BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

I am uncertain whether you could say morality 'did' exist without religion - in the earliest days the two were so interwoven the question may not even be meaningful. However it is quite clear that today you can have morality without religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

One of the things I cannot forgive, which the major religions have imposed upon humankind, is misogyny. The reverberations of this attitude have continued over time until the present day, as they're deeply rooted in our culture (and many other cultures) and are proving very hard to eradicate.

How many potentially brilliant women scientists down the centuries have been excluded from contributing to our knowledge because they've been regarded as of inferior intelligence compared to men?

Even in the fifties and sixties, my grammar school was suggesting careers in nursing, teaching, typing and so on, but never research in any of the Science disciplines, or even a University course of any sort, for its female pupils.

I was lucky in that my parents always encouraged us to seek the highest education available, and didn't merely hand us a pinny and a book on baby care!

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:49 AM

Did morality exist without religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 02:29 AM

With some trepidation, I need to quote two bits of the Bible that I find relevant to this thread, because I think there is an important different between them. The scene for the first is that Jesus has been asked what is the greatest commandment and, according to Luke:

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'"

Now, this is often said to be a quotation from Deuteronomy, which says:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."


(Quotations over!)

But it isn't, quite. The New Testament version adds in an 'all your mind' that is not in the Old Testament version. Now, what does that mean? In my interpretation, that means we have to all our mental abilities to try to figure out what on earth all this is about. And that is in religion and science. And indeed in art and literature and every single thing that tells us anything about the world or each other. Someone who claims to be a Christian but denies science is, to my way of thinking, going against this greatest commandment.

Food for thought, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 11:59 PM

Steve Shaw says: Tell me where the uncertainties are in the Lord's Prayer, Joe, almost the chief mantra of Christianity.

Can't say I find any uncertainties in the Lord's Prayer, Steve. Can't say I find any certainties there, either. Creeds and catechisms have certainties - but to my mind, those certainties exist only within the belief system a person professes. The Nicene Creed is the telling of the story of the Christian people. It is inherently consistent, within the context of the Christian faith. But is it universally true? To my mind, no. It is more-or-less incomprehensible (and irrelevant) in other contexts.

I'm beginning to think that the word "believe" is of secondary importance in religious practice. Practicing faith is a way of life, not a subscription to a list of bullet points.

e.g., Was Mary a Virgin? Well, yeah, I say so because it's part of the story. But do I care whether she was a virgin or not? No, not at all. It just doesn't make any difference to me, one way or the other.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 10:03 AM

There is a story of a people that had an ancient tradition whereby all the adults assembled precisely after harvest at a holy site in the woods near their village and performed an ornate dance. This would assure that over the next year crops would thrive, weather would cooperate, trees bear fruit, babies be healthy and mothers alive; everyone knew that performing this rite would guarantee nothing but good.
Over time and displacement they forgot the precise timing of the dance but they knew where to go and the steps of the dance and the words of the incantation.
Over more time no one could be sure of the precise utterances of the prayer, so the dance proceeded with fewer words and more humming.
With the passage of decades they couldn't be sure of the exact holy place, but they were still pretty sure of the steps of the dance.
By modern times, their descendants can only say that there WAS a holy place, there WAS a magic chant, and that some kind of dance was performed, but the knowledge that this happened is all they have left.



In a similar parable, I recall a story about a teacher leading a group of very young students as refugees. As a means of keeping them together in the case that she won't survive to complete her task, she gives the kids a box and tells them that the box contains a vital message that MUST be delivered. Only when they arrive at their destination do they discover that the box is empty.

The Pope is disputing an atheist, and in exasperation tells him (fatuous Italian accent used to boost the humor) "You are like a blind man in a room with no light, searching for a black cat that isn't there!"
Exasperated atheist to the Pope: "NO! YOU are the blind man in the room with no light searching for a black cat that isn't there, but YOU FOUND IT!"

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 09:16 AM

It is an aside, but I recommend The Chrysalids as a book exploring that idea. Within it is a reference to a (fictitious) book called "Nicholson's Repentances" which always seems to me to be an attempt by scientists to pass some important genetic ideas down to later generations by casting it as religion. Your view may differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 08:44 AM

Even our modern bible has similar legends that were passed on from the Torah, Egyptians, Assyrians , Sumerians and earlier societies. Far Eastern religions relate to western legends to a lesser degree but there are similarities to be found. Mayan religions took a different path but do address catastrophe. Depending upon how ridiculous a religion can become, the man made failure of an emerging civilization can be assured. But in the absence of a viable science a religion can sometimes be the only lifeline to guide a civilization. An emerging science usually begins with looking up at the night sky. Ergo astronomy arises first.

So religion can be a saving grace in the darkest of times. -Steve-
Science can be a savior in the brightest of times.- DMcG-


Egyptians did a good job of passing down some technology but we are yet blind to the nuance and detail of their emerging science. We are more aware of Roman science yet we still have not determined some of their formulas for concrete.

So my point is; in times of great despair, Science is first to go,
but religion lives on for better or worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 07:37 AM

Donuel you make a very valid point. It is likely climate change has collapsed many societies or at the least severely stressed them.
https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/files/NRCabruptcc.pdf

1) the dark ages
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q2/211/groupE/andy.html (some interesting ideas)

2)The collapse of the Anasazi peoples of the American Southwest
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-changes-coincide/

3)The collapse of the Assyrian Empire

https://climatenewsnetwork.net/fall-of-ancient-civilization-offers-climate-warning/
Many other examples although they are contentious.

It is worth noting that pre agricultural societies could not store or trade with any success thus increasing their vulnerability. With no written records stories offered the only transmission medium for accumulated knowledge.

The research is ongoing and the links incomplete but I would suspect the link between climate change and abrupt ending of civilisations will be reinforced.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:47 AM

When civilizations collapse you're only left with religion to safekeep legendary principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:37 AM

I think of a Boeing contract to build a 777. There was a work stoppage to wait for parts. People were reassigned and the half built plane sat there for months. When the company tried to start the 777 work back up they ran into to problems trying to figure out exactly where they left off but without the original people on the job the plane eventually became a total loss and used for spare parts only.

A delay can cause immense setbacks. Kill JFK RFK and King and you will have a hundred years of social change setback. Interrupt two generations and you can get a 500 year setback. Interrupt 5 generations so no teachers are left and you may lose an entire civilization.
When you lose understanding and knowledge and try and start over the path to recovery may not exist.

An impact is all it takes as one of many set backs to end a civilization, particularly with electromagnetically stored digital information.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 05:44 AM

I'll second that; Live and learn , die and forget it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 04:15 AM

Tell me where the uncertainties are in the Lord's Prayer, Joe, almost the chief mantra of Christianity.

Good post, DMcG. I well remember that the bods at school who did best in maths exams were the ones who did their differential calculus mechanistically, who got good at jumping through hoops but with little understanding of the processes they were working through. I found the whole thing an obstacle course of incomprehensible concepts and steps, which is probably why I ended up being a biologist. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 04:12 AM

DMcG. You make a very valid point about knowledge and understanding. Some are lucky and understanding is concurrent with assimilation of knowledge. For lesser mortals, such as I, understanding can come very much later,or perhaps not at all.
   There are many events detailed in the Bible that present problems for acceptance.The Book of Enoch also presents problems. It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian groups.
I wonder just what Watchers and Nephelim are, and just what were those trips to heaven about? Is the old testament supposed to be purely allegorical? If literal there are some hair raising events require explanation? Ancient Indian texts can also provide descriptions of events that raise all sorts of interesting questions depending upon how you view them. Just how many levels of meaning are we supposed to dig through?
There are certainly an abundance of uncertainties to explore and the way modern science is structured any controversial view is labelled heresy long before any sort of grudging acceptance is seen,
Lord of the flies demonstrates very clearly what undisciplined groups are capable of.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 02:56 AM

Steve Shaw says: Religious belief leads to the teaching of certainties

Boy, that certainly hasn't been my experience. I think I'd reword it to Healthy religious belief leads to the exploration of uncertainties

Joe Offer, from the Unitarian Branch of the Catholic Church

P.S. another one of your posts left me strangely hungry for Camembert...

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 02:34 AM

Another distinction I think is worthh drawing is the distinction between knowledge and understanding. Knowledge accumulates over generations and once discovered understanding is no longer essential in science. Understanding, however, is an individual thing and my understanding dies with me. Sorry about that, but that's life.

I would say that science is primarily about collecting knowledge, whereas religion is primarily about that personal understanding. By way of explanation, please enjoy this equation of motion:

s = ut + 0.5*y²

When studying for what was 'O' level physics we dutifully learned this and the other equations of motions and could apply them as required. In 'A' level physics we covered other topics.

So, in my school at least, the knowledge of the equations mattered. No one ever tried to get us to understand the relationship between them. However that 0.5 and 2 leap out at a mathematician: that is a strong hint of a double integration. and sure enough, all the equations of motions are simple integrations of a constant acceleration.


That is the difference I draw between knowledge and understanding.

So, in at least some places, science teaching is pretty bad at teaching understanding, and the examination system does not help, because presence of knowledge is so much easier to detect than presence of understanding.

On the other hand, religion teaching is not just bad at teaching understanding, it is truly appalling, in my experience. Religion is often taught with exactly the things Steve was complaining of - a set of assertions and rules to be followed, with no attempt to develop an understanding. In many cases a request for explanation is met with a statement like 'This is a mystery: you are not meant to understand it.' And, since this has been the case for a long time, I found that my teachers didn't really have an understanding either.

My religious life - leaving aside the practical stuff like foodbanks etc - I see as a search for understanding, not a set of rules to follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 09:52 PM

BTW the great flood and an impact event does coincide with geological evidence. The Geologist who discovered this was also vilified for a lifetime until proven correct and was honored. Same ol story.

Coast to Coast isn't as entertaining as it used to be. That show evolved from a show by Long John Nebble.

I even did some late nite radio shows of mysteries on WHAM.
I ended up doing more debunking than 'bunking' :^/

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 09:29 PM

Iains, I Jot. I don't write for extreme clarity.
I write in outline form to fit in the box. A post will time out on me as a rule, besides I am too lazy to compose detailed essays for fun. As it is I am just a bit faster writer than Stephen Hawking was.

The minor disagreements in this thread are the 'not seeing the forest for the trees' type. I do not see angry religion vs science arguments. It is fun exploring the mysteries and conundrums of ancient wisdom and occurrences That correlate with modern scientific discoveries.

One of the most banal and insipid TV shows about ancient astronaut theories is actually quite beautiful when watched without sound. There are ancient ruins, archeology, archetecture, art and carvings.
I have concluded there is ancient wisdom we do not have and we have technology they did not have. Our rebuilding of civilizations took a different path or influence.

The Younger Dryer Comet impact did more damage to civilizations than the burning of the library in Alexandria. Older impacts that were a million years ago was too long ago to imprint itself on Human beings to my point of view.

If masonic lore taught anything about the archetecture of the ancient world I would still be a Mason. Instead they teach open mindedness and social evolution. If the Catholic church could explain how we knew the the features of an ice free Antarctica thousands of years ago I would be Catholic.

Mysteries do not give up their secrets easily. Science is what we have. But it sometimes occurs to me that the western world's concept of hearesy might have destroyed or secreted away valuable information of our deepest history. Science and religion could bolster each other.
When they do, wake me up for it will be a time of enlightenment.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 09:07 PM

Courtesy of Chris Smithers



Well, Eve told Adam
Snakes? I've had 'em!
Let's get outta here!
Go raise this family someplace outta town.

They left the garden just in time
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
And they finally settled down.

One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.

And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.

Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.

The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!

How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
But it's a cinch they didn't
Live on cakes and jam.

Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.

(Long guitar riff)

Well, Charlie Darwin looked so far
Into the way things are.
He caught a glimpse of God's
Unfolding plan.

God said: "I'll make some DNA"
They can use it any way they want
From paramecium
Right up to man."

"They'll have sex
And mixed up sections of their code
They'll have mutations...
The whole thing works like clockwork over time."

"I'll just sit back in the shade
While everyone gets laid.
That's what I call
Intelligent design."

Yeah, you and your cat named Felix,
Both wrapped up in that double helix,
Is what we call
Intelligent design

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 08:45 PM

Hmmmm. Iains. I don't want to get into a 'thing' about making you feel the object of abuse. Velikovsky was the object of - I'm not gonna call it abuse - but he managed to get a controversial book published by a reputable publisher and what was in the book was not science. I've had my say, above.

There is more out there than can possibly be true. There are well listened to radio shows that broadcast hours and hours of stories about extra terrestrials, ghost whisperers, time travelers, bible re-translators, and the show I'm thinking of, Coast-To-Coast, does a very clever thing in occasionally having a reputable scientist on board, or at least a science fiction movie critic. So I listen to it to get to sleep. They think Velikovsky and Von Danekin and other folks such as Tesla are oracles. And Tesla is included because he supposedly sent a U.S. ship through time. The very personable hosts of this radio show are quick to say that they don't personally endorse each and every speaker, but are in the business of giving everyone their say, a freedom of expression argument. It helps me get to sleep and entertains me, but I try not to confuse anything I hear on that show as akin to reality. Especially the nostrums that are the advertisers.

(I will avoid the politics I hear on the AM band, but I rarely hear anything akin to reality there, either).

There is more to say on the subject of religion and science, but I'm going to prepare that post carefully and not get it mixed in with the points I'm trying to make in this message.

I'm very much enjoying this thread and the folks in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 06:56 PM

Well you two certainly vie with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 06:54 PM

The only mention that I have made about Velikovsky is that he advocated catastrophism and was was treated in an abysmal fashion by the scientific community, who further conspired to prevent publication of his books, .
I have already quoted 170 major impact craters have been logged so far and it is estimated 90% of impact records are lost due to terrestrial dynamics. It is beyond dispute that these were catastrophic events.
Newton is praised for his work with apples, he also dabbled with alchemy
below a fairly rational discussion concerning uniformitarianism and catastrophism
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/25/uniformitarian-impact-craters-same-as-it-ever-was/

Same with all this magic-number guff that has been writ large here and which has severely degraded this thread.

Nothing magical at all about it, just cycles of increasing complexity, that may appear as magic to the ignorant that do not understand. Perhaps Donuel could explain with far greater clarity than I

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:54 PM

If people googled the esoteric number 43,200 they would get all sorts of junk. ~26,000 is the current accepted precession. Ancient cultures measured time differently but the span is the same. Like in religion some things have more than one name. I would heed to Iains on this one.
http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/precession.htm

The point is missed to dwell on a measurement like saying the Piri Reis map of Antarctica is a copy.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:46 PM

Thanks for reminding of Timaeus, Iains. I read a lot of Plato and Aristotle when I was about 12-14, because I was trying to get my head round some of the stuff I had been told in religion classes, but haven't read that particular one since. So I have just ordered a copy of several of Plato's works, including that one. However, since it is so long ago I don't think I will say much more, at least until I have re-read them.

More generally, though, the most relevant aspect of what the Greeks thought is the reason I was looking at it. Much of Christianity is described using Aristotlian philosophy. This is understandable because that approach was so dominant in western thinking through Aquinus and right up to the modern day. The slight drawback is that almost no one outside the Catholic Churches and its descendants uses Aristoltle at all; it has been superseded in medicine, in natural sciences and elsewhere, so it is no surprise it not the approach in philosophy either.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:45 PM

Even the Greeks agreed prcession was bound up in myth:
(Egyptian Priest) O Solon, Solon There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth

so said Plato, in The Timæus Dialogues, 360 BC

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:45 PM

Any two events that occur together make a coincidence. I had this chat here years ago with MGM Lion. Coincidences are all in the mind. I'll give you an example. I've just eaten the last piece of Camembert, neat. Just after swallowing it, my left foot itched. That has never happened before and will almost certainly never happen again (not least because I nearly always smear my Camembert on a Bath Oliver). Well what a coincidence it was then! But my characterisation of that as a coincidence is highly subjective, and anyone reading about it will either think I'm barking mad or be bored out of their minds. Earlier on today I was reading the paper with the radio on. I was reading the word "democrat" when the newsreader said the word "democrat" at precisely the same moment (we've all been there with those). A coincidence! But had the newsreader said "republican" or "royalist" at that instant, I'd either have thought that it had been a small coincidence or not a coincidence at all. Yet the democrat-democrat collision was no more or less likely than a democrat-republican or a democrat-royalist one (or, for that matter, a democrat-ANYTHING one). Reading deep things into coincidences is a waste of time. Meaningful coincidences are about as useful as meaningless coincidences. Nothing sinister going on there. Same with all this magic-number guff that has been writ large here and which has severely degraded this thread. I love talking about religion vs science (hello, Joe! :-) ), but the thread has fatally strayed from that into obscurantist nonsense about people who hardly deserved to be talked about.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:12 PM

Velikovsky was a Russian independent scholar who wrote a number of pseudoscientific books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular the US bestseller Worlds in Collision published in 1950. Earlier, he had played a role in the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, and was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. --from Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 01:05 PM

Care to point out the spseudo science in anything I have stated.
Precession is a fact
The numbers of precession incorporated in world wide myth is a fact
Impacts are a fact
That ancient civilisations were obsessed by planetary motion is a fact.
That these numbers were repeated in architecture such as Angkor Wat is a fact.
As I said before this level of detail is not needed to establish crop cycles and the 12 houses of the Zodiac merely make a convenient peg to remember significant numbers. Simply an aide-memoir,e no more, no less
Surely the question should be: Why did they think these larger numbers so important? I think we are a little complacent considering our dearth of knowledge of our past, and our certainty that myth does not hide another reality .

I think I am well qualified to distinguish between fairy tales, theories and established fact, and between peer reviewed articles in the scientific journals and the gutter press.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 11:59 AM

Your pseudo-science includes a snippet of science. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 11:48 AM

I detect a little confusion between numerology (fantasy land) and precession(Science)

There is nothing remarkable about a measuring system using a base of 12,
360 degrees in a circle, 12 pennies in a shiiling, etc. That the numbers have a meaning is obvious, they are constituents of the precessionary cycle. Though I will admit the 432000 has no obvious derivation.

400000 and 413000 have a explanation in the previous link.
There is a periodicity to extinction events that many accept but this is on a Ma timescale.
It is estimated that a 1 km or greater body collides with Earth about once every 0.5 million years. We have only catalogued a small fraction of the potentially hazardous bodies.(I cannot find any convincing literature for this)
As plotting NEOs is a relatively new underfunded science and our knowledge is still incomplete. I keep a very open mind on the subject.


https://www.space.com/41260-near-earth-asteroid-detection-video-nasa.html

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 10:45 AM

Precession is only one of numerous cycles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 10:45 AM

I am still very curious why ancient man had a preoccupation with precession and calculating ages.

I am curious why some modern humans continue to subscribe to numerology nonsense as if it means anything. robomatic had it right. This is the same kind of nonsense that made the rounds re: Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations (Lincoln was shot in a theater, his shooter was captured in a warehouse; Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his shooter hid in a theater . . . ) Coincidence is something humans notice because we function by recognizing patterns. But not all patterns mean anything. To use the number 432,000 and choose events where it is applied is pretty much random since there are many more occurrences of 432,000 that you chose to ignore because they DON'T fit the pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 09:59 AM

I thought the earth's precession fluctuated around 26,000 years. What units is the 43,200 in? (As my old physics teacher used to say "no units, no marks')

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 09:19 AM

Sometimes I have to poke the Steve bear. :^l

43,200 is half a precession wobble of the Earth. So we were able to measure such things in antiquity. This seems to be a global cultural phenomena to make these unintuitive measurements. However the Eastern religions (Hindu, Buddhism, Chinese, Taoism) seem much richer to me in describing other worldly intelligence in detail.

I have questions about the ancient Droppa and other 'coincidenies' we have seen in modern times for ourselves (NASA).

Polling shows that there is majority of people who share a belief in other worlds and intelliegence. If extraordinary evidence is ever made transparent I believe the worry about religious contradictions and push back is an imaginary Red Herring. So of course we would see exemplary agreement and disagreement, should we be so enlightened.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 06:52 AM

I think we simply have a different view, Steve. For me, that would not involve putting religion on the back burner at all. But I don't think there is much to be gained by exploring that further.


As far as the numerology things Iains raised, I think there is something of interest, but probably entirely different to the things Iains is talking about. There is something in human nature or experience that makes some numbers more significant than others: 2, 3, 7 and 12, for example. Given that, multiples and combinations are to be expected. But why those have such significance is something worth exploring (not that I do so here)


Take the zodiac for example. What we have in the night sky is, along the milky way, a pretty random collection of stars of varying brightness. It is an entirely human projection to pick out twelve constellations: it could have been 10, or 13 as easily. There is not a 12-ness inherently in the skies as far as I can tell. And this is reinforced by the differences in the Chinese and Western constellations. So the signs of the zodiac to me are not intereating in themselves but do say something about human nature at that 3,7,12 level.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:19 AM

"I don't think I am going out on too much of a limb to suggest they have that view of science as well and unlikely to look at the stars and say what more do you need."

That's exactly my point. Working scientists putting their beliefs on the back burner. But I know plenty of people, not necessarily working scientists but certainly people who are comfortable with science, who do just that. We're allowed some irrationality in our lives.

Donuel, don't patronise me please. You are a chap who makes little attempt to help us to process your obscurantism. That seems to be a deliberate effort to make you sound cleverer then you are. For that I'll give you E minus. Let your speech be yea yea, nay nay.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

I think you push "coincidence" a little far. But it gives the satisfaction of avoiding explanation for causality.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 07:54 PM

24 beers in a case;
24 hours in a day. . .
coincidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 01:40 PM

Donuel Our early solar system was chaotic but I doubt within the span of modern humans and folklore.
There is a body of thought that would beg to differ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event (I do not like using Wiki but it gives a very rapid overview. check the holocene events.


https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=_szhW6OZK6qCgAanhLLgDA&q=holocene+meteorite+impacts+scientific+papers&oq=holoc

Robomatic Velikovsky may have been a maverick, but not everything he postulated was entirely away with the fairies.I can appreciate your point of view but would suspect you might be guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This could be unfortunate because when their speciality is challenged many "scientists" have closed minds and tunnel vision. They also do not like their preconceived view of the world shaken and are far too resistant to change. In short they possess an arrogance and air of superiority arising from foundations of sand, because many know more and more about less and less. Increasingly teams of varied specialists are required to make any headway.
For example:A brief review of the literature on climate change shows a vast number of different specialities contributing. As you rightly show, Newton practised alchemy-does that mean we should disregard his contributions and have burned him as a witch/wizard? I am sure Einstein and Tesla probably had feet of clay, but no rationalperson would attempt to belittle their accomplishments(Einstein and Velikovsky actually met and communicated with each other)
I am still very curious why ancient man had a preoccupation with precession and calculating ages. The detail carried down the generations was far more than that needed to calculate the correct date to plant the cabbages.
"500 doors and 40 there are I ween, in Valhalla's walls; 800 fighters through each door fare, when to the war with the Wolf they go. "( 540 X 800 = 432,000)

In Babylonia, the ancient scribe Berossus wrote that mythical kings ruled before the Great Flood for a total 432,000 years.

In India, the Rigvida contains exactly 432,000 syllables. And although the calculation has created some confusion of late, the Vedic Kali Yuga (representing the current world age) is said to be comprised of 432,000 years.

On the other side of the globe, Mayan calendar units reprise the same precessional figures. For example: 1 tun (an astronomical year) = 360 days; 6 tuns = 2,160 days; 1 katun = 7200 days, 6 katuns = 43,200. The standard Mayan base of 20 (ours is 10) is arrived at by dividing 43,200 by 2,160.

72 years = the time it takes for the stars to shift 1 degree

30 degrees = one astrological age (a different zodiac constellation rises with the Sun every 2,160 years)

12 = the total number of zodiac signs or astrological ages. 12 times 2,160 = 25,920 years, or one full precession cycle

360 degrees = 12 X 30 degrees, or one full circuit through the zodiac constellations

Is the above merely simple mythology or are we missing something significant about these spans of time?

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 08:51 AM

Iains: I apologize for mis spelling your name before:

I fully endorse the argument that scientists can be every bit as dogmatic and resistant to new and good ideas as any other band of purported truth seekers. And science and scientists are continually perverted by those in power. (I'm currently reading an interesting book called "The man who stalked Einstein") There is nothing wrong with researching anthropological evidence, myths, historical records and coordinating them with known astronomical events. That don't make Velikovsky and his ilk science. Check out the Wikipedia entry on his book.

Many years ago my brother was going over his math homework with our father who was objecting to his reasoning. "But," my bro said, "I got the right answer!" Dad wrote down:
2=3
3=2
_____
5=5

and said: "There! I got the right answer!" Dad had continual problems getting his work published due to just this kind of resistance to differing ideas.

But new ideas are like the radiation that alters our genetic material. Most of them are not getting us there. For every Galileo or Newton there are many more Alex Jones. Used to be to disseminate new ideas you needed a publisher (or a mimeo machine, 'member those?). Now all you need is 'access' to the web.

Real scientists were aghast that Velikovsky got to a reputable publisher. More recently a doctor got to a reputable British journal and linked vaccinations to autism. He has since been debunked but the perverted science has got to every level of authorityh in the land, White House included.


I don't expect to convert you. And I don't think you are unintelligent. I think at this point we might agree though that this stuff matters.


I return to humility. My father pretty much idolized Sir Isaac Newton, as do I. But if you know much about Sir Isaac, you know that while being one of the great all time geniuses, he also spent a great deal of time and effort on occult studies

There used to be a room at The Babson Institute near Boston devoted to Newton and his works. I'm not sure the material is still actually there but there is a collection of 'Newtonia'
associated with Sir Isaac that I think included some of the lesser known aspects of this man. And they claim to have a scion of the Newton Apple Tree growing there.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 08:31 AM

Oh, I entirely agree, Sen. I think it focuses on Christianity purely because that was Draper and co's main environment. A proper study should not be be restricted European-Christian matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Senoufou
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 08:25 AM

I've had a brief look at that Wikipedia article DMcG, and assume that by 'religion' they are restricting their study to the Christian religion, and its various conflicts against heresy.

I feel one must also consider Islam, since it has a rather different attitude to scientific research and learning.

For example, the ancient University of Cairo, Al-Azhar was founded in 975AD, and therein Philosophy was studied, and later Astronomy, even Chemistry, Zoology and of course Mathematics. Many Muslims developed a love of Mathematics and Science and were encouraged to do so, not threatened with accusations of apostasy or heresy.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 07:37 AM

For those interested The Wikipedia article on the thesis that religion and science are in conflict is worth reading, since it covers the historical origins and subsequent developments.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 07:19 AM

Religious belief leads to the teaching of certainties, in extreme cases requiring you to accept them without demur, and this staunches the natural curiosity that leads to that never-ending enquiry. You may delude yourself into thinking that theological enquiry is just as valid, but if that's what you think you're living in a bubble that doesn't admit real evidence. You look to the stars in the heavens and say, what more do you need. Well to me that will never do

Remember at this symposium we are talking about research scientists at CERN who happen also to be religious. I don't think I am going out on too much of a limb to suggest they have that view of science as well and unlikely to look at the stars and say what more do you need.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

Well heck robo my mom only went to high school with Dick Van Dyke :^/

Even a blind Vielikovsky can find a truffle now and then.
Our early solar system was chaotic but I doubt within the span of modern humans and folklore.
The other debate back then was about an open or closed universe.

Your posts are hitting home runs. :^O

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Iains
Date: 06 Nov 18 - 04:50 AM

Robomatic you could be responded to on many levels, but I will try to be very brief.
1)Conventional geology adheres to the priciple of Uniformitarianism whereas Velikovsky advocated catastrophism. The extinction of the dinosaurs was a catastrophe, as was the formation of the Witswaterand by the Vredefort impact crater. There are roughly 170 major impact structures recognised and in the deep ocean no one knows.
The science is overwhelming that catastrophes do occur. The presence of craters, nano diamonds and the shocked quartz varieties of coesite and stishovite supports the view impacts were responsible.
So on that score Velikovsky was ahead of his time. He was ridiculed for both the events and the causative agent. It seems meteorites were responsible, not planets(I hesitate to be too emphatic about that because smug certainty can be later disproved)

2)Hamlets Mill, An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend ,is a nonfiction work of history and comparative mythology, particularly the subfield of archaeoastronomy
It is also a very thought provoking book. A partial summary would say that it makes the case that Ancient man had a fixation on the Heavens, and especially the Zodiac. Certain numbers concerning periodicity crop up in many myths worldwide and are repeated in architecture of ancient sites.. Why would so much time be wasted tracking precession. Why so many stories about world ages. Did they know something about periodicity that we do not? After all the oort cloud can slingshot nasty surprises into potential earth crossing orbits.
3)Alexander Thom an Oxford engineering professor was ridiculed for insisting sites such as Stonehenge were laid out with high precision, by use of a megalithic yard. The precision is accepted(now) but the megalithic yard is still disputed.
4)Conventional archeology seems very straitjacketed and unable to accept new Ideas. For me it was beautifully summed up by the BBC program Timeteam. Each time an object was found that they could not explain it was automatically labelled a ritual object.
5)People such as Velikovsky, Von Daniken and Graham Hancock are vital.
They challenge the existing paradigm and make all manner of embarrassing challenges. That is healthy. Unfortunately peer pressure makes cowards and funding can make science political.
Science from the left field, not surprisingly, is very sinister and academics automatically reject it, often without even studying the supporting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 09:40 PM

Iaians:

Funny you should bring up Velikovsky. My father was an honest-to-God real scientist and he was on the side of the scientific community on that one. Because "Worlds in Collision" was not science. It was no different than 'revealed truth' i.e. a new chapter of the bible or an astrological tract. It was attacked because it was being represented as a valid scientific theory which it was not. It was the equivalent of representing Creationism as Creation 'Science' which it is not, or putting it on a debating par with Darwinian evolution.

To quote Richard Feynman (who was in high school with my mother) "I know how hard it is to know something." [Cripes I'm beginning to sound like Donuel!]

Now, on the off chance that you confused Velikovsky's book with my reference to "The Day The Earth Stood Still", they are entirely different. "The Day The Earth Stood Still" is a science fiction movie based on an earlier short story called "Return of the Master." In the movie an alien of very human appearance lands a space ship in Washington D.C. and demands to talk to all of Earth's leaders. He is greeted with fear and hostility but he has a robot companion, "Gort" by name, who has the potential to be a Galactic enforcer. How the human appearing "Klaatu" can convince humans of his identity and importance, and what happens is a piece of good story-telling, yet a very simple tale as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 08:14 PM

Starting with your first sentence I find the opposite is true due to status quo pressures and peer acceptance. Second: Science is a Philosophy.
Science is not based on 'never accepting proof'. Or maybe you meant the opposite again. The rest is obvious and ends with a cute sci fi homage.
If I were to grade your essay I would give it a C and your construction an A-.

You have editorialized about my writing so I now respond.

I write in idea packets (that can be expanded upon) but you are not saying what you think you are saying in my view. On the surface perimeter you do say it well, but its fluffy. Or are you having a go?

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 07:18 PM

There is unavoidable conflict between science at the philosophical level, though not generally at the everyday level. That's what I was trying to say. Working scientists can cheerily get on without bringing their religious beliefs into the fray. They can develop the drugs, the vaccines, the hardware and software, they can do the engineering in all the fields, yet go to Mass of a Sunday and see no conflict. But at the philosophical level the conflict is unalloyed. Science is all about unending enquiry, informed always by evidence and scepticism, and never accepting proof. Religious belief leads to the teaching of certainties, in extreme cases requiring you to accept them without demur, and this staunches the natural curiosity that leads to that never-ending enquiry. You may delude yourself into thinking that theological enquiry is just as valid, but if that's what you think you're living in a bubble that doesn't admit real evidence. You look to the stars in the heavens and say, what more do you need. Well to me that will never do. Explanations for the origin of everything that require the intelligent mind to eschew evidence and take on board explanations that themselves can't be explained, not ever, because of their concerted dismissal of the laws of physics, are irrational. Not that irrationality doesn't have its place. We're not Mr Spocks and some of us even support Liverpool FC. That's life the human way. No black, no white!

Subject: RE: BS: Symposium: Exemplary disagreement
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 05:37 PM

I am afraid I do find people disagreeing with each other without resorting to personal attacks is getting to be a surprise.

The joke is a good example of a variety of bathos, I think.