<James.Hun…@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>"David T." wrote:
>> Besides, this is a science vs. religion discussion.  Whatever your
>> hangup is on the subject of economics, this isn’t the right thread to
>> bring it up.

>   This -is- the right thread to bring it up, because science is it’s
>   own self-serving religion, which is where the "pseudo" comes
>   from in the threadname.

Science is not a religion.  People don’t "believe in" science.
Science is a method of determining the proof or falsity of a statement
about the physical world through observation and experimentation.  I
suppose you could believe or disbelieve in the utility of the method,
but it is so simple that there really isn’t anything to disagree with.
It’s just a formalized series of steps on how to figure something out.
It doesn’t tell you anything, except how to figure things out for
yourself.

If some hypothesis is tested using the scientific method it can:
1) be proven accurate under the specific set of circumstances under
which the test was performed.
2) be proven wrong by observation of something happening in reality
that contradicts the hypothesis.
3) be proven wrong because some secondary effect or logical
consequence predicted by the hypothesis does not come to pass.
4) be proven accurate yet inadequate because some secondary effect
occurs which the hypothesis does not account for.
5) not be proven either way because the test was badly conceived
6) be proven wrong under the specific set of circumstances under which
the test was performed.

As hypotheses get tested under various circumstances, the validity of
them becomes more well known.  Eventually, they become theories and
can be used generally without too much concern that you’re going to
hit a place where it isn’t true.  Finally, if no one is able to prove
the theory wrong, it becomes a law and is proclaimed absolutely true.

Then someone else comes along with a new hypothesis or a new test that
proves the law false.  The law is then rejected or qualified and
becomes a subset of the new hypothesis/theory/law.

Point out in the above where faith comes into play and beliefs are
formed without evidence.  The closest you’ll get is the hypothesis
stage, but those ideas are formed after some sort on initial
observation which form the basis of the idea, and immediately
subjected to scrutiny and the false ones quickly weeded out.

A lot of people believed in phlogiston until someone figured out how
to disprove it.  No one believes in it now.  Where is the faith?
Where are the phlogists?

Scientists may hold on to old, beloved theories long after they have
been disproven, or continue to pursue Stage 3 funding after the Stage
1 testing disproved the theory he was trying to prove.  That isn’t
science.  That’s humanity.  It’s not a good thing, but it doesn’t
impeach the concept of scientific study.  It only impeaches those
scientists.

If the tenets of a religion are proven false, the religion collapses.
If the laws of science are proven wrong, science gets new laws out of
it.

>> (Furthermore, if the study of economics is performed using the
>> scientific method and achieves consistent, repeatable results with
>> predictive value, it is a science.)

>    Bullshit. It is a science in the sense that two is a science.

I said "If."  I made a conditional statement and you treated it as a
simple declarative.  "it is a science" is only true if the first
clause is true.  I made no statement regarding the truth of the first
clause.  In fact I haven’t studied econ well enough to be able say one
way or the other.  I do know the compound interest equations work, but
that’s about it.

David
(What the heck.  Why don’t you tell us where economics fails as a
scientific field?  Try to avoid rants, conspiracy theories, and other
noninformative statements.)

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

"David T." wrote:
> It’s amazing how few words I had to change.

> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:54:06 GMT, edcon…@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad)
> wrote:

> >For the record, not one scintilla of physical evidence exists to back
> >up the religious establishment’s contention of man’s creation.

> >For the record, not one scintilla of physical evidence exists to back
> >up the religious establishment’s contention that life on earth began
> >as a result of divine intervention.

> >It is incredible, isn’t it, that so much could be shoved down our
> >throat as fact when all it is, really, is fabrication, distortion and
> >a pack of lies.

> >But even more incredible, I suppose, is that such a totally
> >prepostrous theory could gain the incredible stature it has.

> >Honest theologists — there are some — know it is a nonsensical
> >impossibility but why rock the boat? The preservation of vested
> >interests certainly outweighs all search for truth.

> >Members of the religious establishment — you’ll notice I didn’t
> >call them psuedos, which they are — are guilty of deliberately
> >perpetrating a monumental fraud on all mankind.

> >And, just imagine, they have been able to do it with NO physical
> >evidence, only an army of braindead robots programed to recite
> >rhetorical bullshit and deny unwanted physical evidence that’s
> >staring them in the eye.

> David

The evidence does not provide information as to what the
designing force is or was.  The theory of evolution to can
only explain the fine tuning life at the macro level to adapt
to environmental conditions.

Professor Michael J. Behe presents the details of this
position in his book "Darwin’s Black Box".

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Ed Conrad wrote in message <38bd0850.5115…@news.sunlink.net>…

>For the record, not one scintilla of physical evidence exists to back
>up the scientific establishment’s contention of man’s evolution.

>For the record, not one scintilla of physical evidence exists to back
>up the scientific establishment’s contention that life on earth began
>on its own.

>It is incredible, isn’t it, that so much could be shoved down our
>throat as fact when all it is, really, is fabrication, distortion and
>a pack of lies.

>But even more incredible, I suppose, is that such a totally
>prepostrous theory could gain the incredible stature it has.

>Honest scientists — there are some — know it is a nonsensical
>impossibility but why rock the boat? The preservation of vested
>interests certainly outweighs all search for truth.

>Members of the scientific establishment — you’ll notice I didn’t
>call them psuedos, which they are — are guilty of deliberately
>perpetrating a monumental fraud on all mankind.

>And, just imagine, they have been able to do it with NO physical
>evidence, only an army of braindead robots programed to recite
>rhetorical bullshit and deny unwanted physical evidence that’s
>staring them in the eye.

>Ed Conrad
>edconrad.com

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

"David T." wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:05:27 -0500, James Hunter
> <James.Hun…@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> >   Well, that’s exactly the description of the modern science community.
> >   100% mental lamers, so they classify economics as a "science"
> >   because they don’t know how to get real money to do experiments.
> >   So it’s hip-hip hooray for Ayn Rand, the guru of post-post-moderne
> >nullthought,
> >   Laffable curves and William F. Buckley Juuuniorrr.
> >   While everybody knows that the only true theories of economics are
> >    the Lotto, Keno, and Monty Hall.

> I’m sorry.  Since you quoted my entire post and put your comments at
> the end, I can’t tell which part of what I said you are referring to.
> I am therefore unable to produce a meaningful response.

> Besides, this is a science vs. religion discussion.  Whatever your
> hangup is on the subject of economics, this isn’t the right thread to
> bring it up.

   This -is- the right thread to bring it up, because science is it’s
   own self-serving religion, which is where the "pseudo" comes
   from in the threadname.

> David
> (Furthermore, if the study of economics is performed using the
> scientific method and achieves consistent, repeatable results with
> predictive value, it is a science.)

    Bullshit. It is a science in the sense that two is a science.

news:38be90b2.264270121@news…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:49:52 GMT, Niek Sprakel <nspra…@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <p14rbsk7d57bt6oc90bh7kmm95qo79p…@4ax.com>,
> >  Malcolm McMahon <malc…@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Almost anything can trigger the human religious circuitry but no,
> >> science is a set of techniques for forming theories that _work_. It’s
> >> justified by the technology it spawns.

> >Well, religion _works_ for many people too… it just provides them
> >with plausible answers to difficult questions so that they can stop
> >worrying about those questions. That doesn’t seem much different from
> >what science does, except that the answers are a bit more plausible
> >and elaborate.

> Religion is what happens when people who don’t understand how things
> really work try to explain those things to someone else.  Or when
> someone who doesn’t understand how things work misinterprets an
> explanation from someone else who does know how things work.

> Thunder, the religious explanation:  The wheels of the gods’ chariots
> rumble against the sky.

> Thunder, the scientific explanation:  When lightning strikes, the air
> in the immediate vicinity of the bolt gets superheated and expands at
> a speed greater than that of sound, effectively detonating.

> One of the above can be proven or disproven through study and
> experimentation.  The other must be accepted on faith and not
> investigated lest some higher power be angered at man’s impertinence.

> Which do you prefer: the plausible and elaborate answer, or the right
> answer?  Or just the knowledge that we can’t explain it yet?

> >This is just crap… science is not helping people to become more aware
> >of themselves and their environment… it’s just another (though more
> >subtle) way of making ourselves ridiculous. How many scientists are
> >truly striving to make their theories accessible to the general
> >public? How many scientists truly care about peoples’ ability to
> >discern between fact and fiction? Sometimes I even wonder if scientists
> >are able to discern between fact and fiction for themselves.

> You are confusing the principles of science with the realities of the
> modern scientific community.  The latter is th result of the grant
> money mentality, which results from the fact that all the science that
> can be discovered on the cheap already has been.

> Religion put man in the center of the universe with the sun and stars
> orbiting around us.  It took science to put man in his proper place.

> All that said, I’m 100% in favor of religion.  If a person can’t bear
> to stare into the limitless, uncaring, random universe without the
> crutch of a passel of gods to back him up and enforce some sort of
> order, he can have them for all I care.  Just stop bothering me with
> them.

> David

You allow yourself to be bothered, unless you have religio’s hauling signs
saying "believe in god" through your living room.
If you cannot stare into the mystery of a spirit greater than yourself, by
all means look through a microscope and catch the controllable view.

<James.Hun…@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>   Well, that’s exactly the description of the modern science community.
>   100% mental lamers, so they classify economics as a "science"
>   because they don’t know how to get real money to do experiments.
>   So it’s hip-hip hooray for Ayn Rand, the guru of post-post-moderne
>nullthought,
>   Laffable curves and William F. Buckley Juuuniorrr.
>   While everybody knows that the only true theories of economics are
>    the Lotto, Keno, and Monty Hall.

I’m sorry.  Since you quoted my entire post and put your comments at
the end, I can’t tell which part of what I said you are referring to.
I am therefore unable to produce a meaningful response.

Besides, this is a science vs. religion discussion.  Whatever your
hangup is on the subject of economics, this isn’t the right thread to
bring it up.

David
(Furthermore, if the study of economics is performed using the
scientific method and achieves consistent, repeatable results with
predictive value, it is a science.)

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

"David T." wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:49:52 GMT, Niek Sprakel <nspra…@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <p14rbsk7d57bt6oc90bh7kmm95qo79p…@4ax.com>,
> >  Malcolm McMahon <malc…@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Almost anything can trigger the human religious circuitry but no,
> >> science is a set of techniques for forming theories that _work_. It’s
> >> justified by the technology it spawns.

> >Well, religion _works_ for many people too… it just provides them
> >with plausible answers to difficult questions so that they can stop
> >worrying about those questions. That doesn’t seem much different from
> >what science does, except that the answers are a bit more plausible
> >and elaborate.

> Religion is what happens when people who don’t understand how things
> really work try to explain those things to someone else.  Or when
> someone who doesn’t understand how things work misinterprets an
> explanation from someone else who does know how things work.

> Thunder, the religious explanation:  The wheels of the gods’ chariots
> rumble against the sky.

> Thunder, the scientific explanation:  When lightning strikes, the air
> in the immediate vicinity of the bolt gets superheated and expands at
> a speed greater than that of sound, effectively detonating.

> One of the above can be proven or disproven through study and
> experimentation.  The other must be accepted on faith and not
> investigated lest some higher power be angered at man’s impertinence.

> Which do you prefer: the plausible and elaborate answer, or the right
> answer?  Or just the knowledge that we can’t explain it yet?

> >This is just crap… science is not helping people to become more aware
> >of themselves and their environment… it’s just another (though more
> >subtle) way of making ourselves ridiculous. How many scientists are
> >truly striving to make their theories accessible to the general
> >public? How many scientists truly care about peoples’ ability to
> >discern between fact and fiction? Sometimes I even wonder if scientists
> >are able to discern between fact and fiction for themselves.

> You are confusing the principles of science with the realities of the
> modern scientific community.  The latter is th result of the grant
> money mentality, which results from the fact that all the science that
> can be discovered on the cheap already has been.

> Religion put man in the center of the universe with the sun and stars
> orbiting around us.  It took science to put man in his proper place.

> All that said, I’m 100% in favor of religion.  If a person can’t bear
> to stare into the limitless, uncaring, random universe without the
> crutch of a passel of gods to back him up and enforce some sort of
> order, he can have them for all I care.  Just stop bothering me with
> them.

   Well, that’s exactly the description of the modern science community.
   100% mental lamers, so they classify economics as a "science"
   because they don’t know how to get real money to do experiments.
   So it’s hip-hip hooray for Ayn Rand, the guru of post-post-moderne
nullthought,
   Laffable curves and William F. Buckley Juuuniorrr.
   While everybody knows that the only true theories of economics are
    the Lotto, Keno, and Monty Hall.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>In article <p14rbsk7d57bt6oc90bh7kmm95qo79p…@4ax.com>,
>  Malcolm McMahon <malc…@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:06:46 GMT, Niek Sprakel <nspra…@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:

>> >Science is just a modern form of religion… let’s face it, humans
>> >are only in it for the money, they couldn’t care less about the
>truth!
>> >Why on earth should we be bothered with reality when we can indulge
>in
>> >fantasy?

>> Almost anything can trigger the human religious circuitry but no,
>> science is a set of techniques for forming theories that _work_. It’s
>> justified by the technology it spawns.

>Well, religion _works_ for many people too… it just provides them
>with plausible answers to difficult questions so that they can stop
>worrying about those questions. That doesn’t seem much different from
>what science does, except that the answers are a bit more plausible
>and elaborate.

Yes, but unlike science, that’s nothing to do with whether those answers
are in any sense accurate. You’ll get the health benefits whether you
follow Christianity or worship a small stone frog.

>> As to Truth I know of no reason to believe that the human mind can get
>> closer to that than the theories of science. All our understanding
>> proceeds through metaphor. There is no reality available to us
>> unfiltered by our minds.

>This is just crap… science is not helping people to become more aware
>of themselves and their environment…

It’s helping _scientists_ understand their environment.

>it’s just another (though more
>subtle) way of making ourselves ridiculous. How many scientists are
>truly striving to make their theories accessible to the general
>public?

Some do, most seek understanding themselves. Just like religious people
in that respect.

> How many scientists truly care about peoples’ ability to
>discern between fact and fiction?

I think most of them have given up, concluding that most people don’t
want such ability.

>Sometimes I even wonder if scientists
>are able to discern between fact and fiction for themselves.

That’s what science trys to achieve. Often it succeeds.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:06:46 GMT, Niek Sprakel <nspra…@my-deja.com>
> wrote:

> >Science is just a modern form of religion… let’s face it, humans
> >are only in it for the money, they couldn’t care less about the
truth!
> >Why on earth should we be bothered with reality when we can indulge
in
> >fantasy?

> Almost anything can trigger the human religious circuitry but no,
> science is a set of techniques for forming theories that _work_. It’s
> justified by the technology it spawns.

Well, religion _works_ for many people too… it just provides them
with plausible answers to difficult questions so that they can stop
worrying about those questions. That doesn’t seem much different from
what science does, except that the answers are a bit more plausible
and elaborate.

> As to Truth I know of no reason to believe that the human mind can get
> closer to that than the theories of science. All our understanding
> proceeds through metaphor. There is no reality available to us
> unfiltered by our minds.

This is just crap… science is not helping people to become more aware
of themselves and their environment… it’s just another (though more
subtle) way of making ourselves ridiculous. How many scientists are
truly striving to make their theories accessible to the general
public? How many scientists truly care about peoples’ ability to
discern between fact and fiction? Sometimes I even wonder if scientists
are able to discern between fact and fiction for themselves.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

>In article <p14rbsk7d57bt6oc90bh7kmm95qo79p…@4ax.com>,
>  Malcolm McMahon <malc…@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Almost anything can trigger the human religious circuitry but no,
>> science is a set of techniques for forming theories that _work_. It’s
>> justified by the technology it spawns.

>Well, religion _works_ for many people too… it just provides them
>with plausible answers to difficult questions so that they can stop
>worrying about those questions. That doesn’t seem much different from
>what science does, except that the answers are a bit more plausible
>and elaborate.

Religion is what happens when people who don’t understand how things
really work try to explain those things to someone else.  Or when
someone who doesn’t understand how things work misinterprets an
explanation from someone else who does know how things work.

Thunder, the religious explanation:  The wheels of the gods’ chariots
rumble against the sky.

Thunder, the scientific explanation:  When lightning strikes, the air
in the immediate vicinity of the bolt gets superheated and expands at
a speed greater than that of sound, effectively detonating.

One of the above can be proven or disproven through study and
experimentation.  The other must be accepted on faith and not
investigated lest some higher power be angered at man’s impertinence.

Which do you prefer: the plausible and elaborate answer, or the right
answer?  Or just the knowledge that we can’t explain it yet?

>This is just crap… science is not helping people to become more aware
>of themselves and their environment… it’s just another (though more
>subtle) way of making ourselves ridiculous. How many scientists are
>truly striving to make their theories accessible to the general
>public? How many scientists truly care about peoples’ ability to
>discern between fact and fiction? Sometimes I even wonder if scientists
>are able to discern between fact and fiction for themselves.

You are confusing the principles of science with the realities of the
modern scientific community.  The latter is th result of the grant
money mentality, which results from the fact that all the science that
can be discovered on the cheap already has been.

Religion put man in the center of the universe with the sun and stars
orbiting around us.  It took science to put man in his proper place.

All that said, I’m 100% in favor of religion.  If a person can’t bear
to stare into the limitless, uncaring, random universe without the
crutch of a passel of gods to back him up and enforce some sort of
order, he can have them for all I care.  Just stop bothering me with
them.

David