BS: Science (Again, still...)

Subject: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Jul 12 - 03:42 PM

I just saw this linked to on Facebook:

I Fucking Love Science!

Whatta hoot! I can see myself spending plenty hours looking around there.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jul 12 - 10:48 PM

Thanks Saul!

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 04:29 AM

LOL, tons of super stuff Saul. I really liked: "When you're down by the sea and an eel bites your knee, that's a Moray!"

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 05:16 AM

Nice site. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 07:28 AM

From the site, this delightful eulogy for the non religious:

"You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.

And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her eyes, that those photons created within her constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly. Amen."

-Aaron Freeman.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 07:37 AM

Well, if I can find the right physicist in advance, that's just what I'd like said at my funeral.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:47 AM

"You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy,"

Isn't that a perversion of the meaning and purpose of science? It certainly displays ignorance of the term "conservation of energy" and its meaning with respect to biological death.

I want my physicist's studying and teaching physics. There are plenty of arts majors with just enough high school physics to bullshit about science and to spew gobbledygook at funerals.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:50 AM

Oh it's just a bit of irony, Jack - not to be taken seriously. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: EBarnacle
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:14 AM

Yes, but the real problem is entropy, in which energy becomes passive and less useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:40 AM

I've been passive and less useful for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 12:32 PM

"Well, if I can find the right physicist in advance..."


I'm sure this one would have some interesting things to say. He ummmmm....'proves' the nature of God!

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 01:06 PM

Love the Just less organized!

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 02:49 PM

My point Wil Fly, which was made ironically is that I disagree with attempts to replace religion with science. Such efforts cheapen the meaning of science and strengthen the justification for religion. But if you feel the need to replace religion, use the arts. Use the arts because scientists are a rare and precious resource. Use the arts because religion uses the arts, not science, to inspire and educate.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 03:55 PM

And my point, Jack, is that there was no intention either in the original quotation or in my ironic response to it, to replace religion with science - 'twas just a light-hearted riff.

I don't feel the need to replace religion with anything - depending on how you interpret the word "replace". I've always personally felt that religion is a perversion and a nonsense which gets in the way of reason, and which - in its various manifestations - has caused more trouble in this world than anything else. I've felt that way since I was a child and nothing I've seen or heard of religion since then has ever prompted me to change that view.

On second thoughts, perhaps we could replace religion with common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 04:15 PM

Did I quote you when I criticized the "eulogy" Wil Fly?

No?

IMHO Replacing a preacher with a physicist is attempting to replacing religion with science. Asking a physicist to speak about the physics of your death is a waste of everyone's time.

You don't think so. That's cool.   You are entitled to your opinion.


Aaron Freeman (born June 8, 1956) is an American journalist, stand up comedian, author, cartoonist and blogger. Freeman was born in Kankakee, Illinois and is a longtime resident of the Chicago area. He is a convert to Judaism from Roman Catholicism.[1] He is married to artist Sharon Rozenzweig, with whom he collaborates on projects including the comic strip The Comic Torah.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 04:52 PM

Asking a physicist to speak about the physics of your death is a waste of everyone's time. You don't think so.

Jack - 'nuff said. I won't labour the joke (sigh).

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: GUEST,Paul
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 04:57 PM

Asking a physicist to speak about the physics of your death is a waste of everyone's time.

Well that's a clearly rational and well thought through viewpoint...

Have you anything of worth to say Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 06:09 PM

The quotation is either what Bobad says it is "From the site, this delightful eulogy for the non religious:" or it is an ironic argument for the need for religion.

If it is the former, I disagree with the premise. I have already voiced my concerns.

If it is the latter, why is it on a website with a whole bunch of pictures and slogans mocking religion? No one need answer this question. It is rhetorical.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 06:32 PM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4675953

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 06:34 PM

MICHELE NORRIS, host:

From a sport as a metaphor for physics, commentator Aaron Freeman takes us to physics seen in the context of spirituality.

AARON FREEMAN: I love that physics is so religious. Listening to these Nobel Prize winning ultra-materialists talk, you would think you were in church. Einstein spent half his life trying to prove that God doesn't play dice. Stephen Hawking says God not only plays dice but rolls them where we cannot see. And this is even after Niels Bohr told all them physicists to - and I quote - "stop telling God what to do."

More recently, physicist Leon Lederman wrote a whole book about the God particle. Is this a physics lab or a revival tent? Physics and Judaism definitely share ideas. For example, both embrace monocreationism, that our universe was created and remained animated by a single all-powerful thing.

Physicists call it the energy of the Big Bang. Rabbis say the power of God. But they agree that all existence, from Britney Spears's baby to Osama bin Laden's beard, is powered by that one phenomenon.

Physics and Judaism also have the same idea about the nature of God, which is -I don't know. A lot of us Jews don't even write out the word G-O-D. Instead we write G-dash-D, lest we delude ourselves that we have even the beginnings of an understanding of God's nature. Physicists are less comfortable with total ignorance but insist on it anyway.

Any proton pusher or beam jockey can show you beautiful math to explain what happened half a second after the Big Bang and paint you grand, elegant pictures of what has happened since. But the moment of the bang? The moment before it? There the mathematics crumbles. Equations deliver nonsense.

Physicists call their un-noble creator singularity. Both observant Jews and responsible physicists are required to behave with immense precision and like it or not, and they mostly don't, they must accept that God is not only stranger than they know, she is stranger than they can know.

Maybe that's why there are so physicists and so few Jews.

NORRIS: Aaron Freeman, writer and performer, lives in Chicago.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 21 Jul 12 - 07:02 AM

It is quoted from Aaron Freeman, who, being a convert to Judaism from Roman Catholicism, obviously tries to defend religion. Unfortunately, he seems to have read much and understood little about religion and even less about physics.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Jul 12 - 07:32 PM

According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly. Amen."

"You're just less orderly"--now, THAT is frightening!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 04:04 AM

"You're just less orderly"--now, THAT is frightening!

... and so it was meant. For our casual readers: "Less orderly" refers to the law of entropy. As JackTS puts it, the text is an "ironic argument for the need for religion". Freeman's message amounts to: "Physicists claim the heritage of religion, but would be unable to answer fundamental questions of humanity, whereas religion can do that to some degree, however modest."

Freeman is a satirical author rather than a philosopher, so we cannot expect a comprehensive treatise from him. Nevertheless, I think his satire misses the point entirely; he misunderstands the physicists' claims and, what is worse, the idea of religious funerals.

He shares these misunderstandings with many writers, pro or contra religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 06:57 AM

A physicist wants to know why it works - and might try to explain it at your funeral.

An engineer wants to know how it works - and might try to explain it at your funeral.

An economist wants to know how much it will cost to make it work - and might try to explain it at your funeral.

A philosopher wants to know if you want fries with it - no explanation required.

(or so "they" say.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 07:31 AM

"Nevertheless, I think his satire misses the point entirely; he misunderstands the physicists' claims and, what is worse, the idea of religious funerals."

I don't think that he misunderstands, physicists' claims. I think he understands the limits of physics and what physicists claim quite well.

Physics has nothing to say about the afterlife or the meaning of life. Counting photons which struck a man's face is of no consolation to a widow.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 11:42 AM

Jack, what I wrote about the perceived physicists' claim, I am particularly referring to the text you are quoting in your post of 20 Jul 12 - 06:34 PM. A physicist standing beside me right now confirms my impression that it is a misunderstanding, e.g. of the Big Bang theory.

"Physics has nothing to say about the afterlife or the meaning of life."

Agreed, and I do not know of any physicist claiming otherwise. On the other hand, anyone who wishes to speak about the Big Bang with any authority (including the late pope JPII, excluding me), should know at least as much about it as I do, preferably much more.

"Counting photons which struck a man's face is of no consolation to a widow."

That is the point Freeman makes. Since the text about the funeral is meant as a satire, it goes without saying that nobody of any sensibility would ever perform such a speech in serious, not even an atheism activist.

Now my criticism: Assume a stranger steps forward at a funeral and says "I have studied theology, and I am convinced that your husband will fly in heaven as an angel with a harp!" - would that be of any consolation to the widow, even if she believes it? (Sorry for the pun, but I can well understand that Will Fly would prefer the other variant, if there were no other choice.)

The true message of a religious funeral, no matter what is being preached, is the spirit of being united in mourning as a congregation and with many earlier generations. A (say) rabbi stands for this connection as a person and with his office, not with his individual wisdom. Freeman must know this; if he had fashioned his texts accordingly, he would not provide his opponents with such an easy target.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 01:19 PM

I think it needs to be said that "You're just less orderly" is an inaccurate statement; the truer proposition would be "The particles that made up your body and brain are less orderly". It may not have occurred to the author that not everyone believes they are nothing but particles.   There are many varying schools of thought which incorporate the notion that the core identity is not particulate in nature. This idea really riles hard-core physicists who, like the priests of old, would like their way to be universally accepted as the whole and only version of the universe and the existence of things and viewpoints. But this turned out not to be true for the papists, and it turned out not to be true for the brujitos and curanderas and voodoo men. I see no reason to assume it will prove to be true for materialists.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 03:47 PM

" I am particularly referring to the text you are quoting in your post of 20 Jul 12 - 06:34 PM. "

Sorry, I did not realize that. Hadn't given it much thought I only included that quote to show that Freeman has a tendency to speak tongue in cheek.   

"Physicists call their un-noble creator singularity. Both observant Jews and responsible physicists are required to behave with immense precision and like it or not, and they mostly don't, they must accept that God is not only stranger than they know, she is stranger than they can know." Implies that physicists think that the Big Bang is God. Of course they do not. But many describe it as a moment of creation. I saw Brian Greene and Neil DeGrasse Tyson do so yesterday on Dr. Greene's Nova series about "the fabric of the cosmos". By definition it is impossible to know the conditions contained within a singularity or in this case, The Singularity. Freeman appears to be saying that modern "observant Jews" consider their G-d to be equally unknowable. I find that God to be more comforting that the God described in Exodus telling Joshua to commit multiple acts of pillage and genocide.

As for the act of performing a funeral. I don't see discussions of what are essentially mathematically random acts of physics, like the play of photons and chemical decomposition nearly as comforting as the art associated with religion, art like this hymn.

In The Garden

I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses.
Refrain

And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.

He speaks, and the sound of His voice,
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,
And the melody that He gave to me
Within my heart is ringing.

Refrain

I'd stay in the garden with Him
Though the night around me be falling,
But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
His voice to me is calling.

Refrain

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 05:01 PM

"You're just less orderly"

I think he was saying this tongue in cheek as well. The human body constantly creates disorder by breathing, eating and excreting. The "order" it creates is, from a physics point of view, subjective. Even the processes of O2 and fats and sugars combining to become fat, flesh and bone represents an increase in entropy.

Subject: RE: BS: Science (Again, still...)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 06:17 PM

"You're just less orderly"
are the words of an imaginary, parodistic funeral speaker, whose attitude is to be denounced in a satircal manner. This part may pass as funny, in my opinion. --

To rephrase my point about funerals: statements of theology do not provide any consolation. The context of religion does, for those who live in it. This includes hymns and other rituals.