Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[sswhateverlove]

Furthermore, what do you propose we do about these supposed influences that we can't detect, and even if we could, how do we isolate our experiments from them? And if we could do that, should we? If you're right, and epigenetics is a thing that can be influenced by dark matter, then any experiment that would provide a realistic model of epigenetic behavior in the real world would include dark matter, as that's how the natural world has been developing for the entirety of biological history. The moment you isolate that variable, if it's as common as you claim, you remove a level of accuracy from the experimental result.

There's like five layers of reasons why it's pointless to wonder about dark matter in our experiments right now, but in the end you've kinda got two choices anyway: either you work with what you can control and detect right now and get some kind of data to work with, or you sit paralyzed and cowed by all the variables that might maybe be out there, and get nothing done.

Tricky and a quite confusing, yes. I don't claim to have answers on how to detect and control for these potential variables, nor do I assume there will be any answers to that in the very immediate future. Perhaps someday...

I do not agree, however that it's pointless to wonder.

[TaraJo]

I guess the main sciences I'm concerned about are the two that have been observed to be highly susceptible to environmental influence, and that we still know very little about, epigenetics and quantum physics. With these sciences it seems it could be very negligent to form opinion without considering all potential variables including "dark matter" and "The Force"

The problem is that you've been consistantly wrong about epigenetics. I've had some biology courses in college but they're more than enough to tell me you're so full of shit, it's probably why your eyes are brown. I'm also willing to bet you're equally wrong on quantium physics, but that's a field of physics that even physicists don't entirely believe in or really understand, anyway (not to mention, there seems to be a bit of freedom to make stuff up and claim that it's real somewhere because in an infinite universe, it has to be real somewhere).

[sswhateverlove]

So, you're saying you do continue in pursuit of knowledge that could possibly confirm an intelligent designer/influencing variable? If you do that's good. A lot of atheists I know do not.

And I'm guessing that a lot of theists you know, do. That's just confirmation bias, which is one of the ways our minds happen to work. The scientific method is designed to deal with confirmation bias by requiring that scientists make their work (inlcuding tests and testing methods) available to other scientists, who can then put their work to additional testing.

Scientists are, generally, simply looking to learn more about how the world works. I think that a good number of them were searching for god when they made discoveries that led to alternative explanations for how certain things worked. Galileo wasn't seeking to conform to popular opinion, that much is for sure! If continued research and discovery and experimentation eventually turn up a god, then that's great! We'll all know she is (or was) out there and left sufficient evidence for her existence to be verified.

But science should not look for god or look to not find god. It just needs to continue to observe, experiment, document, test, and learn.

I totally agree. And yes, theists I know are the most guilty of confirmation bias and lack of skepticism.

[Chas]

Tricky and a quite confusing, yes. I don't claim to have answers on how to detect and control for these potential variables, nor do I assume there will be any answers to that in the very immediate future. Perhaps someday...

I do not agree, however that it's pointless to wonder.

Every scientific experiment to test a theory is also testing for unknown factors - that is the nature of testing a theory. Every scientist wonders - that is the nature of science.

That is how we have discovered what we have. You are trying to make something mysterious out of something that is well understood.

[One Above All]

I'm also willing to bet you're equally wrong on quantium physics, but that's a field of physics that even physicists don't entirely believe in or really understand, anyway (not to mention, there seems to be a bit of freedom to make stuff up and claim that it's real somewhere because in an infinite universe, it has to be real somewhere).

...Wut?
Quantum physics is as accepted as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It's fairly well understood as well (at least as much as is to be expected after less than a century of research): things at the quantum level are ruled by randomness, rather than causality (NOTE: This is a very, very, very simplistic explanation).
As for "an infinite universe", we don't know if the Universe is infinite, but, even if it were, for something to occur in an infinite universe, it still needs to have a likelihood higher than 0%. Is it possible for matter or energy to be created or destroyed? No. Is it possible for an electron to remain still? Also no. Is it possible for an atom to decay spontaneously, regardless of what kind of atom it is? Yes.

[Mudhammam]

This seems to imply that if a group of people are perceiving the same thing, it is assumed to be objective reality. If it was a hallucination that the group was sharing, or all the members were part of the same interactive simulation of reality and observing the same things, does the fact that they corroborate imply they are experiencing objective reality?

It would reasonable to assume that to a point, in proportion to the nature of the object they claim to have perceived, that there was something objective in reality that was stimulating the group's experiences. However, if further research led to the probability that what they believed they witnessed was an optical illusion, or as in mass hysteria (think church service), involved a great deal of emotion such as fear or guilt so that one may have manipulated and directed the group towards an experience, then doubt would be justified as to the objectivity of the thing in the experience that is alleged to be the external stimuli.

[Esquilax]

Tricky and a quite confusing, yes. I don't claim to have answers on how to detect and control for these potential variables, nor do I assume there will be any answers to that in the very immediate future. Perhaps someday...

I do not agree, however that it's pointless to wonder.

Of course it's okay to wonder. Just don't mistake your wondering for a valid criticism of the current science.

[sswhateverlove]

The problem is that you've been consistantly wrong about epigenetics. I've had some biology courses in college but they're more than enough to tell me you're so full of shit, it's probably why your eyes are brown. I'm also willing to bet you're equally wrong on quantium physics, but that's a field of physics that even physicists don't entirely believe in or really understand, anyway (not to mention, there seems to be a bit of freedom to make stuff up and claim that it's real somewhere because in an infinite universe, it has to be real somewhere).

Actually quantum theory is said to be "the most accurate physical theory ever". http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

You may want to read more about epigenetics as research has come a long way http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/e...pi_learns/

And I would appreciate it if you stop claiming I'm "so full of shit", otherwise I'm going to stop responding to your posts. (See, that's called "being assertive")

[ShaMan]

So, a group hallucination/delusion is still objective reality?

No, that's called church

[sswhateverlove]

Ok friends

It's been fun, but I have other things to do. Maybe I'll be back after the weekend is over (if you're lucky). I know I've probably been quite entertaining- boredom sucks. Don't miss me too much...