Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 This is also why the larger faith communities (I'll use that instead of denominations...), have devoted generations to study Faith and Reason, trying to make sense out of how the two fit together. Yezzir. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 ...Frustration: Religion and Science are NOT compatible. and irritating when people try to explain one with the other! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Mark, Do you mind me asking what you do for a living, or did for a living? I would like to know how your thought process comes about. I mean it in no disrespectful manner and am not looking to "bash" your thought process in any way shape or form. I do agree with some of your other posts, and disagree with others. I mean it as complimentary though asking what your thought process is. Same for you Dave, if you wouldn't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Same for you Dave, if you wouldn't mind. Doomed to fail, but will make an attempt. My graduate degree is in Instructional Systems Technology, the science of applying technology to instruction (Think: VR as one tool) and of integrating such training across complete large systems (corporate HRIS, CMMS, HSE and the like) seamlessly and without any hard borders. My undergraduate instruction wandered across 200 hours of wide variety before getting a degree in TV/film production. I completed the major requirements in several fields, including ancient history, speech, and philosophy. Hence, my rather broad view and gnostic views. My self view is one of average intelligence but above average curiosity and equal left/right brain abilities. Jack of all trades, master of none. One tested area by DOD was intelligence analytics, where I was found to be in the upper 2%. If my level of self-confidence to act on analytics and predictions I've made over the last 30 years or so had ever reached high enough to act on them I'd be rich, rich, rich. However, material wealth has never been a priority for me...and it shows in my bank account! I consider myself an objectivist. Skeptics are biased by their own description. I think science should be rec'd on its own merits and judged with neither skepticism nor optimism...just the facts. The Lockheed fusion announcement is a good example. I neither cheered nor shouted "poppycock and balderdash." My analysis is that they have no reason to lie, and no record of hyperbole. If there is anything strange is that there was an announcement at all. I don't have an answer for that but await the facts and expect to get one at some point. Cosmologically, I see theology and science as the ultimate dialectic working itself out throughout the universe(s). To us in our VERY crude understanding of the universe, they appear to many as diametrically opposed. So are the north and south poles of a magnet...but they are, in fact, identical forces from the same source perhaps symbolically represented by the ying/yang symbol . Best to take that statement allegorically rather than attempt to analyze it scientifically as I am simply trying to keep this as short as possible. In short, theology deals with "why," and science deals with "how." I have what seems to be a rather rare view of our "science." Best illustration is that I often say our current knowledge is at about the same level as the first creature to crawl out of the primordial sea in that we are hardly dried off yet, much less very far down the road to understanding. To put another view on that, I also often say that one shouldn't put a lot of faith in any being who hasn't even conquered the limits of physical instrumentality yet...which are fundamental to even what I might think of as elementary science. When we speak of meeting other intelligences we are really normally thinking in terms of other barely advanced species. My personal opinion is that an actually advanced intelligence requires an addition to Clarke's Three Laws: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Mallette's Corollary) Any truly advanced technology will be indistinguishable. Hope that helps... Dave Edited February 20, 2015 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Can't read the guys mind, but so far his business acumen and uncanny ability to design rockets far more advanced than any previous (with the exception of Delta Clipper...from which I am sure he learned much) suggests he has a lot more in mind than simply being a bus and cargo carrier for NASA. Human space exploration will be limited as long as we rely on chemical rockets for transportation. The real breakthrough will happen when we discover the nature of gravitation and how it works. Then we can find out how to control gravity and use it for propulsion, for example. We are studying this at this very moment, using LIGO arrays around the globe. We are closer than ever before to getting the answers, and the work continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Thank You Gentlemen. I am not as lucky as the two of you to have pursued school as much as I wanted. I did have to drop out at 16,but did get my GED afterwards due to personal issues. I did however go through Gifted and Talented, and did have a straight A average while I was able to stay in school,so it wasn't a lack of intelligence on my end. Having lived on my own from 16 and having to focus on survival, I did not get the chance to get into what I really wanted which was in the science fields. I wanted to become either a Marine Biologist or study the Universe. So I say in a nice way, I am very jealous of your backgrounds. My intelligence hasn't been in book smarts as much as street smarts, but what I've taken an interest in,I've tried to research and study as much as I can. It is nice to be able to debate as well as agree with the different opinions of people on here. I just wanted to see a little more background with a few of the people I am coming into contact with in these forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Agree in general, DR, but chemical rockets with the paradigm shift Musk has designed are more than efficient enough for a lunar colony, as getting the wealth there back is easy and cheap via electromagnetic linear motors. Musk's VTOL boosters and spacecraft have no precedence. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Mallette, you said.... "It's obvious many here have little interest and don't keep up with space news".... I would be interested in knowing why you think this to be so? I have my own theory if you are talking of the lack of interest on this forum and this thread in particular, or are you talking about in general? Maybe your sparring partner (mdeneen) has some thoughts on same. I for my part have a great interest in the subject. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 I did however go through Gifted and Talented, and did have a straight A average while I was able to stay in school,so it wasn't a lack of intelligence on my end Jim, I learned a LONG time ago to make no judgments about a person's intellect based on either the number of degrees they have or their IQ. My touchstone quotations in that area are from Socrates: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing, and from Lao Tzu: "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” . It should be clear from my own actions that, by the Lao Tzu quote, I know very little indeed. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Religion and Science are NOT compatible. They are perfectly compatible, it's only our lack of understanding of each that is frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well, yuh grumpy ol' bugger, while reflected here fairly accurately my take is largely drawn from my experience in society at large. Almost no one knew of Musk's plans to soft land a booster on that postage stamp in the ocean and coverage of it was pretty buried in the news. In the development of practical spacecraft, it's the second big happening after the lunar landing and in the long run more important. Few show interest or any knowledge of what is going on in spaceflight at the moment. I have my views on why that is as opposed to the 60s when every cowboy could name the Mercury 7 and every development was headline news. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Religion and Science are NOT compatible.They are perfectly compatible, it's only our lack of understanding of each that is frustrating. That is laughable.... Edited February 20, 2015 by oldenough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Religion requires the acceptance of untestable hypotheses. That is a belief you have, not science and even as stated runs counter to be tenets of a number of faith systems. My own thoughts on this above declare that it IS testable but way beyond our ability to do so for a long time. I hold that to be true, and you do not. That's fine but my own take isn't state as though it were self-evident. you believe, counter to Socrates, Lao Tzu, and others, that we actually know something. I see far more evidence that we not only don't know anything really valuable or good about the universe but compound the error by actually thinking that we do and acting on that belief. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 That is laughable.... You're a Canadian... Hope it brightened your day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 That is laughable....You're a Canadian... Correction....I live in Canada...... currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Mallette, you said.... "It's obvious many here have little interest and don't keep up with space news".... I would be interested in knowing why you think this to be so? I have my own theory if you are talking of the lack of interest on this forum and this thread in particular, or are you talking about in general? Maybe your sparring partner (mdeneen) has some thoughts on same. I for my part have a great interest in the subject.I have no interest in science fiction. And I have even less interest in pseudo science like intelligent design or creationism. That leaves real science. And as for discussions of real science on forums, there are not enough people trained in real science to have a legitimate science discussion.For proof, look at the constant misuse of the word "theory." Or, look at how often people say, "science can't prove god doesn't exist." It's just embarrassing how poor the public understanding of science has become. It's deplorable. Finding adults that can describe the basics of the Scientific Method is like finding unicorns. That's what I like to refer to as 7th grade science. You simply can not have a science discussion with people for whom the Scientific Method is an arguable concept. The USA has the worst science education record in the advanced world. Amen to that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 http://www.iflscience.com/space/massive-clouds-erupted-260km-martian-atmosphere-and-no-one-knows-why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes Mark, I was having a "discussion" with my neighbor, a point he tried to make went something like "Evolution is still only a theory, when it becomes a "scientific law" I'll maybe start to believe". He failed to understand what I found so humorous... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes Mark, I was having a "discussion" with my neighbor, a point he tried to make went something like "Evolution is still only a theory, when it becomes a "scientific law" I'll maybe start to believe". He failed to understand what I found so humorous... Right. All people in science fight that constantly. And what needs to be recognized is that this form of science ignorance is being taught intentionally both formally, and informally. At the end of the day, the loser is the USA, which is being surpassed in science by two dozen countries, and will soon be a backwater of global science. Yes Mark, I was having a "discussion" with my neighbor, a point he tried to make went something like "Evolution is still only a theory, when it becomes a "scientific law" I'll maybe start to believe". He failed to understand what I found so humorous... Right. All people in science fight that constantly. And what needs to be recognized is that this form of science ignorance is being taught intentionally both formally, and informally. At the end of the day, the loser is the USA, which is being surpassed in science by two dozen countries, and will soon be a backwater of global science. \wasn't this the downfall of another once mighty civilization...one that we are currently in conflict with? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 At the end of the day, the loser is the USA, which is being surpassed in science by two dozen countries, and will soon be a backwater of global science. Nah, all the good ones end up here or at least enough to keep us competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.