Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13941 - 13960 of total 22697 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 28, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
cintune

I'll give you some ad hominem sh!t aszhole and it has nothing to do with this thread at all.

I'll give it to you since I have no reputation to protect.

Largo most likely does.

You're a fuking retarded dipshit moron period along with being a constant whiny crying little girl ......

Let's not get all emotional now Werner, I already know what you think about me, and you know I don't give a f*#k. Largo's a big alpha-dog, he can handle this. He wants me to ask questions, but we've already tried that and gotten nowhere, just more condescending more-enlightened-than-thou crap. Maybe jstan will have better luck, peer-to-peer so to speak.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 28, 2013 - 03:43pm PT
cintune

I don't think Largo's a big alpha-dog. He doesn't sound like one. My hypothesis is that Largo to a great extent is one of the jokes of John Long. Because often when Largo's no longer able to argue, he declares that what he wrote was a joke.
WBraun

climber
Mar 28, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
cintune = totally clueless projectionist
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 28, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
And WBraun says:

"cintune = totally clueless projectionist"

and:

"I'll give you some ad hominem sh!t aszhole and it has nothing to do with this thread at all.
I'll give it to you since I have no reputation to protect.
Largo most likely does.
You're a fuking retarded dipshit moron period along with being a constant whiny crying little girl ......
cintune = DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender"

Comment:

That was some pretty impressive whining from WBraun. So projection - I guess that's one of WBraun's skills.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 28, 2013 - 03:57pm PT
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 04:09pm PT
Because often when Largo's no longer able to argue, he declares that what he wrote was a joke.


Anytime I'm active on this thread it's because work is boring me or is real hard and I need constant breaks.

Marlow, you tøysete lisensdirektør, since when am I "no longer able to argue?"

My best fun here is to lampoon scientism, which fuels the whole thread as a favored-nation mode of inquiry, and to dethrone people who assume a "Top Fog" mentality by which they are going to inform the rest of us rubes the way things are. Such people should invariably be asking questions instead, and because they don't, they are the easiest marks for chiding. It's all fun.

Another fun pastime is to check the jackass notions people have about the experiential arts. If you ever meet someone who actually knows me, wu wu, fuzzy, belief driven, faith blinded, and navel staring are not things generally associated with my person. These persist because few have any formal exposure to long term esoteric studies, and can only assume they are hooked up with stardust and horsefeathers.

Again, none of these ideas come from people's experience, but if you're guarding the top dog position, it precludes you from asking a question ergo you can't learn anything.

Of course a top dog like Dawkins does not show up to learn or ask questions, he shows up to preach and lecture. Brilliant as Freyman was, even he couldn't see the borders of his own expertise, and tended to lampoon any information that lay outside of his own proscribed circle, often with inacurate caricatures.

When the tables are reversed, as I sometimes manage here, and the top dog is positioned as a yokel who is guessing, notice the guff. And yet people carry on with the most irrational and wonky notions, like DNA inventing itself, but over a long ass time, or self awareness jumping off the meat brain like a mirage off a hot desert.

It's been a wild ride.

JL
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
Time to take some shots at that easy target to ridicule, SCIENCE

NEW YORK — A huge international effort involving more than 100 institutions and genetic tests on 200,000 people has uncovered dozens of signposts in DNA that can help reveal further a person's risk for breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, scientists reported Wednesday.

It's the latest mega-collaboration to learn more about the intricate mechanisms that lead to cancer. And while the headway seems significant in many ways, the potential payoff for ordinary people is mostly this: Someday there may be genetic tests that help identify women with the most to gain from mammograms, and men who could benefit most from PSA tests and prostate biopsies.

And perhaps farther in the future these genetic clues might lead to new treatments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/genetic-markers-cancer-risk_n_2964287.html
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 28, 2013 - 05:20pm PT
I've been saying this for a year. It comes out in little spurts here and there. Perhaps the Oxy was feeling pretty good today..

You did take pain medicine, didn't you?

This is what I'm talking about:

My best fun here is to lampoon scientism

Go find your own oil.
jogill

climber
Colorado
Mar 28, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
At the risk of interrupting a charming dialogue between philosophical combatants, there is something else at play here: the limits of human imagination, and how they are extended from generation to generation. Our ancient ancestors, were they to observe a distant alien spaceship crossing the sky, would interpret what they saw in terms of their experiences and religious beliefs, describing a “chariot”, driven be a god, moving across the firmament.

Those in my generation are conditioned by at least two seemingly inviolable paradigms: the Law of the Excluded Middle, and Cause and Effect. We are so conditioned that a theory like the Big Bang elicits questions about “what came before?” In physics, particle/wave duality and similar conundrums that seem to fly in the face of the LEM are dealt with by new concepts like superpositioning and states somehow lying between traditional alternatives are described mathematically by probability distributions. Slowly we begin to relinquish the powerful hold these two principles have upon our imagination. And slowly we evolve, seeing and conceiving things we could not have perceived or explained before. Such is human progress.

In mathematics, ideas that once were entertained then discarded, now reappear in new formats and new models that are consistent if not complete. Newton and Leibnitz brought to fruition differential calculus based upon infinitesimal entities (Newton called his version “monads”) that seemed to defy arithmetic logic. These were abandoned by later generations, but revived in new and more complex structures by a handful of mathematicians over that last century – and now there is “non-standard analysis”, based upon the unimaginable: roughly speaking, if r is a “positive” infinitesimal then 0<r<1/n for all positive integers, n, and r+r=r. Calculus can be entirely structured upon these tiny mathematical particles.

And mathematics itself is rife with analogies and metaphors from the physical world – the cradle of incubation of the imagination. There are “fields”, ”domains”, “rings”, “fiber bundles”, “lattices”, “sheaves”, “spaces”, and many, many more. Even the word “function”, from its colloquial usage, fundamental to all of mathematics. (Leibnitz introduced the notation we now use for this concept)

In some ways religion is ahead of science in ignoring the two principles cited before. The Holy Trinity is a conception that reveals the “many” being the “one” somehow simultaneously. However, the mental image of the Christian God appearing as a wise old white-haired man hasn’t changed in millennia, even though founders stressed that He cannot be perceived by man and is unknowable – a view I endorse.

And what of JL's "no-thing?" Certainly here is an idea that is refreshingly free from the two principles. How does this relate to the separation and extinction of perceived identity attained by Zen practice? My experiences in the Art of Dreaming from years ago allowed what seemed to be a complete separation of "I-consciousness" and physical being, leaving the latter behind virtually indistinguishable from its physical evironment. Does Zen produce an experience that reverses this process?

Someone has cited the surge of intellectual prowess when in a trance state. My experiences are the opposite. I can recall trying to formulate then prove a theorem on my thesis back around 1970, then falling into a light sleep and dreaming a perfect solution. I recalled everything upon awakening, but when I wrote it down it was seriously flawed. Ten years later when immersed in the Art of Dreaming, I discovered I could look at printed words, as on a newspaper, but could not understand them.

And, yes, scientists do believe in something: the scientific method.

Pardon the rambling.


;>)
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2013 - 05:53pm PT
My best fun here is to lampoon scientism

yeah, I saw that John Long posted that too, Base

but why lampoon science?

John Long, why one might think that you are somehow threatened by science itself by saying that

science does not compete with or lampoon or ridicule the spiritual, your seeming focus, John

perhaps some individuals do, but certainly not the scientific method

so why not exclude science from your lampooning, and go after those people instead?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:35pm PT
^^^ Good. ^^^

Geology is highly quantitative on some levels and highly interpretive on others. All of my work now is interpretive, but I have to keep up on the quantitative work to improve the interpretation.

I basically unravel the relationships between sequences of sedimentary rocks, which requires the ability to think in terms of cubes, or 3 dimensions and how they change through time.

First I have to go into an area and sort out the basic stratigraphic framework. If you have driven through a road cut of layered rocks you get a tiny glimpse of this, but you only see it for a small distance. Many rocks do not outcrop anywhere, but are deeply buried and have been since they were deposited. To fuzz things up, you have chemical alteration of the rocks from various types of brines which have flowed through them over hundreds of millions of years. The geochemistry of diagenesis is a science apart.

I have been working a section of lower Mississippian rocks for 4 years now. Within that 200 foot thick section of rock I have found at least 5 sequences of deposition and erosion. Each cycle has its own depositional environment, or as you move laterally, it fits a sequence of rocks that are time correlated but not lithologically similar.

Think of today. The surface of the whole planet. Then put it under water and allow it to be covered by another sequence of sedimentary rocks. You will see that although the Permian sandstones near my house are time correlative with the outcrop of Precambrian granite 80 miles to the south, the entire surface is differing lithology, but the surface is the same age. We call this an unconformity. It is also a boundary for the next sequence of rocks that will cover it, partially or fully erode and get covered again and again. The nomenclature of the sequences is a little complicated, but the sequences are based on max flooding surfaces.

Very few rocks are correlative through both time and lithology. A layer of volcanic ash is a great example. Unfortunately a true timed layer doesn't exist in any of the areas that I work.

In its simplest sense it is the layer cake analogy. In the real world it is a mash of differing rocks. Understanding this, with a good background in the physical qualities of the rocks, one can unravel the puzzle. It is almost entirely in your head, although we do map things constantly.

It takes good recall and a lot of time and experience to do well. After I have sorted it all out it goes off to the geographic division and they do the detailed work on my model.

I do work on pricey software, but I don't need to use a calculator much these days. It is almost pure thought if you understand and keep up with the publications.

I can map repeating delta sequences stacked on top of each other, and there are many types and parts of deltas.

I don't even look at real rocks anymore. It is all done with geophysical logging tools. I can do qualitative analysis with logs, but I look at a hundred each day and I can see everything without the calculator at a glance. I should post some on here. They involve almost pure physics, but I can see things just like the guy who was watching the matrix in cascading lines of green code in the matrix.

The Earth has a damn fascinating history.

I had an idea today. I don't know if anyone has done it, or at least much of it, but I figured out a way to correlate sandstones with a trace mineral, which has hardy little crystals, and are also incredibly useful for dating granitic igneous rocks, whose quartz crystals survive weathering to become sandstone rich deltas, shorelines, fluvial and alluvial complexes, and other environments. We now call shales mudstones, but many of the shale gas reservoirs are so high in silica that they could be called a sandstone. They used to be pretty boring rocks, but now that they have great economic significance, a lot of work is going into them.

I could use it to figure out which direction sediment transport came from, and how many times the grains have been uplifted, eroded, and recycled into newer sandstones. You have to remember that the continental crust has done a lot of wandering around through time. The basic outline is well studied and understood, but there are fine details that haven't been worked yet. I know that this work is common in igneous rocks, but it should be interesting to try with sandstones.

When I hear somebody tell me that the Earth was created in 7 days, I could take them in hand and show them repeating alluvial fans which were shed northwards into the Anadarko Basin from the ancestral Wichita Mountains,..

Or I can just stick my face in my palm and shake my head.

It isn't all settled. There are always things to learn, but by the seventies we had the basic structure of the planet figured out.

What I do is unravel the distribution of rocks that are porous and potential hydrocarbon reservoirs.

OK. Here is a cool thing. The shallower Permian deposits over the entire Anadarko Basin including the shelf over central and SW Kansas, is covered with a salt layer over 1000 feet thick. Do you know how you get such a thick evaporate section? A long period where the basin was starved from any outlet to the ocean. For it to be 1000 feet thick, the basin must have been slowly subsiding throughout this time. Which we know because the entire Permian system has had the snot drilled out of it.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:42pm PT
Norton. If we did nothing but lampoon religion, which would be incredibly easy to do, we would be banned.

Science is based on what is real.

Largo's ideas are not based on what is real. They are based on how he is feeling.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
Do you use Earth Vision from Dynamic Graphics?

And/or ArcGIS from ESRI?


(i was one of their earliest users)
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:49pm PT
yeah Base

but when John Long says he delights in lampooning science, well that to me is the same as lampooning education, intellect, fact, truth

you don't piss in the wind or tug on superman's cape

and you don't denigrate the very "science" that improves your life all day long


go after individuals and return making fun of them, fine

but don't even think of mocking some of the best things on earth,...all possible by "science"

because there ain't nothing to mock


BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:54pm PT
Petrel, Geographix, and Petra. It is almost entirely industry built software. It gets updated every time a new seismic attribute gets discovered.

3D seismic is cool. You can see little river channels at 15,000 feet.

We like sandstones and porous limestones because those are the reservoir rocks. Hydrocarbons aren't found in caves very often. I've read about it, but it is incredibly rare.

You know the Wingate at Indian Creek? That would make a terrific oil reservoir rock. I bet it has over 20% available pore space and permeability up in the hundreds of millidarcy range. That is very permeable.

Oil shoots through a rock like that with no problem when it has a reservoir pressure of several thousand PSI. The wellbore, unless choked back, essentially is a sump with zero pressure, so the hydrocarbons migrate through that rock to the wellbore.

With many reservoirs you can only recover 10% of the oil in place.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 28, 2013 - 07:16pm PT
John Long, why one might think that you are somehow threatened by science itself by saying that

science does not compete with or lampoon or ridicule the spiritual, your seeming focus, John

perhaps some individuals do, but certainly not the scientific method

so why not exclude science from your lampooning, and go after those people instead?

Because scientific discoveries make religion look foolish.
Because the knowledge gained through science contradicts the bible.
Because he can't adapt to new information.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 28, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
I already demonstrated Largo's point about scientism when I said I didn't believe in the big bang theory. Just look where that went. Granted, there are theories that are very solidly proven, like evolution, but the big bang isn't one, yet was defended by people who didn't know a lot about it but were sure it would be impossible to challenge something so widely believed. The irony is, I think this is why most people follow religions. They were brought up that way by their parents and very few people they know would say they don't believe in God. The problem with religions is their extreme and excessive baggage. And, of course, their false promise of immortality and of a beneficient protector.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 07:25pm PT
Science is based on what is real.

Largo's ideas are not based on what is real. They are based on how he is feeling.


This is pretty clear evidence that BASE and the Malamuts of this thread never actually read anything, and note also, they never ask questions.

What lies beyond ideas. The way you have it, ideas are the top of he pyramid. And my ideas are generated through limbic blowback? Where did you ever drum that up, Gomer Pyle?

And what is "real?" Your meatbrain's representation of the external world? Your evaluating mind? A map which is NOT a mirror image of reality but which allows us to do predictions? Old rocks? And what might be an old rock to another life form?

And I have never ridiculed science. That's just plain dumb. Scientism and science are two totally different things. Scientism comes from a certain kind of thinking that is ingrained in our psyches - the same thinking that produces fundamentalist religious postures. The Sufis will tell you the very thinking that produced Jesus as God's "only begotten son" dreamed up a big bang that only happened once. These are all patterns. Reality is a slippery subject.

JL
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2013 - 07:27pm PT
And I have never ridiculed science.


but only said you delighted to "lampoon" it

same thing
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2013 - 07:38pm PT
Science is the authority now
Not religion nor feelings or what you thought you experienced
Messages 13941 - 13960 of total 22697 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews