On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, Deekster <whatsmada...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd like to start something new. A new way of thinking. We have
> evolved and grown more intelligent, as allowed by God. But who, or
> rather what, is God. I would like to introduce that God our father is
> in fact the universe that we exist within. He is a large mass of
> swirling energy that has both a conscience and a self awareness.
Observer
What absolute superstitious crap.
He
> is our batteries. He sets in motion everything. And if he is a large
> mass of swirling energy and we are made in his image, we are small
> masses of energy. We exist within forms called humans. We are what
> are known as the soul.
Observer
There exists, not one solitary piece of scientifically verifiable
substantiating data, for either the existence of nor any action by a
god, a soul , anything spiritual, any metaphysical substance or being.
Why do you believe such crap?
Because if there is a large mass of energy
> that is trying to explain feelings or emotions to his children, than
> how could this powerful being teach his children? Because if we are
> small masses of energy without any physical limitations imposed upon
> us, how would we know what cold is? What sad is? Basically what any
> feeling or emotion is?
Observer
Emotions are the produce of fluctuating concentrations of endogenous
opiates (peptides) . Why do you want to make something mystical about
biological functions. Do you go into a prayerful trance when you take
a shit?
Our father wouldn't be able to explain it to
> us, he would have to let us experience it.
Observer
Stupid superstitious conjecture.
And in the process of
> creating children and showing them these things, he would test their
> strength. Not only a physical strength, but a strength of believing
> without proof.
Observer
Believing with out proof is the act of a very stupid person. Here is
how to extract usable information from your universe .
Scientific method
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A
scientific method consists of the collection of data through
observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,
identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other
methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses
as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test
these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to
dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider
domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent
structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups
of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the
conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased
interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to
document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are
available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing
other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to
reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows
statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be
established.
Introduction to scientific method
Since Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 965–1039), a pioneer of scientific
method, the emphasis has been on seeking truth:
The conjecture that "Light travels through transparent bodies in
straight lines only", was corroborated by Alhazen only after years of
effort. His demonstration of the conjecture was to place a straight
stick or a taut thread next to the light beam, to prove that light
travels in a straight line.
Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least
one thousand years. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of
method, however. As William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History
of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science
(1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in
scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on
experience alone; multiple steps are needed in scientific method,
ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.
In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific
method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense
of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to
you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state
an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is
true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to
disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2.
This error is called affirming the consequent.
This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years
ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo
(1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment)
in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1,
2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you
may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows
3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2,
deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.
Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of)
2. It can only falsify 2. (This is what Einstein meant when he said
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong.")
In the twentieth century, Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others found
that we need to consider our experiences more carefully, because our
experience may be biased, and that we need to be more exact when
describing our experiences. These considerations are discussed below.
Truth and belief
Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will
often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.
Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse'
image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted
as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows
otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the
ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed.
Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This
demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they
expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our
observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of
the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how
things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can
contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.
He would know just which one of his children, when put
> in a no win situation, would find him and do what was right. I give
> you planet earth.
You can stick your childish version of "planet earth" where the sun
don't shine.
The more you type the more completely stupid and unintelligible are
your statements .
Regards and bah humbug !
Psychonomist
