Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
03. Thank you for explaining what are equations, That was not what I was asking, my question was about those scientific laws, that are stipulates as fundamental laws and based on them, the whole structure of Universe is controlled.
(and for your info, there were no Statistical tools and PC and Work sheets when those formulas were put forward).
My question is that who formed these laws? Did the originated themselves or just by chance and did they evolve over a period of time?

Again, we explain later the difference between a law, a theory, and a hypthosis. Simply put, laws are generalized AFTER hypotheses are tested experimentally.

Laws are an abstraction so it doesnt matter how and when they were conceived, what matters is how well they represent reality. By the tiem something is accepted as a law, it is pretty solid, but refinement in terms of limitations and boundary conditions is an everlasting process.

To do a simple formula under a specific singular experimental condition you do NOT need stats - but to generalize it to other situations, or to understand variation within your own data set, stats are helpful. So stats help us, but they are not a requirement to make a simple formula.

I suspect you already know this but are pushing towards a point.

[Cult of Reason]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
You should note that I am not against the evolution as such, what I am against is against this Blind Theory of Evolution that does not accept any Creator or plan, design and purpose behind the entire process.
Any evolution which is according to a plan, design and purpose by an all knowing Creator is neither non scientific nor against the provisions of any religion….provided it is proved to be true.
So far the hypothesis that one specie evolved into another is neither demonstrated nor proven.

Again, you make the mistake that the theory of evolution makes some statement about the existence/non-existence of a creator. It does not.

[Eric]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
You should note that I am not against the evolution as such, what I am against is against this Blind Theory of Evolution that does not accept any Creator or plan, design and purpose behind the entire process.
Any evolution which is according to a plan, design and purpose by an all knowing Creator is neither non scientific nor against the provisions of any religion….provided it is proved to be true.
So far the hypothesis that one specie evolved into another is neither demonstrated nor proven.

OK, here we go again. From Darwin's Origin of the Species:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Now are you happy?

[Cult of Reason]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, here we go again. From Darwin's Origin of the Species:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Now are you happy?

Thank you for that. However, It should also be noted that a scientist's personal views on religion in no way impacts the accuracy of his scientific theory which is based on evidence. Regardless of what Darwin believed, his theory stands alone on its own merits, and the theory remains neutral on the question of a Creator.

[Eric]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for that. However, It should also be noted that a scientist's personal views on religion in no way impacts the accuracy of his scientific theory which is based on evidence. Regardless of what Darwin believed, his theory stands alone on its own merits, and the theory remains neutral on the question of a Creator.

The quote is from the conclusion of the book.

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for that. However, It should also be noted that a scientist's personal views on religion in no way impacts the accuracy of his scientific theory which is based on evidence. Regardless of what Darwin believed, his theory stands alone on its own merits, and the theory remains neutral on the question of a Creator.

It just shows that you can HAVE personal views and still be a scientist. Separation of powers, so to speak. That is a lesson to any "fundamentalist" or "Creationist" who might believe otherwise.

Creationism, as it is being promoted of lately, is junk science.

[Cult of Reason]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
The quote is from the conclusion of the book.

Yep. Just clarifying for MUQ.

[Cult of Reason]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
It just shows that you can HAVE personal views and still be a scientist. Separation of powers, so to speak...

Of course, it does bring up the subject of cognitive dissonance, but let's save that topic for another day. Don't want to overwhelm our friends who are still struggling with the basics.

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, it does bring up the subject of cognitive dissonance, but let's save that topic for another day. Don't want to overwhelm our friends who are still struggling with the basics.

Too late. You brought it up. lol.

Which dissonance are you referring to? I would think one could have views, like feelings, that are not appropriate for the scientific method, but perfectly reasonable to have as a human being.

[former res]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Too late. You brought it up. lol.
Which dissonance are you referring to? I would think one could have views, like feelings, that are not appropriate for the scientific method, but perfectly reasonable to have as a human being.

Which is it? Views or feelings?

Huggy said his beliefs "felt true" or something like that.

And what is reasonable? A view or belief for which there is no evidence?

Is that reasonable for a human being but not for scientist?

[Cult of Reason]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Too late. You brought it up. lol.
Which dissonance are you referring to? I would think one could have views, like feelings, that are not appropriate for the scientific method, but perfectly reasonable to have as a human being.

I speak of cognitive dissonance in the sense of reconciling opposing viewpoints in ones mind. Something that scientists who think critically but also are believers must grapple with daily.

An example wiki gives of cognitive dissonance is...

"Smoking is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and smokers must reconcile their habit with the desire to live long and healthy lives."

Another example (albeit extreme) is a paleontologist by the name of Marcus Ross who writes a PhD dissertation about animals being extinct for millions of years, yet is a young earth creationist who believes God created the Earth in seven days in 4004 B.C., a date many creationists reached by tracing biblical events backward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross ).

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
I speak of cognitive dissonance in the sense of reconciling opposing viewpoints in ones mind. Something that scientists who think critically but also are believers must grapple with daily.
An example wiki gives of cognitive dissonance is...
"Smoking is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and smokers must reconcile their habit with the desire to live long and healthy lives."
Another example (albeit extreme) is a paleontologist by the name of Marcus Ross who writes a PhD dissertation about animals being extinct for millions of years, yet is a young earth creationist who believes God created the Earth in seven days in 4004 B.C., a date many creationists reached by tracing biblical events backward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross ).

I would posit that the viewpoints would only be opposing if it was assumed that they shared the same epistemological or ontological status.

In the case of the scientist/creationist that is obviously a conflict. But people smoke for reasons OTHER than ensuring good health, so the act of smoking isnt necessarily a dissonant situation (unless the person did value their health above all).

[Frijoles]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Which is it? Views or feelings?
Huggy said his beliefs "felt true" or something like that.
And what is reasonable? A view or belief for which there is no evidence?
Is that reasonable for a human being but not for scientist?

Either.

Huggys views are reasonable as a human being. They are not reasonable by the strict definition of science, which hones in on the process of reason and logic.

And you can, I would think, for the reasons elaborated in the post above, to feel/believe one way as a human and believe another way as a scientist.

In the extreme - Huggy believes based on his feelings. Thats a human standard. Scientist believe based on data. Thats a scientific standard. As long as one realizes the differences in standards, then life is good!(Note- Huggy at Muq don't)

Its like the popular usage of the term theory - an implied causal relationship - even though in scientific usage this is not correct. Different standard of usage in popular culture. It a reasonable usage for popular culture.

[Cult of Reason]

Frijoles wrote:

Huggys views are reasonable as a human being.

Depends on how you define reasonable. Certainly not rational.

Frijoles wrote:

And you can, I would think, for the reasons elaborated in the post above, to feel/believe one way as a human and believe another way as a scientist.

Except when the thing you believe in as a non-scientist and the thing you believe in as a scientist are in conflict. Then you have cognitive dissonance where you must willfully suppress one belief or the other depending on the situation.

Frijoles wrote:

In the extreme - Huggy believes based on his feelings. Thats a human standard. Scientist believe based on data. Thats a scientific standard.

Believing based on one's feelings is a human quality that is unreliable and fraught with errors.

Objective truth is derived from objective methods. Feelings may be a human trait, but they are subjective in nature and should only be used to describe one's emotions, not to draw a conclusion of belief.

It's perfectly acceptable to say "I feel happy" or "I feel sad". That is the domain of feelings. It is incorrect to say "X exists or Y is the way I say it is because I FEEL it".

Frijoles wrote:

Its like the popular usage of the term theory - an implied causal relationship - even though in scientific usage this is not correct. Different standard of usage in popular culture. It a reasonable usage for popular culture.

The difference in usage of the word "theory" between scientists and popular culture leads to too much confusion on the part of the non-scientist. Though it won't happen, it would be best if a different word would be used instead.

[Frijoles]

Joel,

There might be hope for you after all

"...Dr. Khoruts and his colleagues have federal approval to start formal clinical trials on fecal transplants..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/science/stu...

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Depends on how you define reasonable. Certainly not rational.
<quoted text>

Believing based on one's feelings is a human quality that is unreliable and fraught with errors.
Objective truth is derived from objective methods. Feelings may be a human trait, but they are subjective in nature and should only be used to describe one's emotions, not to draw a conclusion of belief.

It's perfectly acceptable to say "I feel happy" or "I feel sad". That is the domain of feelings. It is incorrect to say "X exists or Y is the way I say it is because I FEEL it".

<quoted text>
The difference in usage of the word "theory" between scientists and popular culture leads to too much confusion on the part of the non-scientist. Though it won't happen, it would be best if a different word would be used instead.

Exactly! Its reasonable to be irrational.

With all do respect, I think you are being a bit harsh on the human condition here. You are painting a portrait of life as perfect and free from errors. Maybe in the lab....

But X DOES exist because I feel it. That is the essence of subjectivity. Not to be confused with objectivity, which would allow me in certain cases to say X exists to others as well.(I never said HUGHBE was wrong - to himself he probably isnt- I just said he is wrong to inflict his view on others)

You are asking to much to police a private language to be shared among scientists only. Many words change meanings according to contexts. I have no problem with people using the popular definition of theory. But if they want to get into a discussion about evolution and actually argue science (As the creationists are trying to do), they better go with scientific convention.

[JOEL PASTAKIA]

To argue evolution, one should proceed by logic, the mechanisms of the natural laws and supporting proofs and not by following absurd scientific or creationist conventions.

[Cult of Reason]

Frijoles wrote:

Exactly! Its reasonable to be irrational.

It's expected, given the human condition. I would never say it's reasonable. IMHO, irrational thinking/behavior should be discouraged.

Frijoles wrote:

With all do respect, I think you are being a bit harsh on the human condition here. You are painting a portrait of life as perfect and free from errors. Maybe in the lab....

Actually, I'm not painting a portrait of life as perfect and free from errors. In fact, just the opposite. I'm being honest about the imperfections that exist in the human condition rather than trying to rationalize them away.

Frijoles wrote:

But X DOES exist because I feel it. That is the essence of subjectivity.

We've been down this path before. A thought or feeling existing in one's mind is not the same as the subject of that thought/feeling existing external from your mind as anything other than a thought. Is it real to you? Sure, if you've managed to convince yourself of it. Is there a problem with that? There could be, especially if believing such a thing can lead to harm to yourself or others or if it leads you to make decisions or judgements that could be better made without said beleif.

[JOEL PASTAKIA]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>

A thought or feeling existing in one's mind is not the same as the subject of that thought/feeling existing external from your mind as anything other than a thought.

How can the subject be external to the individualized consciousness? LOL.

The subject is the being/person, the object is anything apart from it that it wishes to investigate.

How do we know anything at all about things internal or external?

Obviously, it's through the internal acting on the internal or on an external object.

So, ultimately, the internal or the external is cognized internally in the mind.

If the mind grade of consciousness can investigate external phenomena by internal reflection or subjective analyzes, then, obviously, since nothing is known about the consciousness, mind and emotions in an objective way, thus, it stands to reason that the consciousness, instead of focusing its attention on outward objects, can turn its concentration on itself to investigate its own depths so as to know what the gradations and phenomena of consciousness are like.

What do you mean by real?

(smiles in advance)

[Liam R]

former res wrote:

Re ice cream etc.
Bottom line is just about anything by Ben & Jerry's is good. The Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallen flavors are decent.(They are fake BFFs :))
Re Gelato vs Ice cream. Was in Italy last year so was curious abut this Italian treat.
Lower butterfat, but also less air:
"Homemade gelato typically contains 4–8% butterfat, versus 14% for ice cream in the United States"
"Churning [ice cream] during the freezing process incorporates air into the mix making it lighter. The added air is called overrun. The overrun in gelato is generally 20–35%. The gelato lower overrun (compared to ice cream) results in a more expensive, denser product and with more intense flavors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelato

On the radio station that I usually listen to, they had a food & cooking show that dealt with the making of homemade ice cream. The host pointed out that one does not need any fancy equipment to get started: just put the ingredients into a zip lock bag, then put that into a larger zip lock bag containing the ice and salt. Give it to the kids to agitate for about 20 minutes, scrap it out of the bag into a container and pop it into the freezer.