Hey dummkopf, the question that was being addressed was whether or not physicists talk about the philosophical consequences of their science.
The question was not whether I am a trained expert on quantum physics.
Why physicists are uniquely qualified to talk about god
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
The question was not whether I am a trained expert on quantum physics.
Litmus
Verified User
no..
an assertion was made that physics spergs have some extra authority about religion or morality or some shit.
they've built too many bombs for that to be true.
WRONG.
Nope. In science "theory" is a much higher bar. What you are thinking about is the "common vernacular" definition of theory. You know, the way it's used by non-scientists. In science it has a more strict definition.
Into the Night
Verified User
YOU made it the question, Sybil! Don't try to deny your own posts!
Into the Night
Verified User
An interesting point, and one that rings quite true.no..
an assertion was made that physics spergs have some extra authority about religion or morality or some shit.
they've built too many bombs for that to be true.
Physicists are human beings, complete with all the frailties and religious beliefs of any other human beings. They have no special gift along those lines!
People believe their religions because they carry some position of authority due to their publications or degrees. It's like a lot of other priests.
Science itself, is not physicists. It is not scientists. Science is not even people at all. It has no religion, no politics, and no voting bloc.
Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less.
Into the Night
Verified User
Go learn English. You are confusing 'theory' with 'proof', and you are confusing 'hypothesis', with 'theory'. Science does NOT define the word 'theory'.
A theory is an explanatory argument. Nothing more. Nothing less.
A hypothesis is a supposition of some aspect of a theory, such as how to test a theory for falsification (the null hypothesis), for example.
A hypothesis stems from a theory. A theory does NOT stem from a hypothesis.
Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems such as mathematics or logic.
No, no I'm not.
here's how science works:
Not in the sciences. You are thinking of the lay person's definition.
Post #81:
The assertion was made that only physicist Sean Carrol thinks about the philosophical implications of his science.
Whereas I responded that physicists discussing philosophical implications goes back at least to Einstein and Bohr at the 1927 Solvay conference.
Why physicists are uniquely qualified to talk about god
Other than Sean Carroll, no one as a physicist is discussing philosophy. Of course, there are lots of philosophers talking about physics. Very few philosophers actually really know physics, unless they got dual degrees in physics and philosophy. There's a few who have dual degrees You...
www.justplainpolitics.com
Nowhere in this tangent of the thread was the discussion about whether I am a trained expert in quantum physics.
Hey dummkopf, I made it crystal clear early in the thread that physicists tend to be more uniquely positioned than other scientists, aka biologists, chemists, geneticists, to talk about the really deep questions of creation, ultimate reality, god, etc.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes, yes you are. Go learn English.
Science isn't a verb.
Science does not define 'theory' or 'hypothesis'. There is no "lay person's definition".
Into the Night
Verified User
Sean Carrol does not own science.
Philosophy is not science.
Physicists are just as qualified to talk about God and you or me.Why physicists are uniquely qualified to talk about god
Other than Sean Carroll, no one as a physicist is discussing philosophy. Of course, there are lots of philosophers talking about physics. Very few philosophers actually really know physics, unless they got dual degrees in physics and philosophy. There's a few who have dual degrees You...
You can't deny your own posts, Sybil.
I even gave you a REFERENCE so you knew I wasn't making it up. Apparently YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Your schtick really is boring and old at this point. Surely you MUST realize you are a drudge.
Into the Night
Verified User
Nope. They are just as qualified to talk about God as anybody else.
Learn what 'reality' means. 'Reality' does not mean 'Universal Truth'.
Into the Night
Verified User
You gave no valid reference.
You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Lie. Look at the post again, there's a source reference.
I can blame your lies on you, though. Unless you aren't in control of yourself and you can't stop yourself lying.
Into the Night
Verified User
You gave no valid reference.
You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Lie. If you look at the post again you'll see a little "SOURCE" link there.
Apparently you are incapable of speaking the truth. I'm sorry to hear that. Was it brain damage or do you just value being a liar?
Into the Night
Verified User
You gave no valid reference.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOUR semantics games.
You may disagree with the reference but you cannot deny it's existence.
No, you appear to be a well-versed liar.
Into the Night
Verified User
You gave no valid reference. You cannot claim a valid reference where none exists.
DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME, FUCKER.