Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 I have no interest in science fiction. That explains a lot. Your closed mind reminds me of hard shell religionists more than the really excellent scientists I work with and know. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Science... knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method Fiction...Something that is NOT true. Not wanting to speak for Mark but he may not have been using the phrase that describes the genre of "science fiction", there is always another way of looking at it. Edited February 20, 2015 by oldenough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You can't claim to be a Catholic if you are unsure about the Pope. Sure you can, and it happens all the time. Being unsure about the Pope isn't at all the same as being unsure about Christ. But we can get back to the Mars discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 I can only go on what he says, not what he might mean. I think he'd be pretty horrified if he knew how many of the eminent NASA scientists here got there by science fiction, developed many concepts FROM science fiction, and even worse, are ardent religionists or at least say "that's outside my field of expertise." The best of them are also driven not by a sense of feeling like we know much of anything, but by feeling more ignorant the longer the toil at their tasks. Really great people and I am quite at home with them. BTW, you should hear what they say about our national space policy around people they trust. Some of it finds its way into my posts...without attribution, of course. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Wrong turn, gents. It's either back to Mars or the lock goes on. Love that stuff, but a Higher Power has decreed the limits. IMHO, which may or may not be strict enough, Mark was in bounds in his response to m above. However, when doctrine or dogma of a specific faith system becomes the subject there is no doubt the line is crossed. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes, it is closed to substituting the rules of science with nonsense. As mentioned, many of our best scientists were inspired by scifi and hardly consider it "nonsense." Why do you? Did you NEVER read any of it? E.M. Forster's short story of 1909 was certainly nonsense at the time, yet is now considered incredibly prophetic. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 If it's any comfort, as a participant I will not lock the thread, but I have asked a non-participating moderator to monitor these proceedings. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Science Fiction has been proven to become "Science" in the manner speaking, planes, rocket ships, going to different planets and moons were a t one point "science fiction". Flying like a bird was scinece fiction. Last I saw we can do all of these things. Religious stories are also now being proven through science. There are strides daily being made. How are they not all intertwined? Science from my perspective is to prove or disprove things, and little by little all of the things that were once frowned upon as make believe are now being proven. As per religious groups, they all have one common trait, one true being as their leader,just different versions of it. Even your saying science has pushed god to the side for now while they investigate states their is a potential. Faith,even with it's flaws does intertwine with science at some point. There are hardlined factions that are closed minded with religion that say just believe, but it's also the same from a science perspective. I was taught from a religious standpoint, if you have doubts about if there is a god or not, you do in some way believe there is a god. Neither side can confirm or deny it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Science conforms to a set of strict parameters for a very good reason....if it strays from them the results become suspect...and ultimately cannot be regarded as science. Faith is in the enviable position of being able to change the rules as it goes along, invariably these change in the rules stem from something science has shown to be fact. You will never see the reverse occur. Poor old Gallileo...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Science conforms to a strict set of parameters, but scientists do not. Those who restrict themselves to thinking restricted by those rules get nowhere or serve as lab assistants. Those with the widest imaginations tend to be the great ones. More specifically, in discussing these matters with Mark over the years the same post as above defining theory, science, etc as though nobody else ever went to school when the discussion isn't going where he would like it to. Classic red herring. Discussions like this are NOT scientific and, to my knowledge, none are research scientists. My scientist friends when performing science adhere strictly to the rules. When discussing science, there are no rules as that is the place ideas for science ferment. I am currently serving on an International Association of Drilling Contractors committee developing some rather critical simulations in response to the BP disaster that has several rather eminent scientists in my field on it from Rice University and Florida State. I read their papers and the scientific method is rigorous. Thankfully, in our deliberations and break discussions you get none of that and all ideas and concepts are open to discussion without ridicule. And, in fact, a couple of my concepts may well become objects of their scientific method as these are research guys and they rather like a couple of my "there is no box" concepts. As to the question of gravity, I am reasonably sure that most 7th graders would know we don't have a clue. Any queries as to the noumenon (despite the ridicule of Kant, scientists use the term to differentiate between it and phenomenon fairly commonly) of gravity will largely result in "We don't have a clue." And it's wondered why I have so little belief in the greatness of our science when it complete fails to be able to explain what holds us down. What keeps one from flying off into space isn't what I'd term "advanced" science anymore than a cure for cancer, diabetes...or death. Recently, I listened (really) as a couple of physicists were discussing potential implications of the multiverse concepts. They suggested that one implication was that every possible outcome of every moment of every life might take place if the multiverse is, indeed, infinite. Untestable. I suppose they should be kicked out of the science club. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well. Given this discussion and another in which one member remarked upon a philosophy which I am well acquainted, and which everyone should be well acquainted, subscription not required or even asked for, nor even desired, I present the philosopher's drinking song lyrics: Immanuel Kant was a real pissantWho was very rarely stable.Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggarWho could think you under the table.David Hume could out-consumeSchopenhauer and Hegel,And Wittgenstein was a beery swineWho was just as sloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya''Bout the raising of the wrist.SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED... John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.Plato, they say, could stick it away;Half a crate of whiskey every day.Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,Hobbes was fond of his dram,And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Dave, I for one do not wonder why you have "so little belief in the greatness of our science"....I wonder why you have so much belief in that which is NOT science. Edited February 20, 2015 by oldenough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 "Because sometimes believing is all we have." Team America--World Police. Facetious and satirical as it may sound, it is also often times true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) The rules of science have limits. The human mind has none. Hence, science. From limited minds comes nothing. From unlimited minds using the rules of science to smelt their fantasies comes everything that makes us unique and, in fact, insults to science in our very existence which violates evolution. The above stands alone. However, because I have such respect for the theory of evolution, I've left a loophole: 99.99% of everything we've learned and developed is an affront to evolution in being utterly unnecessary for survival on this planet. Unless nature somehow sees our colonization of space as necessary. Wings, fins, gills and such of the rest of evolution wouldn't get us there, and all the rest of the stuff is simply required in order for us to survive by reaching other worlds. Yep, nutty as a fruitcake by your standards...but free and happy! And, frankly, not as nutty sounding as the physicists. But they made good sense to me as well. In an infinite universe all things are not only possible but must happen or it is, by definition, not infinite. I do not think "outside the box." I do not believe there IS a box. Dave Edited February 20, 2015 by Mallette 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 I wonder why you have so much belief in that which is NOT science. Got to thinking about this. Just how much of yours, or anyone's, life revolve around science? Most of the best things in life are decidedly, and thankfully, outside that discipline. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I have given up on answering on this post as it seems as though there are only 2-3 people on here that are educated, and everyone else is in a fog. I bow out to the geniuses. Let them "Science" amoungst themselves. I will stick to my fantasy world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 You should be thanking me for reaffirming just how educated you are. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 According to M Theory and the associated String Theory, there are at least 6 dimensions of reality in the universe besides the 4 dimensional space-time continuum in which we live. Scientists have an idea of what is in some of these dimensions, but the others are open to hypothetical constructs. It is possible that a dimension exists that consists of a pure energy field which posses intelligence, i.e. a life form existing outside of space-time, not made of matter and present throughout the universe. The math used to formulate M Theory and the various implementations of String Theory has not disproven the existence of such a dimensional entity. One thing for sure - it will never be proven or disproven if we limit our vision to 4 dimensional space time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjimbo Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Team America--World Police. I now like you. You're welcome..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjimbo Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I have given up on answering on this post as it seems as though there are only 2-3 people on here that are educated, and everyone else is in a fog. I bow out to the geniuses. Let them "Science" amoungst themselves. I will stick to my fantasy world. No matter how much I might disagree with you on other things, I am totally with you on this one.... 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.