The Big Bang Theory a Fairy Tale? So says presidential candidate Ben Carson....

[Bernie G]

You put me in a bad spot with this question, but honestly him because Hilary should be in jail for some of the things she has done. She is not a person anyone should look up to as a leader she just appeals to the liberals and feminist for votes. Ben Carson I can look up to a little but he is not the ideal candidate

I think if the country picks any lawyer for the next President we are screwed.

 

[William T]

"If science loses funding, I have a feeling it'll be more because of Reaganomics..." Do you mean big science funding like green energy, the manned space program, and a manned Mars mission?

Green energy for sure, because you know how conservatives are with global warming ;)

Essentially, all conservatives would want to decrease government spending, especially when the country's in debt. I'm not sure whether the scale of the project would make a difference. They go by the belief that less government spending + less taxes will allow corporations and businesses to flourish more, which will benefit the country more.

I'm not really sure about Hillary either. Aside from the whole email thing, she doesn't look competent enough to make any changes.

 

[Evo]

I'm not really sure about Hillary either. Aside from the whole email thing, she doesn't look competent enough to make any changes.

Hillary is the only one with Oval Office experience, that truly knows what the President has to do and know. This, IMO, is why so many Presidential candidates make so many promises that they cannot possibly keep, they do not understand what the President has to deal with and why he cannot do a lot of things. She does. I would feel comfortable with her.

 

[Evo]

I have a degree in theology, and am very familiar with all of the common Christian eschatological positions. The most popular is premillennialism. Neither it nor any of the other major positions call for hurrying up the end of the world by making war or initiating a nuclear attack. Christian fundamentalists are just as afraid of that as you are. It has been claimed that some Muslim beliefs call for that - so perhaps you equated the two - but they are very different. No orthodox Christian eschatological positions do. So you don't have to worry about that.

It just takes one nut with wacky beliefs. That's not saying they are representative of the majority.

 

[William T]

On the democrat side, I personally like Lawrence Lessig. It's a shame he only wants to be in there until he gets what he wants, then will quit his position as president.

 

[phinds]

On the democrat side, I personally like Lawrence Lessig. It's a shame he only wants to be in there until he gets what he wants, then will quit his position as president.

The proper grammar in this case is "... then would quit ... "

 

[Athanatsius]

It just takes one nut with wacky beliefs. That's not saying they are representative of the majority.

Yes, but there have also been naturalists who were nuts with wacky beliefs, such as Stalin and Mao. If any leader's philosophy or religion calls for warmongering, oppression or injustice to advance their cause, beware. Carson has never said anything to indicate that he is like that, and the religion he follows at its heart is strongly opposed to those very things.

 

[Evo]

Yes, but there have also been naturalists who were nuts with wacky beliefs, such as Stalin and Mao. If any leader's philosophy or religion calls for warmongering, oppression or injustice to advance their cause, beware. Carson has never said anything to indicate that he is like that, and the religion he follows at its heart is strongly opposed to those very things.

Christianity has a very violent history, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Jews, even the persecution of Catholics, the persecution of scientists, the witch hunts, but that's not what this thread is about, so let's move on.

 

[phinds]

Yes, but there have also been naturalists who were nuts with wacky beliefs, such as Stalin and Mao. If any leader's philosophy or religion calls for warmongering, oppression or injustice to advance their cause, beware. Carson has never said anything to indicate that he is like that, and the religion he follows at its heart is strongly opposed to those very things.

It is also strongly opposed to science, which is what this thread is about.

 

[hagar]

Evo said

Got to ask yourself 'what would keep you up at night"? E-mail is at the bottom of my list. Deliberate fraud that Fiorina is doing, that would keep me up, anti-science nut, that would keep me up, Trump, that would keep me up.[/QUOTE]

It sounds as if things don't go well you may need a doctor to prescribe a sedative. .:-) Only joking.

 

[William T]

The proper grammar in this case is "... then would quit ... "

Good catch.

 

[Ralph Dratman]

Hillary is the only one with Oval Office experience, that truly knows what the President has to do and know. This, IMO, is why so many Presidential candidates make so many promises that they cannot possibly keep, they do not understand what the President has to deal with and why he cannot do a lot of things. She does.

Between her experience in her husband's 1992-2000 presidency, her time in the Senate, and her stint as Secretary of State, I'd say she is the most experienced, best qualified candidate in my lifetime. Nothing and no one can guarantee what a person will do with the power of the US Presidency, but at least with Hillary we will not be electing a wild card.

 

[S.B]

I'm still amazed at how such an accomplished neurosurgeon can cling to such anti-science views.

absolutely surprising, and undoubtedly scary

 

[Derek Potter]

And here I was thinking that physics was safe from that sort of thing!

Why? The Big Bang has only escaped the worst attacks from creationists because they have been so busy attacking evolution instead. Neither the Big Bang nor evolution fits with six-day creation in 4004 BC. Since creationism spawned Intelligent Design in a failed attempt to get around the US prohibition on teaching religion in schools, one may expect something similar for cosmology. I solemnly predict the Teleological Argument will be dusted off and re-branded as Fine-Tuned Purpose. I hear the scratching of pencils across paper right now! It will be easier for them the second time round, but that's going to be balanced against the fact that they are going to have to grapple with some serious maths.

And, some time in the distant future, it will start all over again with quantum mechanics. Why not? Everything else does.

 

[Derek Potter]

The highest levels of organization, such as long strings of code organized into a semantic language, have only been observed to be produced by an intelligence at their point of origin. They have an extremely less probable distribution. So a meaningful organized state is an improbable, low entropy state. And the low entropy origin of our universe is a baffling question. (The second law demands that it must have originally been in a state of lower entropy than it is now. ) In light of that relationship, it's challenging to see how a simple singularity could be lower in entropy than the more highly organized universe we see today.

Simple is low entropy. The universe did start in an improbable state but it was not organized into a semantic language. The reason it is baffling is not that it was improbable - given a large enough ensemble anything will happen - but because even within an ensemble, small universes - Boltzmann Brains - will predominate over big ones and we don't live in one of those. Inflation gets rid of the Boltzmann Brains but only at the cost of a metastable false vacuum which would appear to be another way of saying "exceedingly improbable state".

 

[phinds]

When I say Christianity, i am speaking of those who truly follow the teachings of the founder of it. Those who perpetrated those terrible crimes did not do that, and so they were not true Christians, IMHO.

Sure. And Russian communism could hardly be said to truly have carried out the tenets of Marx. Theory is lovely but so what. We live in the real world. I don't judge either group on what they say or on what their philosophy says on paper, I judge them on what they DO. Christians DID do those things, whether you like it or not and modern American fundamentalists consider themselves deeply Christian but they believe in creationism and reject evolution. They believe the world is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 24-hour days. How is that not anti-science?

 

[ZapperZ]

When I say Christianity, i am speaking of those who truly follow the teachings of the founder of it. Those who perpetrated those terrible crimes did not do that, and so they were not true Christians, IMHO.

So who gets to decide who are the "true Christians"? You? Can we have a list of official true Christians, y'know, something opposite to the TSA's "No Fly" list?

Zz.

 

[gleem]

I don't think that Dr. Carson is anti science per se just that it has overstepped it bounds.

 

[phinds]

I don't think that Dr. Carson is anti science per se just that it has overstepped it bounds.

How is believing that the world was created in 6 24-hour days not anti-science?

 

[gleem]

In the same way that rejecting the creation of the universe in six days does not mean you are anti Christian.

 

[phinds]

In the same way that rejecting the creation of the universe in six days does not mean you are anti Christian.

Ah. Well, in my case, it does. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In the same way that rejecting the creation of the universe in six days does not mean you are anti Christian.

"anti-science" refers to the rejection of the scientific method as a reliable means of producing knowledge. Whilst it's technically true that holding a particular belief doesn't automatically make one anti-science in the case of evolution I find it hard to believe that anyone with strong feelings on it hasn't done a cursory look into it. Anyone who does and still believes creationism either doesn't understand what they've read or is rejecting the scientific method.

Given that we can safely assume that Dr Carson is intelligent enough to understand it does it not follow that he is anti-science?

 

[Derek Potter]

Ah. Well, in my case, it does. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Most of my Christian friends see six-day creationism as a stupid American phenomenon having nothing to do with following Christ.

 

[QST]

I used to work for the USAF, Systems Command, Avionics Division, Advanced Electronic Devices Branch which was doing basic research on space plasma and photosensitivity of various metal-oxide-metal sandwich receptors. My training was in Solid State Physics. Since that time I have studied much more on the side of particle physics, relativity and theoretical physics. I also understand where the conservatives are coming from. Consider this. If you study out the history of almost any new scientific discovery you will find that most of the time it takes years and years to get the scientific community to accept anything that seems contrary to what they thought they already knew. For decades scientists have presented things as absolute fact and then finally be forced to admit that they were wrong. This happens over and over again. The new theory is laughed at; the scientist is ridiculed. Much pressure is applied to dismiss the idea and the person. Even legal ways are used to attempt to keep the new theory from being discussed, especially in schools. These kinds of prejudiced thinking, gestapo tactics and downright bullying does not go over well with the non-scientific community. It causes a lack of trust. Scientists, of all people, need to be open-minded and tolerant of others' views. Prove your case with real science and logic. I am afraid that there are too many scientists who also live like they have "faith" in science and the educational system rather than coming to their conclusions from logical facts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm sure that Dr. Carson would tell you that he believes in the scientific method. He has published peer reviewed medical research papers. Believing that God created the universe does not mean that you reject the scientific method or that you are anti-science. Adhering to the philosophy of science known as methodological naturalism does not mean that you must reject God. It just means that for purposes of conducting science, you have chosen to act as if He does not exist - whether He actually does or not. Science bound by methodological naturalism is really powerless to explore the possibility of God's existence in an unbiased way, since it simply ignores Him, if He really does exist. You have to engage in other disciplines, or choose a different philosophy of science to explore that. And I think everyone should explore that, it you are really on a quest for truth.

We were specifically referring to creationism which (as with many religious tenets) makes very firm, testable beliefs about the world which can be confirmed or refuted with science. If you reject the science because it refutes your beliefs then you fill the definition of anti-science.

 

[Derek Potter]

Believing that God created the universe does not mean that you reject the scientific method or that you are anti-science. Adhering to the philosophy of science known as methodological naturalism does not mean that you must reject God. It just means that for purposes of conducting science, you have chosen to act as if He does not exist - whether He actually does or not. Science bound by methodological naturalism is really powerless to explore the possibility of God's existence in an unbiased way, since it simply ignores Him, if He really does exist. You have to engage in other disciplines, or choose a different philosophy of science to explore that. And I think everyone should explore that, it you are really on a quest for truth.

It's nothing to do with whether God exists. Without a Biblical story which can be interpreted as six-day creation, there would be no reason for creationism. Christians would say "Goddidit by the Big Bang and evolution", atheists would say "It just happened by the Big Bang and evolution" (I'm simplifying.) This is why the majority of Christians in the UK get along perfectly well with their non-Christian colleagues. (Not all of course.) Unfortunately creationists take the story literally and weave a "theory" around it, one which is eminently testable and falsifiable. And it has been falsified big time. :) The honorable thing would be to say "Oops! We were wrong!"

 

[ZapperZ]

I used to work for the USAF, Systems Command, Avionics Division, Advanced Electronic Devices Branch which was doing basic research on space plasma and photosensitivity of various metal-oxide-metal sandwich receptors. My training was in Solid State Physics. Since that time I have studied much more on the side of particle physics, relativity and theoretical physics. I also understand where the conservatives are coming from. Consider this. If you study out the history of almost any new scientific discovery you will find that most of the time it takes years and years to get the scientific community to accept anything that seems contrary to what they thought they already knew. For decades scientists have presented things as absolute fact and then finally be forced to admit that they were wrong. This happens over and over again. The new theory is laughed at; the scientist is ridiculed. Much pressure is applied to dismiss the idea and the person. Even legal ways are used to attempt to keep the new theory from being discussed, especially in schools. These kinds of prejudiced thinking, gestapo tactics and downright bullying does not go over well with the non-scientific community. It causes a lack of trust. Scientists, of all people, need to be open-minded and tolerant of others' views. Prove your case with real science and logic. I am afraid that there are too many scientists who also live like they have "faith" in science and the educational system rather than coming to their conclusions from logical facts.

But then, I will point to you the discovery of high Tc superconductors that completely blew away the prevailing understanding at that time. How rapid was that acceptance from the moment of discovery to the Nobel prize? Think about it. These are the group of people you are accusing of of not being open to such change. And I can show this happening over and over again as well.

So what's the difference here? Is it due to the NATURE of the ideas and the nature of the supporting evidence? Do you want scientists in general to sway to every little bits of ideas and study and change their minds as rapidly as the latest diet trends?

Zz.

 

[gleem]

What about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it's worth pointing out that arguments within science are not anti-science, they are a key part of the process! Every day thousands of scientists disagree about how accurate various methods are, how valid interpretation of data is etcetera. But if you reject the method all together, perhaps because it conflicts with your worldview, then you are anti-science.

To bring it back round to creationism; I've seen and read creationists that make the argument that data can't be trusted because god (sometimes the devil) is testing us. They point to fossils and other things as being put there by god. They are explicitly rejecting the method.

 

[ZapperZ]

What about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics?

He did?

You are confusing his disagreement of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM with rejecting QM. He never questioned the validity of QM formalism. He just didn't think that QM described all there is to described out of a system. There is a difference here.

Zz.

 

[Derek Potter]

What about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics?

He didn't reject QM. He rejected the extreme anti-realism that some of the Copenhagen crew were suggesting. He was quite right to do so. Naive or direct realism needs to be modified, realism as such does not need to be rejected. As a relatively minor matter, he thought that the problem would be solved by modifying the theory. Modifying it, not rejecting it. He was simply wrong about that. The fact is, it was very early days and the whole bunch of them were extremely puzzled by what QM actually means. Every one of the big names - Schroedinger, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg blundered but making a mistake while developing a theory is not a rejection of the theory.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem, for me, is that a President of the US can't be in denial, he/she can't let personal beliefs cloud their judgement.

If you ever find such a person, let me know. I'd vote for them in a second too. No, Hillary most certainly does not qualify.

Hillary is the only one with Oval Office experience, that truly knows what the President has to do and know.

I have to laugh at that. If being in someone else's office while they perform their job is a relevant qualification for a job...well just extend that to any/every job! Heck, by that logic, Monica Lewinski is well qualified for the job as well!

The reality is, being President is a unique job and no one ever has exact experience with it until they get it. But the most common qualification is being a governor (which Bill was) because that's head-of-the-executive-branch experience.

 

[Evo]

If you ever find such a person, let me know. I'd vote for them in a second too. No, Hillary most certainly does not qualify.

I have to laugh at that. If being in someone else's office while they perform their job is a relevant qualification for a job...well just extend that to any/every job! Heck, by that logic, Monica Lewinski is well qualified for the job as well!

The reality is, being President is a unique job and no one ever has exact experience with it until they get it. But the most common qualification is being a governor (which Bill was) because that's head-of-the-executive-branch experience.

I take it you don't like Hillary. Anyone you're leaning towards? (I still like Hillary)

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing and no one can guarantee what a person will do with the power of the US Presidency, but at least with Hillary we will not be electing a wild card.

To me, what makes one a "wild card" is not their experience or lack thereof, it is knowing what policies they will support/drive. And I know very little about what Hillary will do/would govern. Based on her treatment of the Keystone pipeline (refusing to provide a position for months [years?] and then towing the party line when pressed), I guess I perceive her as towing her party line while trying to pretend to be wishy-washy. I'm not in favor of either of those traits.

 

[Monsterboy]

It is only by defining science by extremely strict methodological naturalism (limit it to exclusively naturalistic theories) - thus ruling out theism apriori - that you can (unfairly, IMHO) accuse men such as Carson (and by effect Newton too) as being anti-science. But if it is not fair to say that Newton was not a man of science, then it's not fair to say it about Carson, either

I don't think it is fair to compare two men separated by hundreds of years scientific development this way , Newton had no idea about evolution! Nobody had heard of it back then, if we take Charles Darwin's work back in time and present it to Newton, it might wreck his brain for sometime but when the evidence is presented , I think he might agree. If we go back to prehistoric times when man invented the wheel , can we claim that he(assuming one person invented it) was anti-science because he thought the world was flat ?? No , because the idea of a spherical world did not exist back then , there was no way he could have known , Ben Carson is in the 21st century with an internet connection, he has no excuse for being anti-science.