Unsurprisingly, you often enjoy pointing out that science cannot technically "prove" anything (to be fair, neither can anything else, though science does the best job), but then you will accept nothing less than absolute proof (which is impossible) in response to your completely ridiculous straw man claims. So tell us, how do you reconcile the fact that you quite frequently use technological and/or scientific advancements that rely on various theories, with the fact that you believe them to be "fairy tales", "myths" and the "religion of numerology"?
You might say that it could be the result of having various atheists and other non theists making demands for objective empirical evidence (proof) of the existence of God, while knowing that within the realm of science, that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Yet the demands are made. Just a little bit of tit for tat, one might say. Hey, in this temporal world with all of its secularization, a guy has to make a living doing something.... so I chose electronics. It is a very fascinating subject. Notice the word in emphasized text. "Possessing the power to charm or allure; captivating."
Are you seriously trying to suggest that because our numeral system was "invented" that it throws doubt on all scientific theories? Yes humans invented the numbers but that was to convey the concept of quantity. Numbers can be proven. Regardless what you call it, one, uno, ein, etc... the quantity and mathematical properties stay the same. 1+1 is always 2. ALWAYS. The square root of of 1 is always 1. This isn't some arbitrary or mystical process, this is math, the very basics of logic. Can you imagine combining two objects and coming up with 11 or 50 or a million? It is so illogical that it is ridiculous.
Once again, you demonstrate near total confusion regarding the actual meaning of the words you use. Theories never become facts. They explain facts. Theories, even if proven absolutely true, remain theories.
As usual, you are hopelessly confusing two completely different things. The atomic number and atomic weight are those two completely different things. The numbers for atomic weight are empirically derived. The numbers for atomic number are assigned after sorting elements by weight. Neither of these is an arbitrary process. The assignment of atomic number 1 to hydrogen had nothing to do with the number of protons or electrons it possesses. When the number was assigned, we didn't even know electrons or protons existed. It was assigned by sorting the known elements by weight and then numbering them. The fact that it later proved to correlate with the numbers of protons or electrons in the element simply explains why the elements sorted in that particular order. No more shocking than the gambling in Rick's Cafe was to Inspector Renault. Your feigned shock is merely tedious, particularly in the context of your continued confusion regarding what facts and theories are. And to you it would not have that appearance, which just goes to show that almost anyone will choose something to believe in regardless of the FACT that the thing believed in has not only not been 'proven,' but that has no evidence in its favor whatsoever. Ultimately, nothing can be proven. The best we can do is defend what we believe with evidence and reason. For at least the fifth time; they were empirically derived.
Except that in science, empirical evidence is not the same as "proof" (and before you present another straw man by pulling out a dictionary definition that equates the two, notice I said "in science"). If it were, then science actually could prove things. Atheists don't ask for proof, just evidence. Care to try again? You didn't really address the point. Maybe that was my fault for not being clear enough, but nevertheless... If atomic theory is not correct, how could there even be a field of electronics for which you can make a living? Or even more simply, the use of electricity itself?
This is a critical point, and it draws the bright line between science as a human enterprise versus all others. In spite of science's explicit axiom that all knowledge is tentative, we can be confident that it actually does incrementally approach truth because it works. It actually does manage to increase crop yields, to cure diseases, to place men into space and allow us to read each other's typed words across thousands of miles and at the speed of light. It is the single most successful, most productive, most pragmatic enterprise in all of human history.
I don't need to try again. But it seems that everyone who has attempted to refute my claim or even answer the original question, need some serious work on their reading comprehension. Imagination my dear friend... Imagination... if it were not for imagination, none of those nice little things would exist in the temporal societies.
You can be equally confident that ALL of those things proceeded from the mind of man. Right straight from the imagination of one man or group of men down through the ages, gathering a larger group of BELIEVERS in that imagination as time progressed. So it is with the atomic theory. (still called a theory). Derived from the imagination, and has not been able to show PROOF of that theory to this very day.
Of course, where else should ideas come from? Divine inspiration? Most Christians agree that we need to work in order to enjoy the fruits of our labor. That's as true for a farmer or a carpenter as it is for someone working mostly with his or her mind. It's been said a thousand times before that this simply isn't how science works, because we can never prove anything about the inner workings of nature. If you don't like atomic theory, it's your burden to show that it's wrong. Atomic theory makes very many predictions, which have been verified countless times. Your side, the ones who believe it's a load of crap, can merely show one verifiable flaw within the scope of atomic theory and the whole thing comes crumbling down. If you manage to find a better theory to replace atomic theory, you'll be famous and earn my respect. Accept the challenge, Incorporeal!
As I have said before, it is not a matter of my liking or disliking something (in this case, the atomic theory), but rather a matter of the fact that you nor any of the REAL scientists cannot prove that theory. Deal with it. As for the matter of your suggestion of "divine inspiration"????? Well, that is a suggestion that I will not arbitrarily discount due to its implications, but will give it serious consideration.. It would be closer to the truth than people running around thinking to themselves that they are what makes the world go round.... living in the world of self-delusion. Accept the challenge, Herby!
I've dealt with that a long time ago. I've accepted that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in life. I know that I know little, just like every other man or woman walking this earth. Whatever happens, be it by chance, due to fate, or according to God's plan, we all have to adapt and find our way in life. I don't make the world go round and neither does science. That ongoing endeavor helps me satisfy my curiosity though. If you aren't interested in knowing more about the physical world we share, that's your choice. I respect that, although I can't understand it. As for me, I will continue to sow the seed of curiosity wherever it's welcome. Many adults have lost their curiosity over time, but every once in a while, someone rediscovers it, just like her: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ1RU9UpzIA"]Discovery Retreats: Jennifer Ouellette on Curiosity - YouTube[/ame] Spreading curiosity may be a rather modest goal, but for me, it's a challenge worth taking.
Be curious. That is perfectly fine. I have no problem with curiosity, which is shown in the face of the questions I have asked about the numbers on the periodic table. Or for that matter, the numbers on the various weights and measures. Where did they come from? I am simply having a problem with people who are perfectly willing to allow their 'curiosity' to be satisfied with the answers given by people who at the time could not explain how they derived those numbers (relating the number 1 as the number of electrons and protons in a hydrogen atom). It cannot be declared that it was a matter of weight comparisons, because that only opens the door to questions pertaining to where those numbers on the various weights and measures came from. Where did the numbers come from?
No, this is a "game" and one that has been played on me before Rule one - put up some question - could be on anything Rule 2 discount all attempts to try and rationally put forth logical cognitive constructs that would under other circumstances educate the person asking the question rule 3 keep chaining the goal posts It ends up not unlike this [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpgVokQEchA"]The Catherine Tate Show-Lauren Cooper Periodic Table - YouTube[/ame]
No goal posts are being chained. The same question is still to be answered... Where did the numbers come from? It is a philosophical question of the nth degree, and which mandates the simplest assumption.
Let's say you're using the SI units. If you measure that something weighs (5±0.001)kg, you've compared it to the weight of the prototype kilogram in France and concluded that it's 5 times as heavy up to an error of 1g. That's how the real world works. It's really that simple. Every measurement in the real world is just an imperfect comparison. The definitions of the SI units have changed in history. For example, since 1967, the second is no longer based on the solar day. It has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html) There are two reasons to use an atomic property to measure time. It's constant up to a high precision and it can be measured with a high precision. Therefore, it's useful for precise comparisons, unlike the solar day, which keeps changing rather quickly. Nevertheless, we can determine that base unit of time only with a finite precision. *gasp* It's imperfect! I know, you're probably bored by now, Incorporeal. You want to tell me that I'm going off-topic. You want to say that this thread isn't about measuring things and comparisons, but some deeper truth. You may know by now that someone used the weight of the lightest known element as an alternate base unit of weight, while trying to get some order into the mess that chemistry was at the time, but you still dislike that amount of pragmatism. You might even believe that Mendeleev was already talking about nuclei surrounded by electrons, an assertion that he had no evidence for. That's the reason he never mentioned protons and electrons in his work-in-progress periodic table. The structure of the atom was explored decades later, when no one mentioned quarks and gluons either. The structure of the proton and neutron was explored much later. Instead of trying to find out what science really claims, you're still trying to drive home a point that numbers are a figment of our imagination. Mathematics IS completely man-made. Its various fields by themselves are completely arbitrary constructs. Due to nature, however, we've developed aspects of mathematics that are useful for describing the real world. Sure, they still aren't any more real than any other piece of mathematics we can come up with at any time with no use in the real world, but that doesn't diminish the success of the mathematical approach to nature. Instead of trying to find out more about particles and studying quantum mechanics to learn more about their often counter-intuitive properties, you keep complaining that science can't prove anything. I guess you aren't curious, Incorporeal. My practical advice to you is that you shouldn't reject everything but absolute certainty and perfection. You probably know that though. After all, you're still alive.
This is explains some of the psychology at work here http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/buyers-guide Unfortunately what we have here is one of the classic cases where the more we try to give a detailed explanation the more convinced the person becomes that it is all "made up"
Absolutely! What you describe in regard to your actions is that of 'rationalization' (the making of excuses). So, the more you rationalize, the less reason there is for me to believe what you are saying.
I did notice throughout your little testimony, you displayed a few instances of presumption, mixed with uncertainty, and even moving into the area of sheer speculation with regard to what you actually KNOW about me. All of those points, clearly tell me that you are actually attempting to convince me to abandon my beliefs and just casually accept what you are saying as the dogmatic truth. Yet at the same time, you lean toward admitting that the number system is purely imaginative, is inaccurate, and is subject to error. Not a very persuasive speech you have presented. In all of this, you still have not presented anything (including within your admission about the nature of the number system) of where those numbers came from. As for your little comment about 'pragmatism'.... How many pragmatic absolutes are there in the temporal world?
It's strange that you think that I'm trying to make you accept something as a dogmatic truth. After all, I keep writing about all the uncertainties we encounter in the real world. That's pretty much the opposite of dogmatic truth. My intention was to make you ponder about uncertainty. To set the record straight, I am saying: The number system is based on purely imaginative axioms and definitions. The resulting conclusions are precise and provable. When math is applied to the real world, measurements, which are subject to some degree of error, come into play. Since you've interpreted everything I've written so far as an effort to make you abandon your beliefs, I failed to spark any interest in the science content presented. I will abandon this thread now.
Exactly my point. "uncertainty" is the dogma that you are attempting to make me accept as a dogmatic truth. Why should I be willing to even consider 'uncertainty' when 'uncertainty' is not within the nature of my religious beliefs? "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ~Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity" Abandoning the thread is an indicator of being a quitter. "A quitter never wins and a winner never quits Napoleon Hill quotes (American author, 1883-1970)"
This quote is useless out of context. Here is a link to the actual paper (Scroll down to Geometry and Experience) http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7333/pg7333.html
I did exactly as you suggested, and saw nothing relative to the quote that I had made from Einstein. So, as the FACTS are, your suggested reading is totally out of context.
