Is the belief in theoretical science a prerequisite for being a liberal?

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Is the belief in theoretical science a prerequisite for being a liberal?

Or is it alright to maintain a healthy skepticism regarding theories purporting to explain the observed through the unobserved, be they biblical, scientific, or otherwise?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. No, but it should be a prereq to graduate high school.

[Guaranteed]

2. What about graduating college, though?

Should you then have to switch over to the healthy skepticism? That's where I picked mine up.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Nope, too late. Get it in HS and NEVER lose it.

Are you saying that it's OK to reject it at some point?

Maybe gravity will stop working if you concentrate hard enough.....

[Guaranteed]

5. ????

Are you saying two different things there?

[BlueEyedSon]

11. I guess you are. Sorry if my reply is confusing.

[Guaranteed]

17. K, after your third edit-

The phenomenon of gravity is clearly observable.

The explanation behind it, though, is theory.

[BlueEyedSon]

27. Your understanding of science is weak.

What is the "theory" behind gravity?

On edit: what the f*&k is "theoretical science"? Strings with 11 dimensions? Atoms with nuclei? Evolution? The red shift?

[Guaranteed]

31. That space is bent.

I'm not talking equations, here, which come from observable data, I'm talking about the theoretical EXPLANATION for the observable phenomenon of gravity.

[BlueEyedSon]

34. Which is???

[Guaranteed]

54. I just said it...space is bent by matter,

and that creates a dimensional "vacuum" which attracts matter to itself, like a marble circling around a hyperbolic plane.

Or is that close enough to what Einstein said? Did you have another theory?

[BlueEyedSon]

60. No, not a vacuum.

The "bending" you describe is a way to for us 3-D people to VISUALIZE the effect mass has on the 4-dimensional space-time continuum. Is something actually BENT? Who is to say? We can't "see" in 4-D, but all the predictions are accurate to 1 part in a million. That is the point, the "reality" if you will, of Einstein's General Relativity. Most physicists agree that this so-called theory is "proved" and could be called a FACT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

So what is "theoretical science"?

Maybe there is room for "theoretical theology." For example: we know there is a supreme being, we know he/she created the universe, but we are still unsure how he/she feels about gays/abortions/atheists.....

:)

[Guaranteed]

63. I didn't mean a literal vacuum...

That's why I put it in quotes, and had "dimensional" before it.

Yes, I understand the theory. How someone would go about matching it up with the observable numbers to justify it, I have no idea.

And theology is even more bullshit than theoretical science. At least science TRIES to use observable phenomena (although they always have to throw that unobservable stuff in there for their explanations- funny similarity).

[BlueEyedSon]

64. They did, they do, they match. End of story.

[Guaranteed]

66. Uh huh- and how did it match up with electromagnetism? nt

[BlueEyedSon]

74. Just fine. Were not talking unified field theories here.

But photons (light waves), the gauge bosons of electromagnetism, are bent by gravity AS IF space itself was warped. This is a consequence of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration plus the constraints of Special Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

[Guaranteed]

76. If you can't unify them, they don't match up.

You're dealing with two different systems. How is that possible, in this one universe?

[BlueEyedSon]

78. I offer no theory. Is that the theory you wish to oppose?

Sheesh.

Like I suggested earlier, you don't really "get" science, do you?

[Guaranteed]

80. I'm just asking how two seemingly different systems

can come from one universe.

I don't think that's an unfair question.

[BlueEyedSon]

84. Humans have managed to "unify" the mathematics of ALL THE FORCES

except for gravity.

We are uniquely gifted to understand our universe. Maybe it's evolution, maybe it's divine, maybe it's a tautology (we're from here, so....).

But it will happen.

Because it hasn't happened YET, does that invalidate all the science up to 2005? Does it invalidate the scientific method? Does it invalidate human reason?

[Guaranteed]

87. If reasoning is contradicting itself, there's nothing wrong with reason...

There's something wrong with the reasonING.

Somebody fucked up. Back to the drawing board.

Maybe stop it with the unobservable stuff this time around....

[BlueEyedSon]

89. This thread just jumped the shark for me.

[VioletLake]

90. LOL n/t

[latteromden]

56. Thaaaanks.

[bryant69]

4. It depends on what you mean by a belief in theoretical science

For example, one could believe in the power of science to answer scientific questions, while believing it had no power to answer theological questions.

Or let me put it another way, does the belief in theoretical science preclude a belief in God or in a creation (wether through mystical means or scientific methods)?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Guaranteed]

6. No, it would not preclude a belief in God.

I'm asking, basically, do you have to believe in electrons, as described in physics and chemistry books, or other theoretical elements of science, to be a liberal?

[DrWeird]

9. Yes, IMHO.

It should also be a prerequisite for using a computer and reading this post.

[Guaranteed]

12. Why? nt

[DrWeird]

13. Because using computers without believing in electrons...

is like using an hourglass without believing in sand.

[Guaranteed]

14. But...you can see the sand.

Where are these electrons that you speak of?

Never seen one.

[DrWeird]

20. No, you're seeing photons that reflect off of the sand.

You're also seeing photons emitted from phosphors which are being activated by electrons.

[Guaranteed]

23. Photons...

So, to see a photon, does a photon have to reflect off of another photon?

What does a photon look like? And, if I'm looking at photons, why am I seeing sand?

You're confusing me.

[DrWeird]

30. No, there are numerous ways to detect photons.

CCDs, electron multiplyer tubes, etc.

What's happening is, photons are reflecting off of the surface of the sand, traveling to the back of your eye, hitting a receptor, where it increases the energy of an electron from a pi-bonding orbital to a pi-anti bonding orbital of a very specific molecule, this triggers a stereochemical change of said molecule, which triggers a cascade chemical reaction which leads ultimately to your brain, where you interpret it as "a grain of sand."

All very much verifiable through scientific experiments, and recored in peer-reviewed scientific journals which is far more reliable than "what my friends tell me."

[Guaranteed]

35. I know the theory...

But here you're talking about this thing that's never been seen. And I don't understand how you can vouch for its existence, and all of its attributes, when you've never seen it.

You can show me all the gadgets that "pick up" photons all you want (the eye, supposedly, being one of them), but you still haven't shown me a photon. You're just showing me a gadget being affected in some way, no matter how consistently, given certain conditions.

[DrWeird]

40. That's because I don't have to see something to believe it's real.

I believe in germs because science has proven their existence, not because I can see them. I believe in electrons because science has proven their existence. If I were blind, I'd still believe in the moon, even though I couldn't see it.

What's so special about the sense of sight anyway?

[Guaranteed]

43. Germs are observable.

It's not just sight, in any case- it's some form of sense.

I can feel air, I know it exists, even though I can't see it.

[DrWeird]

46. You need a microscope.

That's crazy voodoo, that is.

[Guaranteed]

50. No, it's not.

You're trying to distort my argument.

[DrWeird]

52. That is your argument.

You're using it against electron microscopes, and tunneling microscopes, it's just as valid against optical microscopes.

[Guaranteed]

55. No, it's not- because

the light is not being electronically translated. It's just being "bent" (---in theory :P).

Optical microscopes are obviously fine. They can be checked for validity with the naked eye.

[Az]

36. Technically you don't even see photons

What you actually experience is your brain recreating the image the senses have detected. What we experience is a momentary lagged replication of reality. And its not even an absolutely accurate replication.

Just being technical.

[BlueEyedSon]

33. As I said earlier, no, but it should be a prereq to graduate high school.

After that, you may choose class warfare, greed, racism, narcissism, global hegemony, manifest destiny, etc.

[Guaranteed]

41. I think you should know the theory.

But, believe in it as if it's been proven to you beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Not even close.

[BlueEyedSon]

42. Define "theory." Then we may get somewhere.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. Go to church to address your theological issues.

Go to school for everything else.

[Guaranteed]

26. Studying philosophy helps with them, too,

if you don't want to just take people's words for things.

[DrWeird]

8. You mean belief in evolution?

That's a prerequisite for being intelligent.

And being intelligent is a prerequisite for being a liberal, IMHO.

Our are you talking about real theoretical science, like String theory, or something?

[Guaranteed]

10. Yes, string theory would be an excellent example.

I'm talking about theoretical science, which for the most part doesn't include biology (until you get to an unobservable molecular level).

[DrWeird]

16. Molecules are observable.

But are you saying something has to be directly observable to be confirmed to exist?

If you were blind would you question the existence of the moon?

[Guaranteed]

19. Molecules aren't directly observable.

You have to use a separate medium to translate them into an observable form.

And, yes, if I was blind I'd believe in the moon because I'm sure that my friends would vouch for its existence.

[DrWeird]

22. And optical microscopes use different mediums...

i.e. glass lens to look at cells.

Do you believe in cells?

[Guaranteed]

24. Yes, but those aren't electronic.

Lenses are clearly perfectly acceptable mediums for translation.

[DrWeird]

32. So are electron microscopes.

Or atomic force microscopes, or scanning tunnelling microscopes.

[Undercover Owl]

15. I disagree.

Being intelligent is absolutely not a prerequisite to being a liberal. Some people were raised liberal, and they just accept what their parents told them. I have known a few liberals who aren't very bright.

[DrWeird]

18. Are we asking what should be or what is?

IMHO, you can't support the death penalty and be a Christian. There are however, plenty of Christians who support the death penalty.

[BlueEyedSon]

39. I would go further and say that a Christian could not support war.

Yet many do.

[DrWeird]

48. Well, I could have gone on.

But I was just using that as an example.

[BlueEyedSon]

49. NP. nt

[Guaranteed]

21. That wasn't the question.

Since when is being skeptical stupid?

And don't tell me that you've worked out all of the math yourself that brings you to the conclusion that string theory is true....

[Undercover Owl]

25. were you replying to me?

if you are I don't understand

[Guaranteed]

29. Well, I guess I'm replying to both

of you.

I'm just saying that being skeptical of theoretical science is the farthest thing from stupid there is.

[DrWeird]

37. Since when is being skeptical stupid?

I suppose whenever you're skeptical of something that's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. When can you tell when something has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? That's what an education is for.

As for string theory, it hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of the doubt. That's why many people are skeptical about it. As for doing the math yourself, neither have you, so why be either accepting or skeptical about it?

[Guaranteed]

47. The existence of things such as electrons

and protons and such has not been proven anywhere near beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's all just a theoretical explanation- perhaps the best we have. But it's not very likely that these theories we're working with will never change, because they always do.

[DrWeird]

51. Oh, yes they have.

One has to resort to ridiculous arguments in order to argue against their existence.

You might as well argue that England doesn't exist because you've never been their and anybody or anything that says otherwise is all part of an elaborate practical joke.

Or that the holocaust never happened.

[Guaranteed]

57. Nowhere near the same thing.

At all.

People have seen England, even if I haven't been there. And they saw the holocaust. They SAW them- they didn't come up with them as an unobservable idea and then go about proving their existence through indirect experiments.

[DrWeird]

58. They're lying.

Just like those phony indirect experiments.

[Guaranteed]

59. Now THAT'S ridiculous.

And, dude, I'm not really against indirect experiments- I'm just saying that they're not showing the existence of anything.

I'm sorry, man, I just haven't seen an electron, or a photon, or a tachyon, or a neutrino, or any of this other stuff.

Again, though, that's not to say that we can't make use of the theory for practical purposes- they clearly work (except when they don't). I'm just saying I've never seen one, personally.

Yeah, it's crazy, I know.

[DrWeird]

61. Indirect experiments vs. eye witness testimony.

I'd take indirect double-blind, reproducible experiments over eye witness testimony everytime.

And I'd sooner accept holocaust denial over electron denial, not that I'd ever deny either.

If you're just waxing philosophical, that's fine. If you actually doubt the existence of electrons, I recommend some remedial science coursex.

[Guaranteed]

62. The reliability of eye-witness testimony depends on the

nature of what they're reporting (i.e. "miracles" are highly unlikely to be true, by definition) and the number of people reporting it.

I take the assertion that England exists much more seriously than electrons.

[JDPriestly]

28. Yes

You have to be somewhat rational to be a liberal, and rational people believe in theoretical science. You can still believe that an unobserved power (God) created the observed -- but you need to believe that the unobserved power created a rational, observed realm, which is the realm observed by science.

You can also believe that there are unobserved phenomena that are not subject to the theories of science. Love, for example, is an unobserved phenomena from the point of view of theoretical science. Observed phenomena, such as physical reactions to the presence of a loved one, blushing, for instance, are, however, related to love and are subject to theoretical science.

[Guaranteed]

38. I'm really not talking about God, here.

The skepticism should follow that belief, too.

I think it's odd, though, that people can say that you have to believe in something you've never even seen in order to be "rational."

[Undercover Owl]

44. Bull Goose Loony: I think you misunderstood me.

Where did I suggest being skeptical has anything to do with being unintelligent?

I'm just saying some people were lucky enough to be raised with liberal values, even if they aren't lucky enough to have brains.

[BlueEyedSon]

45. Look, the answer must be "no" because 97% of Americans don't

even UNDERSTAND science.

But about 50% are liberal.

[Kenneth ken]

53. something else

I like your healthy skepticism comment better. I think it helps keep one open-minded to new ideas to be skeptical about almost everything.

[VioletLake]

65. Do you believe that the earth is 6,000-odd years old? n/t

[Guaranteed]

67. NO, GODDAMMIT.

This is fucking ridiculous.

Do you think it's impossible for someone to be skeptical of ALL unproved assertions?

[BlueEyedSon]

69. I have direct evidence that the Earth might be as young as 45 years old

Just TRY and prove otherwise!

:)

[Guaranteed]

72. My grandfather was here 85 years ago.

And he says his mom was here even longer.

[BlueEyedSon]

77. That's HIS story.

:)

Maybe I'll give you that, but you cant prove it's over 150.

But maybe all existence came into being yesterday, complete with all our memories implanted in our heads. God works in mysterious ways. Now what?

[Guaranteed]

83. Now you're just being irrational.

Cartesian arguments confront existence directly. I'm not doing that. It's irrational.

As far as history, well, you know, probably a lot of it ISN'T true LOL. What is, what isn't...well, I don't know. I tend to think most of it is, though. Again, large numbers of reliable sources will help with that.

[BlueEyedSon]

86. But...could you prove otherwise?

[Guaranteed]

93. PROVE it?

Absolutely not.

Believe it with good reason? Sure. You could even say that with theoretical science (although I choose not to because of the nature of the assertions).

[VioletLake]

71. I didn't think you did.

The reason I ask is because some people do believe that.

What is it that makes that particular idea distasteful to you? Therein lies the answer to your question.

It's a matter of degrees.

[Guaranteed]

73. I want some PROOF. I don't want made up

stories and explanations with two hundred exceptions and contradictions.

[VioletLake]

81. Is there something you do "believe" in, BullGooseLoony?

Or are you skeptical about absolutely everything?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VioletLake]

94. Ha indeed.

I couldn't care less about your Lounge fights.

Bye :hi:

[BlueEyedSon]

68. I have never seen that the Earth is round.

Never been up in space to see that directly, myself with my own 2 eyes.

Never seen the dark side of the moon.

Never seen electrons flowing thought my battery powered flashlight, neither.

Never seen Paula Zahn in person, she could be a cartoon. I guess she is theoretical too.

[Guaranteed]

70. We have satellite pictures of the Earth.

And people have traveled around the globe. No end.

AND you can see the curvature in an airplane.

The moon- well, I just take people's word for it. It jives with the roundness of the Earth. Makes good sense. It's another rock out there.

Gotta agree with ya on those electrons.

And some have seen Paula Zahn in person. Although she could be a robotic humanoid of some kind. :)

[BlueEyedSon]

75. Me. Personally. My own 2 eyes. Get it?

What do YOU consider proof?

[Guaranteed]

79. Proof for an ordinary assertion can simply be the

testimony of a typically reliable person. It doesn't take much, as long as you're not asserting anything unlikely (or unobservable).

Of course, an assertion gains strength with eyewitness numbers, as long as its ordinary enough to not require some kind of skepticism.

[BlueEyedSon]

82. So reality is a democratic, like in the dark ages when most people

though the earth was flat. Because they were significantly more than half, the consensual reality was "flat earth."

Is it possible that an enlightened few can be "more accurate" in their perception?

[Guaranteed]

85. Actually, many historians say that most people knew that the Earth

was round back then.

And, no, I'm not saying that reality, especially the bigger questions, is a "democrac" (that's actually more of your argument, what with the way that scientists talk, right?). I'm just saying that if my brother says he bought a red shirt at Macy's, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, I'm going to believe him.

Isn't that rationality?

[BlueEyedSon]

88. Obviously you don't know your bro is a pathological liar.

It was blue. And Kmart.

(fixed my typo, BTW.. thx)

[Guaranteed]

92. I have no reason to think he is.

If I'm just being paranoid, that's irrational.

[Boosterman]

95. While I disagree with you

to a certain extent you have defended your position extremely well. Kudos.

I actually think skepticism can be an excellent trait. I tend toward a bit too much acceptance and outright naivety at times.