majority of what devotees of "science" defend they never really ever saw proved, they just believe when they are told to believe it!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
Science isn't about truth, either. It's about what works.

What provides the salary for further research,

For someone who writes on a computer (which is a result of a LOT of different areas of research coming together) that has to be the dumbest thing ever said.

Research produces things of value. Without it you'd be sitting in a cave not even knowing how to make a pointy stick.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
Research produces things of value. Without it you'd be sitting in a cave not even knowing how to make a pointy stick.
For example, the cold fusion research produces things of extreme value, yet it's ignored with mainstream science, because it threatens the existing job positions in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage. On the other hand, the clueless theories, which provide new positions and grants for scientific community are promoted heartily (string theory, search for Higgs or gravitational waves).

Of course the research produces the things of value, but it doesn't mean, we should resign to prioritization of research. The fact, the lawyers provide the ground for justice and politicians are necessary for governmental control doesn't mean, we shouldn't control their overpopulation and influence.

Michio Kaku: How physics got fat (and why we weed to sing for our supper)
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
You're barking uo the wrong tree. There is no such thing as 'mainstream science'.
There is scienec - and then there is stuff that pretends to be science (crank science)

Scientists have enough to do to get their work done without worrying about creating global conspiracies.

And what does cold fusion need grants for? I thought it already is demonstrable, has umpteen customers building huge powerplants and whatnot. According to you it's down to engineering. There are no science grants for engineering.

As to priorization: Those areas of research are prioritized that seem most promising (and LENR did get a lot of grant money until the stuff didn't deliver or even make some minimal advances...and if stuff doesn't deliver then it's stopped).
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
Can a scientist be religious?

Five words shed light on all the associations the human mind or brain has formed and acquired through existence and experience.

All of these associations are labeled by persons reading them and by people writing them.

The answer to the question is the sum of your existence and experience - your internal mental states and associations.

The parsimonious answer is yes and no.

The answer to the question is dictated by the amount of internal mental conflict that arises within you.

The answer associated with the least rise of conflict within you is the best answer for you.

Some strayed away from the article to resolve other conflicts others have with each other.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
Is it rational for a scientist to be religious?

Of course not: science is in the business to replace belief with fact, while religion is in the business to replace fact with belief. In that sense, religion isn't rational for any person.

The more interesting question is why a science site would publish opinion articles on religion, such as the pitiful accommodationism espoused here? They shouldn't do that.

And quoting a spurious religious text out of myriads like it as if it was anything else than fiction? That is beyond the pale, it is invidious execrable infamy.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
There is no such thing as 'mainstream science'. And what does cold fusion need grants for? There are no science grants for engineering.
Briefly speaking, the proponents of mainstream science have not only the ignorance, but whole the reasoning of this ignorance developed, which explains, why not to support the research of phenomena, which don't play well with their ideology - they're "crank science" or "too practical" for being supported officially (it doesn't prohibit them in calling for support of basic research with practical applications though).

The cold fusion fits both criterions. Actually the opponents of Galileo collected huge number of rationally sounding reasons, why not to support his findings. You can always find the reasoning of your stance. In Czech we have a proverb "It's is easy to find a stick to beat a dog" which roughly means "Give a dog a bad name and hang him".
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
why not to support the research of phenomena, which don't play well with their ideology

Someone else already posted a long list of creditable institutions that did investigate LENR phenomena. Several universities, NASA and the DoE gave it a go (and money). What more do you want?

They didn't find anything so they stopped. Or what would you prefer? That you draw up the conclusions that they SHOULD find before they even investigate?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
Someone else already posted a long list of creditable institutions that did investigate LENR phenomena.
Peer-reviewed publications are still missing. First documented evidence of cold fusion of hydrogen and nickel is fifty years old. Was it ever checked in peer-reviewed press? Nope - the scientists can be as ignorant as the Holy Church proponents, when some finding could threat their existing research positions. Do you still believe in scientific inquisitiveness?

http://www.ecatpl...gen-LENR
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
Re: Torbjorn Larsson

Is it rational for a scientist to be religious? - TL


You are simply listening to a person - Dr. Robert Asher - talking to himself.

Simply psychoanalysis maps the landscape of conflict and/or resolve going on within the author of the posted article.

Everyone attempts or resolves (the author uses the word "reconcile") "incompatibilities" daily.

Dr. Robert Asher attempts to minimize the conflicts of his associations. Abandoning religious beliefs are options that create additional conflicts within this person.

...religion isn't rational for any person. - TL


Belief is rational. A belief 'morphs' or becomes religious when abandoning that belief is no longer an option.

...science is in the business to replace belief with fact, while religion is in the business to replace fact with belief. - TL


Our existence and experience is 'in the business' to make all facts obsolete or supersede them.

cont...
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
cont...

A 'belief' about 'facts' is when 'facts' are obsolete or superseded, you can abandon them.

No religion will ask you to abandon their beliefs.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
Peer-reviewed publications are still missing.

It's pretty common not to publish if you don't find anything.

But to refresh your memory: Pons and Fleischmann DID publish in a peer reviewed journal (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry).

And if it works then you don't need to publish - just build the damn thing and sell it. Plenty of inventions out there that have made big bucks and changed the world without being published in scientific journals first.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
It's pretty common not to publish if you don't find anything.
This is just another apparent lie and attempt for application of double standard. For example, recently the negative result in confirmation of superluminal neutrino speed from ICARUS experiment has been published. Why not the negative result about cold fusion?

Because it would serve as an evidence of ignorant attitude of cold fusion later. The community of physicists knows very well, that the cold fusion is working - so it's more advantageous to simply play a dead bug for not to threat the existing job places in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage, which would become useless and obsolete with introduction of cold fusion soon.

It's another evidence of parasitic attitude of proponents of mainstream physics and the lack of their responsibility for further evolution of human civilization as a whole. These guys do care just about their own jobs, grants and salaries.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
Pons and Fleischmann DID publish in a peer reviewed journal (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry)
And so? Piantelli and Focardi have their works published at official journal of Italian Academy of Science. But this is not what I'm asking for by now - I'm interested, where and when the independent peer-reviewed confirmation of these findings was published. The community of physicists knows very well, that the cold fusion is working - so it's more advantageous for them to simply play a dead bug for not to threat the existing job positions in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage, which would become useless and obsolete with introduction of cold fusion soon.

It's another evidence of parasitic attitude of proponents of mainstream physics and the lack of their responsibility for further evolution of human civilization as a whole. These guys do care just about their own jobs, grants and salaries.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
And if it works then you don't need to publish - just build the damn thing and sell it. Plenty of inventions out there that have made big bucks and changed the world without being published in scientific journals first.
After then we should stop the publishing of pile of BS about string theory, gravitational waves and Higgs boson research and simply wait for commercial products based on these things - or not?

If it sounds like utter nonsense for you, then we should ask, why proponents of mainstream physics like you are trying to apply the double standards into basic research of could fusion and another areas. The answer is, because it would enable them to ignore the cold fusion findings completely, because it's more advantageous for them to simply play a dead bugs for not to threat the existing job positions in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage, which would become useless and obsolete with introduction of cold fusion soon.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
For example, recently the negative result in confirmation of superluminal neutrino speed from ICARUS experiment has been published. Why not the negative result about cold fusion?

As I said: It's pretty common not to publish if your experiments failed to produce results. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In the case of the OPERA experiment the people specifically requested that ngeative results be published.
In the case of LENR there were also negative results published in Science, Physical Review Letters and Physical Review C (nuclear physics)
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
The community of physicists knows very well, that the cold fusion is working

So you keep asserting. That doesn't make it true.

Don't you think any university would LOVE to be the first to get this out? Instant Nobel Prize. The university where Pons and Fleischmann worked even went so far as to issue a press release BEFORE the publication (a highly unusual step) in order to establish precedence and patenting rights. This is exactly the opposite behavior from someone who would want to keep this under wraps.

we should stop the publishing of pile of BS about string theory, gravitational waves and Higgs boson research and simply wait for commercial products based on these things

How does this even relate to ...anything?
Stuff like this is also not 'mainstream science' (stringtheory certainly isn't) so you have just argued against your own stance.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
The university where Pons and Fleischmann worked even went so far as to issue a press release BEFORE the publication
This story is known very well - it wasn't university, but Pons and Fleischmann himself to avoid the priority claim of Steven Jones. But palladium fusion is of practical importance, because of high cost of palladium. The nickel fusion was found in the nearly the same period - but this way of fusion is of high practical potential, so it was ignored in quiet.
Stuff like this is also not 'mainstream science'
You can tell it the string theorists...;-) Anyway, string theory got a public medial presentation in TV shows and books, whereas the cold fusion not.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
BTW Pons was fired from Utah university few months after announcing of cold fusion, which indicates well the actual stance of university to cold fusion research.

BTW Isn't symptomatic, I'm just the only here, who supports the cold fusion and all my posts about it are downvoted?
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
Anyway, string theory got a public medial presentation in TV shows and books, whereas the cold fusion not.

So? How is that an argument for...anything? And cold fusion DID get plenty of media coverage at the time.

This story is known very well - it wasn't university, but Pons and Fleischmann himself to avoid the priority claim of Steven Jones.

If wikipedia is to be believed then Fleischmann stated, quote:
"In an interview with 60 Minutes on April 19, 2009, Fleischmann said that the public announcement was the university's idea, and that he regretted doing it"

So it was NOT his idea.

You can tell it the string theorists
There's still an ongoingdebate whether string theory (in its current form) even classifies as science - since it cannot be falsified (it has free variables).

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012

I'm just the only here, who supports the cold fusion and all my posts about it are downvoted?

You're being downvoted because you drag cold fusion into every debate (and it is not relevant to any of the topics where you have brought it up - certainly not to "can scientists be religious")

People are just fed up with you spamming the comment sections into oblivion. Why don't you wait until there's an article on LENR on physorg and THEN post something relevant? Or go to a site that discuses LENR and contribute there? I'm certain your 'nisights' will be most welcome there (and your absence will be most welcome here)

Also you never post anything that adds to the proceedings. You only whine about how dreadfully mistreated/misunderstood you are. Maybe you're just wrong? Ever thought of that?
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
because you drag cold fusion into every debate
Of course - and what else do you expect, after all? With compare to cold fusion importance the most of basic research is quite marginal. We don't need the last fifty years of nuclear of astronomical research for anything useful. Not to say about mainstream theories. On the contrary, the ignorance of cold fusion has serious technological, geopolitical and environmental impact. Only cold fusion could prohibit the nuclear war with Iran and global energetic and financial crisis which has its origin in increasing price of fossil fuels. With compare to importance of cold fusion nearly every other research becomes a waste of public money by now. It just illustrates, how short-seeing and religious the mainstream community of physicists is. The ignorance of cold fusion perfectly fits the topic of this article from this perspective. http://www.examin...olocaust
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
Maybe you're just wrong? Ever thought of that?
And what if the whole community of physicists was wrong? Ever thought of that? http://www.wired...._pr.html
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
Of course - and what else do you expect, after all?

Debate about the subject at hand?
YOU think that cold fusion research is important (and some other people do, too, because there is still LENR research going on). Fine. Happy? But you're not in charge of telling people what to research (which is a good thing, too). So stop yapping.

Scientists are a whole lot smarter than you. They are smart enough to decide which areas of research hold promise and which ones don't. Your whining won't change any of their minds.

If you think you can make a contribution: Go be a scientist. Join one of the LENR groups. Win a obel Prize. Do.
But if you're unable to (because you are not smart enough) then quit crying about it. Or do you expect smart people to listen to dumb people? Why would you?

People here (some which have been or are scientists) have explained to you what being a scientist means. If you don't take their word for it then that's your problem.

Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
Scientists are a whole lot smarter than you. They are smart enough to decide which areas of research hold promise and which ones don't.
Why no attempt for cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel wasn't published in peer-reviewed press during last twenty years, after then? (with exception of Foccardi and Piantelli of course? If they're so smart, why they're attempted to replicate only experiments with expensive deuterium and palladium (which can be never significant from practical perspective)? Why they ignored the cheap nickel branch of research as a whole (although the finding of Piantelli is nearly as old, as the finding of Fleischman and Pons)?

Or is it just because they were smart enough to realize, such a research would really threat their own carrier in another areas?
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
BTW If physicists are so smart, why they're ignored the dense aether model of Oliver Lodge and its water surface analogies for one hundred years? Why they're ignored the findings of Podkletnov, Bedini, Prins, Tajmar and many others? BTW Do you believe, you're smart enough, when you're adhering on the same stance? Your arguments aren't very convincing for me. Do you believe, the scientists have smarter arguments?
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
There are few experiments, which do indicate clearly, there must be something on the cold fusion. The heat or tritium or neutron flux measurements may be crippled somehow, but I'm always looking for some visible, tangible evidence. As one such an evidence can serve for me this video from NAVAL cold fusion experiment. It demonstrates the "sparks" visible under thermocamera at the palladium electrode during electrolysis. It was eyeopening experiment for me. http://lenr-canr....akIR.wmv If such stuff is possible, then virtually everyting is possible and it has no meaning to cover it. Another evidence for me are the accidental reports of anomalous evolution of heat at the moment, when nobody did search for cold fusion or even had thought about it - so that the personal bias can be excluded. http://www.ecatpl...gen-LENR
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
Why no attempt for cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel wasn't published in peer-reviewed press during last twenty years, after then?

Because it doesn't work? Scientists tend to lay aside stuff that doesn't work after a while. It's no fun working on stuff that never produces any results.

Why they ignored the cheap nickel branch of research

As noted: People did try it. NASA did work with the Nickel cells. (Why do I have to tell you these things? You should be up to speed on who tried what!)

If physicists are so smart, why they're ignored the dense aether model

Because it's wrong? See above.

Do you believe, you're smart enough, when you're adhering on the same stance

I think they know what they are doing. I know how scientists work. Occasionally we bark up a wrong tree. It happens. No biggie. But if something turns out not to work you have to let it go after a while and turn to more promising stuff.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
It's no fun working on stuff that never produces any results.
Umm, it's just another attempt for application of double standard (the regular rest of my posts may follow here...). String theory or gravitational waves were studied forty years already - and where their results are? Apparently the physicists involved don't ask, where their results are, until their money are going. So why just this should be a problem at the case of cold fusion research?

After all, until scientists are payed from public money, they have nothing to ask. The grant agencies are their employer. The scientists failed in recognition, which research is really important and which not already, so they're not qualified and expected to ask about purpose of research anymore.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
NASA did work with the nickel cells. Why do I have to tell you these things?
Because it didn't publish anything about it - that's why. The crackpots aren't obliqued, if not allowed to publish in peer-reviewed press, after all, they do research for their own money. NASA is payed from mandatory fees, so it should always publish in peer-reviewed studies. If it didn't publish it, it simply did nothing relevant for it. After all, the only output of NASA regarding cold fusion at nickel is the public PR video and Mr. Zawodny patent, which is so general, it's effectively irrelevant.
Occasionally we bark up a wrong tree. It happens. No biggie.
The trivialization of scientific mistakes and ignorance is tolerable at the case of cheap abstract research, but not at the case of research, where every detector costs one billion dollars (like at the case of gravitational waves research), or at the case of cold fusion research, where every day of delay brings the lost of millions of dollars.
Kinedryl
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
It's no fun working on stuff that never produces any results.
So far the evolution of heat during cold fusion is irreproducibile often, but some effects can be observed regularly. For example, during electrolysis of palladium salts, the evolution of radioactive particles is detected regularly with CR-39 plastic detector.

http://www.newene...rt.shtml

Of course, only complete ignorant wouldn't study it, but this is exactly what the scientists did. They could use a much better and sensitive detectors for it, but they haven't used it. Anyway, when such tracks can be observed, then every claim, during electrolysis no nuclear reaction may occur is simply nonsense. These effects ARE reproducible, they WERE published at peer-reviewed press and their reproduction is very SIMPLE. They can serve as a starting point of every basic research of cold fusion for all trolls, who are convinced, no nuclear reaction can occur here.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2012
You may have noticed: The heyday of research into string theory is over (and there is precious little grant money currently going that way).

Gravitational waves are something we can actually look for. They are predicted by a theory which has a LOT of evidence to back it up (general relativity) and we already seem to have indirect evidence from the measurement of close binary systems. So this is worth following up on.

The scientists failed in recognition, which research is really important and which not already, so they're not qualified and expected to ask about purpose of research anymore.

So who is? Some dolt sitting in his momma's basement whining about how his pet conspiracy theory gets ignored?

Researchers make mistakes. String theory is possibly one of them. Cold fusion and aether theory definitely were mistakes. Get over it.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
Cold fusion and aether theory definitely were mistakes. Get over it.
The acceptance of aether theory would just save the money for billion dollars gravitational waves detectors, like this one. http://physicswor...ws/46027 But aether theory can not prohibit the further devastation of life environment and nuclear oil wars by itself - but the cold fusion can.

So I can tolerate the aether theory ignorance easily, but not the ignorance of cold fusion. After all, when cold fusion will be accepted, then the aether theory will be accepted with ease after then, because the layman public will just realize, how big trolls the mainstream physicists actually are.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
The scientists failed in recognition, which research is really important and which not already, so they're not qualified and expected to ask about purpose of research anymore.

So who is? Some dolt sitting in his momma's basement whining about how his pet conspiracy theory gets ignored?

Researchers make mistakes. String theory is possibly one of them. Cold fusion and aether theory definitely were mistakes. Get over it.
Naw AA calypso is right - cold fusion in certain forms has been replicated, confirmed, patented by NASA, and awaiting further development. He is also right - you should update your knowledge of recent developments.

"Please point your seach engines toward "Widom and Larsen" and "Ultra Low Momentum neutrons" being generated on metallic hydride Surfaces; There really is a reaction, that may be very interesting to future research associates."
http://www.physic...040.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2012
And the navy HAS published.

"U.S. Navy researchers at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, have been studying cold fusion since 1989. In 2002, they released a two-volume report, "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding. This and other published papers prompted the 2004 DOE review. In 2007, the Naval Research Laboratory published a literature review explaining why most researchers have usually been unable to replicate successful LENR experiments, saying that the loading ratio of gas to metal was the most crucial aspect, which can be affected by metal properties, cell configuration, and the experimental protocols."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2012
Being silly and uninformed still doesn't mean being religious - but it indeed helps a lot...
Ryan1981
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2012
There is no proof that god doesn't exist, therefore a true scientist will always take into account the possibility that god exists.

There is no proof that Santa Clause doesn't exist, therefore a true scientist will always take into account the possibility that Santa Clause exists.

See how that doesn't make any sense? Scientists do NOT have to take into account things for which NO evidence has been forthcoming. That would be contrary to science. You only have to take something into account once evidence exists that hints that that something might be real.

God doesn't make any sense anyhow: He saves us from a hell he created in the first place? That make sense to anyone? How is it 'forgiving' if he's the one that puts forth the mode of punishment in the first place?


I disagree, no matter how unlikely, if you cannot disprove something you can't rule it out. That you simplify & ignore something for the sake of progress is only sensible.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2012
I disagree, no matter how unlikely, if you cannot disprove something you can't rule it out.

So every time you drop something you are never sure that unicorns didn't make you drop it?

There are an infinite number of things that you cannot rule out - but if you accord them any probability at all then you will always come to the conclusions that the finite number of things that you do rule IN (i.e. which have a finite, but high probability of being the real cause) are, by comparison to the inifinite unlikely events, teh vast minority.

So basically your type of 'logic' leads to: "Everything we think we know is false with high likelyhood and the real cause is extremely likley be one of the vast number of things which we deem excessively unlikely."

See how that doesn't make any sense?

Just making up stuff does not accord it probability. Just because you can think of something doesn't mean it can be real.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."
http://en.wikiquo...._P._Box

It is important to understand the known knowns, more important to understand the known unknowns and even more important to understand the unknown unknowns.