Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:11:14 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120011.RAA19556@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711112339.AAA23291@bitbox.follo.net> References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com> <199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net> <199711111935.MAA17390@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711112339.AAA23291@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [Nate Williams] > > It does give information, just not information that is completely > > predictable. Asking for 'scientific' provable information from human > > beings, let alone God (or gods) is asking for a chaotic system to become > > non-chaotic. > > I disagree that humans are a non-predictable system. There is chaos, > sure, but there are clearly predictable properties. Which information > people have is one; health is another. (Discussed below) I see no predictability in humans behavior, and the arguements against the existance of God/god is defined by his behavior towards man, or in particular one person's ability to 'predict the future' in a controlled setting. > On to the meat: The fact that something isn't totally predictable > doesn't stop us from using the scientific method on it. Sure, but it makes those methods and the results subject to much controversy. > Atomic > splitting isn't predictable on the individual level - we still use > statistics on it. Your dealing with stuff that by it's very nature *must* be predictable, or else matter as we know would cease to exist, and it doesn't. Comparing atoms to human beings is quite a stretch. > Predictive in the sense I'm using it means just > that - we can use some form of statistics to let this predict > _something_ about the world. Usually just how more statistics will > turn out <g>. However, if you can't do this at some level, you don't > have anything - you just have a more complex hypothesis not gaining > anything. Exactly my point. You cannot make sort of hypothesis that can accurately define 'human behavior', since it's a chaotic system. There's a great Dilbert cartoon to this effect. :) > There is a couple of cases where you even can't use statistics: Where > your measurement will impact the experiment so much that the result > won't be valid, and the case where it is too expensive to create an > experiment. You can use statistics everywhere you want, but the results are meaningless if the subject does not exhibit consistant behavior. You can give statistics on it all day long but they are meaningless, and change from 'study' to 'study'. > > > I don't feel the need for a god to be able to describe the world, this > > > I don't introduce one. > > > > Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get > > you. *grin* > > > > Aka, just because you don't have a 'felt need' for God/gods doesn't mean > > he/she/it doesn't exist. That simple foolishness. > > I've not said they don't exist - I'm just saying I've never seen any > data that I need to resort to a God to be able to explain. Your need (or lack thereof) for God isn't the point, the point is that the possibility of the existance of God isn't dependant on scientific or statistical evidence. > > There are also things that are completely beyond the realm of scientific > > understanding as well, that cannot be 'explained away'. For example, a > > recent "scientific" study on 'prayer' was given. There were two groups > > of 'ill/sick' patients, one the control group, the other group needs > > were given to a group of people who had no contact with the group, and > > the results were astonishing. The people who were prayed for had a > > significant better recovery rate than the control group, yet there was > > absolutely no contact between any of the members in the entire > > 'experiment'. How do you explain that? Bad testing, not a big enough > > experiment group, co-incidence, etc...? > > > This is interesting. I'd need more information about the experiment > before I could say anything about it - what immediately pop up as > things that would need to be checked is > Unfortunately, I don't have the references available (I wish I did), but the study was discussed in Reader's Digest of all places sometime in the last 12 months. (Sometimes it's nice to read something other than technical documentation when sitting on the throne. *grin*) > > Not everything can be explained by scientific reasoning, hence the > > need for 'FAITH'. > > Do you mean that not everything fit into our present model of the > world, the one we have used science to derive? I certainly agree. And that there are certain things in our life where 'science' will ultimately fail us. It can take us a long way, but at a certain point the vehicle that is 'science' is inherently limited to understanding things that are finite and predictable. When the things being studied is neither finite nor predictable, science will fail. It doesn't mean that science is useless, far from it. But, realizing that it isn't doesn't contain the 'explanation' for everything is important. > If you mean that there are things we can't use science to investigate, > but should believe in anyway because we were told about it as kids and > people claim non-verifiable 'experiences' - then I don't agree. So, if it's not scientifically provable, then it's doesn't exist? I get the impression that many of the 'anti-religious' people somehow get the mistaken impression that somehow religion is based on childish notions, and that any adult with a belief in the scientific process can't be expected to have religious beliefs and still be sane. Sciene and Faith are at odds *only* for those things which Science cannot explain due to lack of understand *all* of the issues in science, or due to it's inherent limitations as discuseed above. But that doesn't mean a scientist must refuse to acknowledge that something exists because science cannot explain it, or quantify it. As you pointed out above, you've had experiences in your life that you cannot fully explain, but have hypothesis for them. Even in your rebuttal of the 'prayer changing things' you bring up something that is just as 'non-scientific' as telepathy, which is also something that is completely un-quantifiable. Your 'Faith' that telepathy exists is greater than your 'Faith' that God exists, but you have faith none-the-less. :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120011.RAA19556>