Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,151-9,200 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Oops.... Just found "Seven Spanish" Angels on YouTube .... That wasn't The Highwaymen. Willie and Ray Charles and not being taken back to Texas alive. ;)

[Heather]

cHriS wrote: "Heather wrote: I have no problem with you, but then, I also don't know you because I haven't really posted on this forum before and I don't know you personally, so I can't judge you. In fact, it wo..."

You're welcome. I hate to see people feel like they're cornered; I've been there too many times myself. I was trying to explain that it's not logical for me to judge you based on anything you say here and, unless I myself catch you in a lie, I cannot call you a liar.

[cHriS]

Heather wrote: I hate to see people feel like they're cornered; I've been there too many times myself. "

Thanks Heather, I'm not really cornered though. Shanna,I think used the wrong word when she said dishonest, I think she gets a bit hot headed sometimes. She may just ignore my request to explain what she meant, until it gets lost among the other posts. Or maybe she has been spending the last few days going through all the old posts looking for something to try and back up her accusation :)

But I don't mind. It's all part of being involved with this thread. We will be back having a ‘dig’ at each other in a different conversation.

Thanks though for the support.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "Oops.... Just found "Seven Spanish" Angels on YouTube .... That wasn't The Highwaymen. Willie and Ray Charles and not being taken back to Texas alive. ;)"

I have the Willie Nelson version from one of his cd's. It's one of those songs that has been sung by lots of country singers. I thought he did sing it with the Highwaymen, though, but maybe not.

[Shanna]

Not true. You are either souring things up or you are the victim of the ’mud sticks’ thing. If something is said often enough one starts to believe it.

I have never disappeared. I took time out. Maybe like Gary is doing now, he has not been here for a while.

I added an avatar because I never had one before, and that was only in the last couple of months.

You had this avatar as cs and came back as cHriS and no avatar and began posting as if you hadn't been here before until Hazel called you out...

My account with Goodreads is the same one I started with and my book list is the original one.

Calculated gamble that someone wouldn't go to your profile... or a let's see how long it takes them...

As I have explained here already, I changed cs to Chris because most of the folks here were using first names. It’s easy to do. I know some forums don’t let you change you name……this one does.

Because cHriS is so much easier to type than cs, it's not that you changed it is the coming back in and behaving as if you hadn't been here before...

If I had wanted to come back as someone else, as you seem to be suggesting, I would have made a better job of it.

You took a calculated risk, perhaps even to see how long it took people to figure it out, I don't think your intention was to remain in "disguise" forever

When I originally joined Goodreads it was just for book recommendations. I happened to see this post and added a simple comment and the rest is history.

As I suspect most people come to good reads.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote:You took a calculated risk, perhaps even to see how long it took people to figure it out, I don't think your intention was to remain in "disguise" forever
"

Are you on some sort of medication or sniffing illegal sustenance’s or is this just a Shanna slight of hand trying to avoid the main issue of you accusing me of being dishonest and now you can't back up your accusation.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote:You took a calculated risk, perhaps even to see how long it took people to figure it out, I don't think your intention was to remain in "disguise" forever
"

Are you on some sort of me..."

I did back it up... that was just speculation as to your motives...

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: I did back it up... that was just speculation as to your motives."

....no idea what you are talking about... but I will assume that what you are saying is just small talk to avoid having to eat humble pie.

[Sheila]

Robert wrote: "I’m sorry I can’t be present in this thread as much as some folks. I can’t answer all questions directed at me, (some days it’s a fight in this house over who gets this computer). Let me just tell ..."
Well written I totally agree there is no difference between religion and science that goes for education.

[[deleted user]]

Don't see something like this every day ....

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/...

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "Don't see something like this every day ....

Nothing wrong with the exercise if it keeps the professor happy, but I would support the guys right not to stomp.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Don't see something like this every day ....

Nothing wrong with the exercise if it keeps the professor happy, but I would support the guys right not to stomp."

I'd be curious as to what the point of the lesson might have been. Intercultural Communications...? One would think the purpose of such a class would be to teach how to communicate effectively, perhaps even to respect the viewpoints of other cultures.

Would this, in any way, teach a lesson in communication?

In addition, I would think the point of college is to learn, grown, and develop the ability to think for yourself. It sounds like the young man thought for himself. Yet, it also seems he was disciplined as a result.

So, what is that young man paying his college tuition for ...?

Crazy stuff, in my opinion.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Crazy stuff, in my opinion.
..."

....and there is more
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/2...

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Crazy stuff, in my opinion.
..."

....and there is more
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/2..."


I just don't know what to think or say about this.... I read the article I posted but didn't think to look into it more. I just did ... or attempted to. I don't know if I'd link this with the Dems, but I don't know.

I don't know what I find more disturbing. The fact that a teacher would carry out this exercise in his class, whether it was in the text or not? The fact that the teacher and his supervisor would allegedly suspend a student and not allow him back in class for having refused and complained? How about the fact that the college doesn't seem to be rushing to deal with the situation? Or, the fact that the press isn't really doing a good job in reporting the story? Regarding the latter, why has no one asked why this was done in class? What was the point of the lesson? Is no one curious as to the "point"? It would be inappropriate, regardless, but I have a feeling this information would be very enlightening.

If this is true, it's an outrage. It's like forcing students to pray. Both are totally and completely wrong. What the heck?!

[Bailey]

I would love to live in a world with no religion. Events like the Crusades and the Holocaust, people like the members of Westboro Baptist Church... all these things fueled by religion create so much hate and conflict. I'm not saying that people would stop fighting, wars would end, and hate would cease...human nature being what it is...but I think a world with one less thing for people to use in justifying why they should hate, scorn, reproach, or vilify others is a world I would like to live in.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote:If this is true, it's an outrage. It's like forcing students to pray. Both are totally and completely wrong. What the heck?!..."

I found this...the student speaks.
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-atlanti...

It seems as though this book is used quite a lot in Universities and the professor was only rein acting something from the pages of a book that was already approved to be used.

I think that lets the professor of the hook. Now who approves these books to be used as teaching aids?

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "It seems as though this book is used quite a lot in Universities and the professor was only rein acting something from the pages of a book that was already approved to be used.

I think that lets the professor of the hook. Now who approves these books to be used as teaching aids?"

Yes, I read that. But, in my mind, it doesn't let the teacher, supervisor or college off the hook. First, teachers should us their judgment. If I had a text that instructed me to do this, would I? No. No, but hell no. The kicker, though, is this alleged suspension. Was the student truly suspended for his refusal and complaint? If so, the teacher and his supervisor are behind that. Why? The student thought for himself and stood up for his belief. One would think he'd be respected for that and not suspended.

I'd like to get my hands on this book but have no desire whatsoever to pay for it. I tried to look on Amazon but am none the wiser. However, some made rather funny reviews of the book in the last day or two.

There are issues regarding books used in classes. I can't speak to what books are picked or how they're picked at the college level. In the US, I, personally, see issues with textbooks. Texts are different depending on your region. Hello! What the heck is that? Isn't information either accurate or inaccurate? Why do companies print one book for use in New England and another book for use in Texas and Georgia? Something we're battling right now ...? Brit lit. There's a move to ditch Brit lit. The kids come to us less and less ready to read and understand Brit lit. They find it too hard and boring and .... Shouldn't we be more modern and do something like ... bestsellers vs. Chaucer? (I see huge problems with that idea.)

But, back to this particular story, it seems highly ironic that a professor who teachers a intercultural communication class would have a student suspended for communicating a different view. Do teachers simply want their students to follow rules and mimic the teachers' words and, yes, beliefs? Not necessarily religious, guys. Or, do teachers want students to think for and stand for themselves?

Grrr....

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: I did back it up... that was just speculation as to your motives."

....no idea what you are talking about... but I will assume that what you are saying is just small talk to avoid ha..."

Really? did you type that with a straight face...?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Really? did you type that with a straight face...?"

.....no, with two fingers.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: I tried to look on Amazon but am none the wiser. However, some made rather funny reviews of the book in the last day or two.

I looked at those to,

I would like to hear the professor’s view of what happened. Only I did google for more information and somewhere I read that more than a few students also did not ‘stomp’ on the paper. This suggests to me that there could be more to the story than has been reported. Maybe if the true story was known it would not have made such good copy for the newspapers.

I wonder if the ‘non stomping’ by the student was not the main reason for him being suspended.

It happens here a lot with news stories. The whole story does not come to light immediately, because the press only report one side, in order to maximise the headlines.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "I wonder if the ‘non stomping’ by the student was not the main reason for him being suspended.

It happens here a lot with news stories. The whole story does not come to light immediately, because the press only report one side, in order to maximise the headlines. "

Quite possibly. In my very limited experience with Mormons, my cousins, etc... they're not a particularly rowdy bunch. Understatement. However, like I said, my experience is very limited.

The fact remains that it's possible ... maybe there was another reason. I'd not read that others refused. I did read this morning that the school has apologized now. Further, I read that the purpose of the exercise, supposedly, deals with the power of symbols and that the book, again ... supposedly, points out that many will hesitate. I find it somewhat interesting that the book's author(s) pick "Jesus" to be the symbol to test students' boundaries and feelings about symbols. A somewhat enlightening choice, I'd say. Would need to know more about the author(s), though.

Ultimately, regarding journalism, yes .... I've been having serious issues with journalists lately. Investigative journalism, here, at least, is lacking. Softball questions to politicians on both sides of the aisle. Journalists allowing the president and Romney to see stories before they went to print and have right of refusal. Sensational headlines that aren't backed by the content of the articles. Half-truths. It's pretty darned pitiful, in my opinion. A sad day....

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: I find it somewhat interesting that the book's author(s) pick "Jesus" to be the symbol to test students' boundaries and feelings about symbols. A somewhat enlightening choice, I'd say. ..."

Not so much enlightening, more an easy target. I could think of another Prophet who's name if written on a piece of paper and then stomped on would have cause much more controversy.

Shannon wrote:I've been having serious issues with journalists lately.

....and journalism here is under threat of being regulated.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Not so much enlightening, more an easy target."

Enlightening when it comes to the mindset of the author(s) and the tenor of the text....

How is journalism under threat of being regulated there?

[Mary]

I agree that most story headlines sensationalize the info to get you to read it. Also the story sounds suspicious, usually there's a lot more to a story but most people are happy to get their " OMG I can't believe it" outrage fix. More fun to be pseudo angry than find out the facts. I call it " the Jerry Springering" of America. A thousand years from now they'll dig up our civilization and all they'll find is a Jerry Springer tape and Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "A thousand years from now they'll dig up our civilization and all they'll find is a Jerry Springer tape and Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. "

A horrifying prospect....

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Not so much enlightening, more an easy target."

Enlightening when it comes to the mindset of the author(s) and the tenor of the text....

How is journalism under threat of being regu..."

I don't think the threat is from regulation, but rather laziness on the part of both journalists and the audience.

[Gary]

Both science and religion have their place and neither should take preeminence.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote:
How is journalism under threat of being regu..."

It is a long story, but in a nutshell......

The press were 'phone hacking' celebrities phones and also non celebrities. A couple who's daughter went missing some years ago had their phones hacked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785

Most of the celebrities have been well compensated, but an enquiry was set up called The Leveson Inquiry; but when it gave its findings to the Prime Minster he did not agree with them; he did not want a restricted press.

But some celebrities lead by Hugh (I was arrested in an L.A. Vice police operation not far from Sunset Boulevard for misdemeanour lewd conduct in a public place with Hollywood prostitute Divine Brown) Grant wanted a regulated press and so do some MP's. They have now reached some sort of an agreement, or more of a quickly put to gether shambles, which does not really satisfy the celebrities, the MP's or the Press.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21825823

[Rashid]

I think that it is a stupid thing to separate science and religion from one another. Religion is based on belief and science provides reasons to believe. So it is impossible to chose between them because when there is religion there is science as well. And I think that science can't exist independently without religion because if there is no religion then there is no creator and if there is no creator then nothing is created, nothing is systematic and nothing is governed by a certain law that can be known with the help of science.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I don't think the threat is from regulation, but rather laziness on the part of both journalists and the audience."

Here? I agree, to a point. Not pleased with the "regulation" applied by Obama and Romney during the campaign. One wonders if Obama continues to regulate. I'll likely continue to wonder as no one is likely to report on that again.

Over in the UK...? Don't know. Need to read the post cHriS just wrote.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote:
How is journalism under threat of being regu..."

It is a long story, but in a nutshell......

The press were 'phone hacking' celebrities phones and also non celebrities. A couple w..."

Thanks for the info. I had heard of the story. Both stories.... The hackers and Hugh. ;) I hadn't heard of the other.

Hmmm....

I imagine people would like to see what they've worked up, in writing. I can see protecting innocents, but I can also see this is possibly a slippery slope.

Wonder why they didn't work on beefing up hacking and privacy laws or something instead.

[Mary]

It was more than just hacking celebrities email. They hacked the voicemail of victims of the 7/7 bombing, the Royal Family, and the one that did them in was that they hacked the voicemail of a 13 yr old girl who was eventually found murdered. They listened to and erased messages on this girls phone while investigation was still going on. The desire to get a story, a scoop before someone else was their motivation. Having info to then blackmail celebrities into giving them a story was their motivation. Nothing honorable about, it was about greed and power. That's all. Sadly, I think other news outlets did the same to stay competitive.

[Sharon]

I don't want to make a choice either way. Without science, we could not live as well or as long as we do. However, without religion we would live this life and not eternally.

[Tammy]

This is an easy one for me. Science makes sense. A man in the sky answering (or in most cases ignoring) our prayers while threatening to send us all to hell for saying his name in vain, does not. (Yes, I'm focusing on Christianity here.) Morals can be taught without fear. It is possible to value life and treat other people and the earth with respect simply because it is the right thing to do, not because of a place called hell.

[Thomas]

lets just get rid off both

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Really? did you type that with a straight face...?"

.....no, with two fingers."

LOL :)

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Wonder why they didn't work on beefing up hacking and privacy laws or something instead..."

No need the laws are fine, the press has been taken to court and the celebrities have been compensated.

It is Mr and Mrs Joe Public that does not always have the resources to go to court.

But the real issue is, should the press be regulated? And if so by whom? Themselves? The government? A third Party answerable to.....?

I would not like to see the press being regulated at all.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "I would not like to see the press being regulated at all. "

I agree.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "I do think life has to have meaning, regardless of religion. But I find it hard to understand why, if life has no meaning we need to leave the world in a better place."
Because it's a decent thing to do. We can get into discussions of why we have ended up with a sense of morality (as we have, so no need to do it here), but the fact remains that even us heathens have a sense of morality, so it inherently feels like the right thing to do. As you say, a life should have meaning, religion or not, and for me the way for an individual life to have a meaning is as I mentioned, try and leave the world a better place than you found it. That is one way to give a life a meaning, but where I think we differ is I see value in giving your own individual life meaning, but I don't see a need to search for a generic meaning for all life, for 'life' as a concept.

cHriS wrote: "I understand, but since you suggested gay marriage as an example, if someone is against gay marriage, it could be for social reasons and not religious reasons. The danger here is that anyone who does no agree with gay marriage on a forum like this is again quite often in the minority and gets called a bigot etc. But in the real world the vote for and against is a lot more equal. "
True, but once someone uses social reasons as their rationale, I want to know a) what those social reasons are, and b) what evidence there is to support those reasons. If, for example, and again not putting words into your mouth, someone claims that it should be banned because children brought up in a same-sex relationship have more mental issues when they grow up, then that is a specific claim that can be studied and evidence obtained for. Does that evidence exist? Is there evidence which points the other direction? It is an answerable question. The studies I have seen have not shown any social basis for rejecting same-sex marriage. For those (once again, not saying this is your or anyone else's opinion on here) who use the slippery slope argument (it will lead to marrying pets for example), they really need to try and understand the concept of "informed consent" a bit better.

cHriS wrote: "In other words even evidence is not always correct, but we have to go with what we know at the time and not what we might know in the future.

I may believe in a creator and be wrong. You may believe in scientific evidence and be wrong. But for now we can only believe we are right. "
Yes, but that's precisely the way science works, constant questioning and reevaluation of evidence and experiments. If new evidence, based on advances in knowledge, is revealed, then it informs the conclusions....and if the evidence is sufficiently strong it becomes part of the scientific body of knowledge and is what we then work with and continue investigating. Over time what you end up with is something like evolution, where the body of scientific knowledge is overwhelmingly showing that evolution is the correct description of how life has changed on our planet. Does that mean evolutionary biologists stop working on it and move on to some other field? Of course not....but over this amount of time and with this weight of evidence what you find is new discoveries may alter our view on some of the mechanics, or shed further light on processes we don't yet fully understand, but it is unlikely that there will be a new discovery that will suddenly show that actually evolution is wrong. People will still look for evidence of this, particularly from the ID side, but as yet they are unable to provide any evidence to support any of their claims.
The difference between the way you describe your belief and mine, comes down to the weight of evidence. You may say I 'believe' in evolution in the same way you believe in a creator, but I would say they are difference....I do not 'believe', I accept the evidence, I can see that there is testable, repeatable evidence for its claims, where I would say that there is not the same evidence for a creator. You are entirely correct when you say there may be a creator, but I cannot accept a position, or more accurately see no value in putting any effort into a position, for which there is no evidence. Again, I am happy for you to have that belief, I have no interest in changing your mind, but (in the spirit of debate and discussion) disagree with equating that belief with an acceptance of scientific evidence. And as I mentioned, I do not accept that a religious belief is a valid position from which to make laws.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "What I'm saying is this: human nature can corrupt anything. Science is no more immune than religion. "
Yes, but the scientific method is the best example I've
seen of an attempt to remove that corrupting nature and inherent biases. Yes, people do still try and corrupt the scientific process, by faking data etc, but the fact that science expects repeatable evidence eventually highlights these instances. Is it totally and 100% perfect? No, because as you say, as soon as people are involved things deviate from the perfect ideal, but I think it works well enough, and certainly better than faith.

[Vittal]

Once upon a time Religion has been Science of the past era...As Science today has become the Religion of our present era...! :))

[Vittal]

Once Religion has been Science of the past era. As Science today has become the Religion of our present era...! As Religion distroyed past era.. Science has all the possibilities n capabilities to distroy y/our present era...! :)))

[R.J.]

I began my writing career as a collaborator in my high-school’s underground newspaper. Even then I was aware of how twisted the story can be by the time it gets to the public. In later years, I had the privilege of being involved in several press-worthy incidents where the police asked me for my testimony (which I presume means they valued what I said I saw), but that night on the news the press told a completely different story. At one point I was told that I was too emotionally involved (traumatized) to have seen what really happened. Another time, I witnessed the FBI take down a bank robber in the parking lot of a prestigious hotel. When the press reported it, they used a false address several blocks away because they have an agreement with the town merchants that “nothing bad ever happens” at or near one of their businesses.

I just finished reading a book about two girls who were in a car accident and their identities were switched. One girl died, but her parents were told that the other girl was their daughter. They spent five weeks waiting for their daughter to wake up from her coma before the evidence finally confronted them and they realized the mistake. From the get-go, there were signs that should have told them she was not their daughter, but somebody “official” had identified her…and more importantly, they wanted to believe that their daughter was still alive. Even after the girl awoke from her coma and told the therapist her name, the “experts” dismissed it as “brain damage from the accident.”

What I’m getting at is that one should never trust an “official truth” based on the credentials or authority of the one officially announcing it. And don’t trust the “official truth” just because a bunch of like-minded peers reviewed a thesis and accepted its theories. Hundreds of years ago, the “official truth” said that the sun orbited the earth. Anybody who questioned the “experts” was laughed at. Nowadays the “official truth” says that 96% of the universe is made up of something we can’t detect but we must believe in it because a bunch of like-minded peers, who had already made up their mind that this theory must be true before they reviewed the evidence, reviewed the evidence and published it in a journal. Isn’t it called “faith” when you believe in something when the evidence is unseen?

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: "Yes, but the scientific method is the best example I've seen of an attempt to remove that corrupting nature and inherent biases. Yes, people do still try and corrupt the scientific process, by faking data etc, but the fact that science expects repeatable evidence eventually highlights these instances. Is it totally and 100% perfect? No, because as you say, as soon as people are involved things deviate from the perfect ideal, but I think it works well enough, and certainly better than faith.
..."

From a criminologist’s perspective, scientific method is impossible. Any study done on the public has to realize that, if its questions touch on subjects that might trigger feelings of guilt or shame, the answers might not be as honest as science would hope for. Also, criminals are not sent to prison because of the scientific evidence. They are sent to prison because a group of people come to a consensus that they “believe” the suspect is guilty. Criminals like to hide evidence. They are often ready with excuses as to why things happened. When it comes to convicting an “intelligent” criminal the evidence that is delivered at trial is usually incomplete and has been, to some degree, tampered with. I’ve seen cases where evidence that could sway the verdict is thrown out on a technicality.

From a demonologist’s perspective, the same psychology that applies to criminals applies to the supernatural. If you are dealing with a sentient entity that may not want to be detected, you cannot guarantee the ability to repeat the evidence. It is one thing to put a game-camera up in the woods and catch photographs of deer and cougars, but if you are trying to catch the poachers, you’re likely to find the animal carcasses and never get a single photo of the culprit.

From a military perspective, there is a saying: No plan survives the first engagement intact. You can think you have the best intelligence possible and find out you were fed lies by a spy. You can think your weapons are superior and discover that they are not. You can think the enemy is over on hill A and discover, too late, that last night they crept over to hill B and are now picking you off. There are many historical instances where military leaders had terrible information to go on, but because they stuck with their gut instincts, they came out on top. The march of Xenophon is a great example. Here he was surrounded by the enemy and short on supplies, and his main source of information was the superstitious examination of entrails. Yet by following the guidance of those entrails, he performed one of the most amazing military feats of history and survived to tell the tale. There was no science involved in that endeavor. How are you going to repeat the accuracy of extispacy (the examination of entrails) in predicting the events around you?

[[deleted user]]

Robert wrote: "When it comes to convicting an “intelligent” criminal the evidence that is delivered at trial is usually incomplete and has been, to some degree, tampered with."

So, Robert.... This seems like quite the statement. Tampered with...? Do you have evidence to back this? Percentages?

[[deleted user]]

Robert wrote: "From a demonologist’s perspective, the same psychology that applies to criminals applies to the supernatural. If you are dealing with a sentient entity that may not want to be detected, you cannot guarantee the ability to repeat the evidence. It is one thing to put a game-camera up in the woods and catch photographs of deer and cougars, but if you are trying to catch the poachers, you’re likely to find the animal carcasses and never get a single photo of the culprit. "

?

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "What I’m getting at is that one should never trust an “official truth” based on the credentials or authority of the one officially announcing it. And don’t trust the “official truth” just because a bunch of like-minded peers reviewed a thesis and accepted its theories. Hundreds of years ago, the “official truth” said that the sun orbited the earth. Anybody who questioned the “experts” was laughed at. Nowadays the “official truth” says that 96% of the universe is made up of something we can’t detect but we must believe in it because a bunch of like-minded peers, who had already made up their mind that this theory must be true before they reviewed the evidence, reviewed the evidence and published it in a journal. Isn’t it called “faith” when you believe in something when the evidence is unseen? "
At this stage we are getting down to solipsism. Your descriptions of witnessing events have been shown to be as unreliable as the other descriptions (e.g. newspapers) you say are incorrect....studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is not nearly as reliable as we think, and that our memories are constantly being remade...so that events that we claim to recall perfectly and insist are totally accurate can be shown to be inaccurate.
You say "the official truth" was that the sun orbited the earth, I would say science does not have "official truth", it has evidence, and as I discussed in an earlier post it is the amount and weight of that evidence that gives an indication of how good an explanation it is. The geocentric theory was challenged much earlier than just a couple of hundred years ago, and even when it was the scientific consensus it was realised and noted that there were problems with the current theories, that they could not explain things like the observed retrograde motion of planets. Because of this science did not stop investigating the issue - religion however was perfectly happy to accept the "planets move the way they do because god moves them" and not look any further - and it was science that replaced geocentrism with heliocentrism.
Your example of dark energy/dark matter being 'faith' is also inaccurate in that what science says is based on things like galaxies and the expansion of the universe, combined with our knowledge of things like gravity, what we observe does not correspond with what matter/energy is visible to us. That is an observation, which requires no faith. If we were to take the religious approach and say "It is god causing these observed effects" or alternatively "we'll call it dark matter/dark energy and leave it at that", then faith would be involved, but science is not content to leave it at that, and massive efforts are underway to understand what dark matter and dark energy are, or if we discover that our understanding of gravity is incorrect and that modifications to the theory of gravity remove the need for dark matter, then those changes will be made....and still investigated. This does not require faith.
As for peer-review, as I have said it is the best approach along with the scientific method of removing human nature, bias and any element of faith. Again peer-review by itself does not guarantee something is correct, a single peer-reviewed paper claiming to have discovered what dark matter is will not in itself answer the question....what it will do is generate huge amounts of interest and discussion, which will lead to other researchers attempting to replicate results, or to point out inaccuracies in the research. Either way the research continues. A great example of this was the experiment which claimed to have shown neutrinos traveling at greater than the speed of light. Results were published, and whilst the initial reaction was sceptical, based on the preponderance of existing evidence supporting Einstein's theory that noting can travel at such speeds, the experiment and results were not ignored (as they would be with religious canon). Instead there were a flurry of new experiments to try and replicate the results (none of which succeeded) and the original experiment was examined closely to try and identify reasons why they might have gotten the results they did. Initial suggestions were that with the speeds involved relativistic effects on gps readings hadn't been considered, but this turned out not to be the case...they had been considered....so the attempts to reproduce the results continued, and the investigation of the original experiment continued. At the end of the day the inability to reproduce the results, combined with the discovery of equipment issues with the original experiment, and again with the existing preponderance of evidence supporting the theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light, lead to the conclusion that the neutrinos had not traveled at faster than the speed of light. There are two further things to note from this example: 1) scientists were genuinely excited by the initial results, and whilst sceptical were also kind of hoping they were correct, because it would open up whole new areas of research, new possibilities, and so on; and 2) this one instance will not stop other people reporting results that may suggest faster than light travel, and it will not stop the same investigations happening again....that's the way science works.
In the case of dark matter, when you ask " Isn’t it called “faith” when you believe in something when the evidence is unseen?" the evidence is not unseen, the evidence is that based on the matter and energy we can see, it is not possible for galaxies to form in the way we observe...so there is your evidence, seen, documented, not disagreed with. Nobody is taking anything on faith in that observation. As for the actual nature of dark matter, nobody is taking anything on faith there either, they are saying (as science so often does) "we don't know!" but we keep looking and experimenting and testing. Again, this does not rely on faith.
I know that has all been long winded, but to me it highlights that fact that faith is not a part of this process in any way, and that if we want to get into philosophical discussions that head towards solipsism, then science is the only way in which you can claim to know anything.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "From a criminologist’s perspective, scientific method is impossible. "
I'm not sure where criminology comes into this discussion? I was under the impression we were discussing the effects of human bias on science? As for the demonology stuff, that totally falls into the same basket as religion. I do not believe in demons, demonic possession, exorcism, or any of that....it's all supernatural with no evidence.

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: "Your descriptions of witnessing events have been shown to be as unreliable as the other descriptions (e.g. newspapers) you say are incorrect....studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is not nearly as reliable as we think, and that our memories are constantly being remade...so that events that we claim to recall perfectly and insist are totally accurate can be shown to be inaccurate. i>

I suppose I should have mentioned that my eyewitness testimony was good enough by prosecutor's standards that I was summoned to court to testify. So why was the news reporter not summoned? Is our court system so flawed that my inaccurate testimony was requested but the lawyers managed to get the reporter's "expert" testimony thrown out? There was another time when I was asked to come down to the station to identify the suspect in a line-up. Why didn’t they call in the reporter then?


I think this is the book I read a while ago that addresses two of the other points you made in your rebuttal. First, at one point the author laments the number of papers written about string theory that have inundated the scientific journals (as of the writing of the book, of course). He points out that many of these papers cite others of these papers but none of them actually have any real experiment or discovery from which they originate. They’re just bouncing ideas off of likeminded minds. It is just like all that theological drivel of the middle ages, based on other theological drivel and slowly deviating farther and farther from the original message.

Also in that book is a vague mention of a theory that has been swept under the rug called “variable-speed light”. This theory, if pursued, may someday shed some enlightenment on the neutrino issue you mentioned above. Not to mention it is another perfectly acceptable theory as to why Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation seems to have originated from something that travelled faster than the rest of the universe around us. The way it has been dismissed is a perfect example as to the flaws of science—namely the factor of human preference for what gets published and pursued.

Like I pointed out above, people are going to see what they want to see. If you gather a community of people who all “see” dark matter, they are going to have enough clout to push their theory on the world as if it is truth. A few pages back somebody insisted that “education is not a religion” as if, on the mere basis of his own authority, that statement could be made true. This is how the human mind works, and this is why science is flawed. You are at your best when you say “I don’t know”, but unfortunately, in the scientific world I know, “I don’t know” does not keep the grant funding coming, and so it is rarely said. Yes, evidence can be interpreted to say that man came from monkeys, but we will never know for sure unless somebody goes back in time and watches it happen. Yes, we can say that a spaghetti monster is hiding under our bed, but if it is not true, we will never go any farther than theory. A lot of what we call science is just popular hypothesis and we need to recognize it as that—and we need to stop allowing these silver-tongued theorists to state their perspectives as fact. It is as much a belief system to take their word for it as it is to take Billy Graham's word for what he says is the truth.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Your descriptions of witnessing events have been shown to be as unreliable as the other descriptions (e.g. newspapers) you say are incorrect....studies have shown that eyewitness te..."
Again, string theory is something that has been proposed, but as of yet has no strong evidence to support it. I do not see that this means that faith is suddenly introduced. There's research going on into it, paper's citing other papers, great, that still doesn't equate to faith. There is not a single scientist working in string theory who would claim more evidence than there is. Still not seeing faith in this.....If String theorists want string theory to be accepted they have to come up with experiments and evidence the same as every other branch of science. None of them are demanding that the theory be accepted without these. But how are we going to get this evidence if people aren't investigating, thinking, discussing etc? What you refer to in string theory where papers are written and cited is that ongoing investigation and discussion, but what you are not seeing is a single scientist demanding that with the current level of knowledge that the theory is either proven or should be accepted. That is where faith comes in, and you do not see it here.
As for "variable-speed light", great, somewhere else that science can study and investigate, but same again, nobody will accept it, nor is anyone being asked to, without evidence, and it will take a lot to counter the existing evidence....but that won't stop people from looking, which is as it should be.
Where faith comes in, is where people make a claim and are unable to provide evidence, but expect their claims to be accepted regardless. That is not science.
I disagree completely with your claim that saying "I do not know" is rare because of a fear of losing grant funding. The way to get grant funding is to say "I don't know, but this is what we think" and that is what the grant money is used for. Yes, you have to convince grant committees etc that your proposals have merit, and that frequently relies on evidence, building on earlier research etc, but to try and hide the "we don't know" is nonsense, if you claim to have the answer already, what is the research for?
If you have a community of people who "see dark matter" then they're not scientists, and they're not doing science. If you are anything other than a solipsist and you have a bunch of people who say "we're seeing this weird behaviour we don't expect, and here's the evidence" then you give them your grant money to investigate 'cos they're the ones doing science.
Again, you say "science is flawed", but it is science that says "we don't know" all the time, and keeps saying that until there is a weight of evidence, and even at that stage doesn't say "this is 100% settled", there is always the opening for a reevaluation based on further evidence.
Your comparison between evolution and spaghetti monsters under the bed is a false one, since there is a large body of evidence for one, and no evidence at all for the others. There are no silver-tongued theorists demanding you take, to continue your example, evolution as fact....it's a common tactic of the creationist to take the fact that scientists refer to the "theory of evolution" as some kind of evidence that they don't believe it themselves, but that approach misunderstands the use of the word "theory" in science, just as you misunderstand the use of the word "fact" in science....in this case the word "fact" is not used at all. What is used is the vast amounts of evidence that correspond to what we do observe, in the variety of life, in the fossil record, genetics, etc, and are understandably reluctant to ignore that evidence in the absence of a single other explanation, with evidence, that fits the observed.
Again, there is no faith required for any of this.

Robert wrote: ". It is just like all that theological drivel of the middle ages, based on other theological drivel and slowly deviating farther and farther from the original message. "
Again, no, because the theological drivel had no supporting evidence. If you build drivel on drivel you still get drivel. In science you build on evidence, and in cases where this has gone on for a long time, and we discover a fatal flaw in the earlier evidence, it leads to a reevaulation of all that is built on top on that, and if required (e.g. geocentrism vs heliocentrism) a paradigm shift to the new evidence. No faith required. In fact, faith is specifically removed from the process, if there was faith then these shifts would not happen....that they can be slow to occur may show an element of faith from particular individuals, but the scientific method forces the change because the evidence cannot be swept under the carpet with a "I have faith this is the explanation".

Robert wrote: "Not to mention it is another perfectly acceptable theory as to why Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation seems to have originated from something that travelled faster than the rest of the universe around us. The way it has been dismissed is a perfect example as to the flaws of science—namely the factor of human preference for what gets published and pursued."
Again, what is being dismissed? It is not religion, or faith that points out where a theory is flawed, it is science itself. Does that mean an entire theory, some of which fits with observable evidence, is thrown out? Of course not, you continue to study, investigate and experiment to try and find where the theory is wrong, why it is wrong, and how it can be improved. Again, no faith.

Robert wrote: "It is as much a belief system to take their word for it as it is to take Billy Graham's word for what he says is the truth. "
This is simply not the case. You would need to show similar amounts of scientific evidence for what BG says for this to be an accurate comparison.

Looking up the book you reference and the author show that he is a professor of physics at the University of Toronto. So he is working in the world of science, proposing a theory, doing research, writing papers, all of the things I mention above. None of which requires faith. I strongly suspect (not knowing the man) that he would expect his theory to be judged on the evidence (or lack thereof), not to be taken on faith. His point about string theory is neither unique, nor denied, even by those doing string theory! Again, no faith.