On the 'tube

Apollo 11 Doc on CNN tonite

26

Uh huh.

If I dont want to believe the moon landing actually happened that doesnt mean I dont believe in science

Well yeah, it pretty much does. Unless you're actually rationally disputing not only the history, but the evidence - in which case, the resources are easily found which provide the objective science, point-by-point. Still, of course you're free to believe whatever you want - as long as you're not making any decisions based on it which affect others.

But "believe in science" is somewhat of a sloppy rhetorical shortcut, using a word usually associated with the domain of faith, where anyone is free to choose to "believe" or not. Science specifically doesn't demand or even ask for "belief" in anything. Nothing is to be accepted on authority or even established tradition. Everything is always up for reconsideration - if that reconsideration is based in observation, evidence, and verification via hypothesis, prediction, experiment, and result. Rinse and repeat.

I do "believe" that the scientific method - and the body of knowledge about natural law on this planet and in the universe/s beyond which it has built over millennia (despite the shortcomings and errors of individual scientists along the way) - is man's greatest achievement, and our best hope for survival and improvement.

And I "believe" that a reverse-politically-correct social agreement to consider everyone's personal opinion equally valid, to give the same time and attention to vacuous ideological nonsense as we give the weight of actual observation and evidence - much less taking that nonsense into consideration when making decisions that affect the future of mankind - is not only stupid, but the way civilizations fail.

Flat earth crap and moon-non-landing conspiracy theories are not the same thing. But they're sure related.

There are myriad things of which science is unsure, and about which it freely admits the limits of its knowledge. That the American Apollo missions landed on the moon is not one of them.

28

I'd like to know why there's a recent proliferation of science deniers, anti-vaxers, flat earthers, conspiracy theorists and others of their ilk these days? Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not real. We live in a free country, but people shouldn't be allowed to spew nonsense---ie. Sandy Hook Deniers (like that well known idiot Alex Jones) just lost two lawsuits.

Besides, if the Earth was flat, the cats would've pushed everything off of the edge by now. We all know that it's hollow and the mole people live on the inside.

29

I'd like to know why there's a recent proliferation of science deniers, anti-vaxers, flat earthers, conspiracy theorists and others of their ilk these days?

The internet. Unless you were on the moon yourself, or conducting clinical trials on vaccines yourself, or circumnavigated the planet yourself, all the evidence is just words and images. If you want to find words and images that tell a different story, support for whatever belief you're aiming to cultivate is just a Google search away.

Besides, if the Earth was flat, the cats would've pushed everything off of the edge by now. We all know that it's hollow and the mole people live on the inside.

That's really what you think? I thought everybody knew that the interior of the planet is comprised of dinosaurs, an ocean, and Atlantis. Don't you ever go to the movies?

30

Uh huh.

If I dont want to believe the moon landing actually happened that doesnt mean I dont believe in science

Well yeah, it pretty much does. Unless you're actually rationally disputing not only the history, but the evidence - in which case, the resources are easily found which provide the objective science, point-by-point. Still, of course you're free to believe whatever you want - as long as you're not making any decisions based on it which affect others.

But "believe in science" is somewhat of a sloppy rhetorical shortcut, using a word usually associated with the domain of faith, where anyone is free to choose to "believe" or not. Science specifically doesn't demand or even ask for "belief" in anything. Nothing is to be accepted on authority or even established tradition. Everything is always up for reconsideration - if that reconsideration is based in observation, evidence, and verification via hypothesis, prediction, experiment, and result. Rinse and repeat.

I do "believe" that the scientific method - and the body of knowledge about natural law on this planet and in the universe/s beyond which it has built over millennia (despite the shortcomings and errors of individual scientists along the way) - is man's greatest achievement, and our best hope for survival and improvement.

And I "believe" that a reverse-politically-correct social agreement to consider everyone's personal opinion equally valid, to give the same time and attention to vacuous ideological nonsense as we give the weight of actual observation and evidence - much less taking that nonsense into consideration when making decisions that affect the future of mankind - is not only stupid, but the way civilizations fail.

Flat earth crap and moon-non-landing conspiracy theories are not the same thing. But they're sure related.

There are myriad things of which science is unsure, and about which it freely admits the limits of its knowledge. That the American Apollo missions landed on the moon is not one of them.

– Proteus

Nah what you are spewing is a "scientism" viewpoint. I find this all funny from a guy that believes in God and Creation.

31

Had tea with Bigfoot today. He didn’t care for the scones but did snack on a squirrel. Oh, and he gets pissed if you ask if he’s related to Yeti. Thinks Yeti is a guy in a costume appropriating his culture.

33

Well, I didn't know I was wearing that T-shirt. I thought I'd donated it to Goodwill long ago.

It may be that in the unknowable depths of black holes, or on the other side of the instant of the Big Bang (which might be related), sits or stands or amorphously hovers a supreme discrete intelligence who, from boredom or loneliness or just to see what would happen, shed or manufactured or lovingly sculpted the unfathomably dense sub-protonic grain of undistinguished mass and energy which exploded and became the observable universe as we know it.

It might even have said or thought, in some language we would miraculously understand or simply intuitively comprehend, "let there be light." That it took some 480,000 years before the universe cooled and became transparent enough for photons to actually propagate as visible light is irrelevant, as ages are but an instant to such a being.

None of that is incompatible with science, which takes no position on matters beyond its ability to probe and by definition beyond its comprehension. What happened in the first 10 to the minus 10 (or so) of the first second of time is among those things physics just doesn't know, and doesn't claim to know. I recall that the awesome nature of God is in most religions considered utterly beyond human understanding - so science and religion, those age-old sometimes-partners and sometimes-antagonists in making sense of what seems our reality are in agreement here.

I personally neither advocate nor promote any position on creation, as it is, at this point, utterly unknowable. It is properly in the domain of faith, and what I think (and the way I think) about it has changed over the years, and remains subject to further change.

I'm generally sympathetic to positions of faith, or at least to the intentions and goodwill of the people who hold them. But where dogmatic and idealogical interpretations of the poetry, the symbols, and the ancient mythic metaphors of religion are taken as literal, and conflict with the accumulated body of knowledge which is science, I'm going with science. I don't find an inherent conflict in this. Many early scientists were churchmen, and the Vatican accepted the burgeoning intellectual awakening that gave birth to science as its partner in revealing the mysteries and intricacies of creation. (However that happened.) In the church in which I grew up, we were never told from the pulpit what to believe relative to the accepted science of the day - nor what politics to espouse. It was a surprise to me when I began to discern political agendas on the part of organized religions, and the anti-scientific cant that often supported it. Both seemed utterly antithetical to the accepting and supreme tolerance of grace, as well as neurotically non-adaptive to the world we live in.

In any case, I would consider it, if not an affront (because why would such a being care what I think or do?), then stupid and a bit of an insult not to use what capacity humanity has been given (or evolved) to observe, theorize, test, and understand everything. There may be other intelligent species and civilizations in the universe/s, but given the expanse of spacetime, we're unlikely ever to meet them, or they us. We may as well proceed as though we're the only "intelligent" beings in the universe capable of analyzing, understanding, and manipulating its fundamental forces; we're the ones who by so doing learn to appreciate it, to be thankful for it. We have (perhaps uniquely) the ever-expanding capacity to see it, know it, understand it, be awed by it - even, you know, praise it.

Not to use that capacity for rational discovery is, in my view, something like the literal meaning of a "sin": it misses the mark. To live in lockstep with any dogma that contradicts what man's efforts have slowly peeled away layer after layer to reveal seems...not only ungrateful to any divine being who might like some applause for its work, but also simply stupid from the perspective of our survival. Someone (though not, I think, scripture) said "God helps them what helps themselves" - and science seems to be one self-help program that has been richly rewarding.

But I don't know where "God and Creation" came into this at all. We're talking about man's cosmically quite modest achievement in landing on and walking around our nearest astronomical neighbor, one no further away than the miles we can put on a modern car before trading it in. In the context of the era, it was one grand enterprise, and surely the most efficient and impressive use of modest computing power to date. (A single MacBook far outstrips the capacity it took to do the math, and look how we waste the power we've been given.)

I just don't see how that purely technical feat, based on the confirmed science of the era, in any way challenges God or any notion of creation.

Nother words, I don't know what landing on the moon has to do with religion, and I didn't bring it up. I don't challenge or judge others based on what I think they may or may not believe, and in any case Bax says we can't discuss religion. But "spewing" and "scientism" are, as you know, loaded words intended to raise hackles. Why stir the poop in such a well-intended thread, meant purely to remember and appreciate a historical achievement?

Here man, have some Skittles!


In other news, do you know the Atomic Brain (atoms! SCIENCE!) so far has beat down every other preamp/sonic conditioner I've put it up against? I continue to appreciate it, and thank you for your efforts in analyzing the Space Echo, separating the preamp from the delay, improving it, and making it available to increase my satisfaction with the universe.

34

Well, I didn't know I was wearing that T-shirt. I thought I'd donated it to Goodwill long ago.

It may be that in the unknowable depths of black holes, or on the other side of the instant of the Big Bang (which might be related), sits or stands or amorphously hovers a supreme discrete intelligence who, from boredom or loneliness or just to see what would happen, shed or manufactured or lovingly sculpted the unfathomably dense sub-protonic grain of undistinguished mass and energy which exploded and became the observable universe as we know it.

It might even have said or thought, in some language we would miraculously understand or simply intuitively comprehend, "let there be light." That it took some 480,000 years before the universe cooled and became transparent enough for photons to actually propagate as visible light is irrelevant, as ages are but an instant to such a being.

None of that is incompatible with science, which takes no position on matters beyond its ability to probe and by definition beyond its comprehension. What happened in the first 10 to the minus 10 (or so) of the first second of time is among those things physics just doesn't know, and doesn't claim to know. I recall that the awesome nature of God is in most religions considered utterly beyond human understanding - so science and religion, those age-old sometimes-partners and sometimes-antagonists in making sense of what seems our reality are in agreement here.

I personally neither advocate nor promote any position on creation, as it is, at this point, utterly unknowable. It is properly in the domain of faith, and what I think (and the way I think) about it has changed over the years, and remains subject to further change.

I'm generally sympathetic to positions of faith, or at least to the intentions and goodwill of the people who hold them. But where dogmatic and idealogical interpretations of the poetry, the symbols, and the ancient mythic metaphors of religion are taken as literal, and conflict with the accumulated body of knowledge which is science, I'm going with science. I don't find an inherent conflict in this. Many early scientists were churchmen, and the Vatican accepted the burgeoning intellectual awakening that gave birth to science as its partner in revealing the mysteries and intricacies of creation. (However that happened.) In the church in which I grew up, we were never told from the pulpit what to believe relative to the accepted science of the day - nor what politics to espouse. It was a surprise to me when I began to discern political agendas on the part of organized religions, and the anti-scientific cant that often supported it. Both seemed utterly antithetical to the accepting and supreme tolerance of grace, as well as neurotically non-adaptive to the world we live in.

In any case, I would consider it, if not an affront (because why would such a being care what I think or do?), then stupid and a bit of an insult not to use what capacity humanity has been given (or evolved) to observe, theorize, test, and understand everything. There may be other intelligent species and civilizations in the universe/s, but given the expanse of spacetime, we're unlikely ever to meet them, or they us. We may as well proceed as though we're the only "intelligent" beings in the universe capable of analyzing, understanding, and manipulating its fundamental forces; we're the ones who by so doing learn to appreciate it, to be thankful for it. We have (perhaps uniquely) the ever-expanding capacity to see it, know it, understand it, be awed by it - even, you know, praise it.

Not to use that capacity for rational discovery is, in my view, something like the literal meaning of a "sin": it misses the mark. To live in lockstep with any dogma that contradicts what man's efforts have slowly peeled away layer after layer to reveal seems...not only ungrateful to any divine being who might like some applause for its work, but also simply stupid from the perspective of our survival. Someone (though not, I think, scripture) said "God helps them what helps themselves" - and science seems to be one self-help program that has been richly rewarding.

But I don't know where "God and Creation" came into this at all. We're talking about man's cosmically quite modest achievement in landing on and walking around our nearest astronomical neighbor, one no further away than the miles we can put on a modern car before trading it in. In the context of the era, it was one grand enterprise, and surely the most efficient and impressive use of modest computing power to date. (A single MacBook far outstrips the capacity it took to do the math, and look how we waste the power we've been given.)

I just don't see how that purely technical feat, based on the confirmed science of the era, in any way challenges God or any notion of creation.

Nother words, I don't know what landing on the moon has to do with religion, and I didn't bring it up. I don't challenge or judge others based on what I think they may or may not believe, and in any case Bax says we can't discuss religion. But "spewing" and "scientism" are, as you know, loaded words intended to raise hackles. Why stir the poop in such a well-intended thread, meant purely to remember and appreciate a historical achievement?

Here man, have some Skittles!


In other news, do you know the Atomic Brain (atoms! SCIENCE!) so far has beat down every other preamp/sonic conditioner I've put it up against? I continue to appreciate it, and thank you for your efforts in analyzing the Space Echo, separating the preamp from the delay, improving it, and making it available to increase my satisfaction with the universe.

– Proteus

There still exists, ad nauseam, a percentage of the populace who emphatically do not see this as an historical event. look it up, its for real. Just like the moon landing happened in the 60s on television.

35

"In other news, do you know the Atomic Brain (atoms! SCIENCE!) so far has beat down every other preamp/sonic conditioner I've put it up against? I continue to appreciate it, and thank you for your efforts in analyzing the Space Echo, separating the preamp from the delay, improving it, and making it available to increase my satisfaction with the universe."

AMEN to that Brother


Register Sign in to join the conversation