Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism among TLM Traditionalist Catholics?
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    What a vivid exchange! So many aspects that I am tempted to reply to (from my background as physicist); it would take me hours, and explode this thread.
    GerardH, thanks for putting some important things straight!
    Since I've told students to critique science on science-valid grounds:
    100% agreed, and that is the very problem we encounter with many arguments here.
    I'll just pick a few:
    put all the parts of a watch in a box and shake it... then report back to me when it finally shakes into a fully functioning watch. That is exactly the claim of evolution.
    No, it isn't, and that's known for ages; I already read about this strawman fallacy as a teenager: Hoimar von Ditfurth, "Im Anfang war der Wasserstoff", 1972.
    The law of entropy destroys any semblance of the slightest possibility of evolution.
    Incorrect. Start out with any system with some concentrated energy, in most cases you'll get a lot of complex dynamics that evolves 'out of the blue', only at end at there is thermal equilibrium. That only means that evolution will be followed by distruction. Hardly controversial. “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
    The problem with this [...] macro evolution demands that major changes are possible [...] can only happen very slowly, they are also incredibly unlikely [...] work out the energy input needed [...] impossible because the biologists have not worked out how many missing links and intermediates there are [...] worried that the number may be so big to become effectively impossible
    There is no scientific value in pointing out that a theory in progress does not explain (yet, at the desired detail level) the big question that it is aimed at. That isn't even exceptional for established, uncontroversial theories when applied to real-world observations (ask any scientist; I could provide examples in quantum theory).
    The relevant question is: The things that the theory DOES explain, do they fit into the big puzzle at which the theory is aimed, or are they at odds with it?
    Sciences (or popularizations thereof) are not always good at pointing those things out - lack of philosophy as discussed earlier.
    I have learned that science is, like everything else in our modern world, run more by politics than by the quest for truth. Scientists are driven by the quest for institutional and foundation funding and nothing too controversial or favorable to faith claims or other impolitic things gets funded. Hence, the unpopular research will not be funded
    My experience is quite the opposite (except that convincing a funding commitee does involve politics). Insinuating general dishonesty concerning the 'real' vs. 'proclaimed' goals of scientific research is not helpful, and eventually fires back; at worst at religion in general.
  • Mainstream science teaches us that the earth is 4 billion years old, and I see no reason to question that out of some suspicion of the profession - at least until an equally valid competing theory is developed, and all of these young-earth theories are absurd.

    Faith is a great tool in connecting us to the metaphysical and the spiritual. It is not a replacement for genuine scientific inquiry - the best tool we have, as mentally finite humans, to understand our world. Any attempt to discredit mainstream science on the basis of it being predominantly secular is simply fallacious, from the same people who would gladly admit Vaughan Williams' G minor Mass (and rightly so, I would argue) - after all, science is incapable of disproving God through metaphysical inquiry.

    I'm not a scientist, and scored poorly in grade school science classes - therefore, I leave purely scientific questions to the experts, rather than trying to come up with clever pseudo-scientific theories that technically work within the bounds of Catholicism but would never hold up under scrutiny. I would advise all of us without a firm scientific background to do the same.

    For those here who don't trust mainstream science: Why is the question ofhow and why God created the universe, something that we can't even know or speculate on, as important as the events which happen within that universe (i.e. the Crucifixion and Resurrection) Why is it so important to fight against the scientific community when what they study literally has no bearing on the truth and reality of our faith whatsoever?
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 538
    I'm tempted to start a thread about what people think of Harry Potter.


    Nah, let’s do vaccines next.
    Thanked by 2Carol bhcordova
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    Thanks, Schönbergian! May I adapt jour statement for myself?
    I'm not a scientistphilosopher, and scored poorly in grade school sciencephilosophy classes [oops, that's not true] - therefore, I leave purely scientificphilosophical questions to the experts, rather than trying to come up with clever pseudo-scientificphilosophical theories [...] ...
    Same for theology. With this disclaimer in mind:
    For those here who don't trust mainstream science: Why is the question of how and why God created the universe, something that we can't even know or speculate on, as important ...
    I think it is the same for those who do trust science, maybe even more so.
    And of course we can speculate; consult your cosmologist for the 'how' and your dogmatist for the 'why'. We probably all wish to know more than we do; better: more than we can know now, and in the future, and in even principle.
    We humans tend not to be satisfied with being God's image, we rather want to be like God; with the well-known consequences.
  • We can speculate as to God's motives, perhaps, but to my mind it's futile.

    If I were in God's position, I might wake up one day bored and decide to create the universe - but how do we reconcile that with an existence which has no concept of time and, in fact, defies what we would usually understand as an "existence"?
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Schoenbergian,

    God waking up.
    God bored.

    Hmm.
    I guess it's a good thing you're not in God's position, or He in yours!
  • Chris, I'm pointing out that those kinds of ideas rely on God as being perhaps more anthropomorphized than is actually the case. Our ability to speculate on a being's actions is stymied by that being transcending every aspect of our lives and experiences of the universe that we usually take for granted.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,927
    I'm tempted to start a thread about what people think of Harry Potter.


    Already fought that battle while teaching in a Catholic elementary/middle school. I think a 3rd grader summed it up best on Harry Potter when she said, "It's not real." Out of the mouths of babes...

    Vaccines? Gamba, I am not able to take any of them that contain mycin antibiotics, so no flat-earther resistance to vaccines here, just a physical cause. some of those anti-vaxers are so obnoxious even the germs avoid them.

    God: He is ultimately a mystery to us and is unknowable. He's not like us, believe it or not, and doesn't think like us, either.
    Thanked by 4WGS MarkB Carol Elmar
  • Lots of motives / outcomes at play in these beliefs.

    (0) Actual scientific doubt of the commonly-held models currently in vogue. This is a little outside of the scope of this conversation, since we're talking more about its concomitance with a certain kind of traditionalism. It does exist, though, and that should be acknowledged.

    It is very relevant to this discussion inasmuch as these questions and doubts are sometimes used by people with other motives to simply dismiss that science has anything to say at all, and then introduce their own perspective on the basis of some warrant outside of the scope of scientific inquiry, e.g. "the science is not settled, so Catholics have to abide by the certainty of [document x] and [pope y] (and reject [pope z's concession to the growing scientific consensus]) on this matter until it is."

    (1) Suspicion of modern science, modern thought, due to its negative (moral) consequences on society, and a desire to discredit it, even on merely scientific grounds, as unrigorous, erroneous, and unreliable.

    (2) A conviction that resolving this scientific question in favor of the classical model of the Universe will lend credibility to the Church.

    (3) A conviction that believing in this model of the Universe is de fide (I seem to recall a lot of this kind of idea in Kolbe center materials).

    [This, on my view, is the most potentially divisive way this view can be held, since it impugns the orthodoxy of those who do not accept geocentrist / YEC views, and questions the validity of the Magisterium and its representatives that permit these opinions.]

    (4) An addiction to red pills. I feel like coming to these views can be the natural path for people of a certain cast of mind. If these ideas get cast as "more conservative" or "more traditional," regardless of their truth or falsity, that's going to be attractive to some people.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Elmar
  • I've been reading this bizarro thread with Ligeti's Lux Aeterna in the background, so at least it will have something to do with music. Sheesh.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen Liam Elmar MarkS
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Andrew... you also might listen to Holst's Planets. Then again there is always the music of the spheres!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPFU41Jf17Q
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    I prefer this music visualisation* as I ponder matters cosmological:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iinvd4bB-_Q

    * Trigger warnings: J S Bach; profane music

    Sacred music PS: How would I react to this work being liturgy-adjacent, to borrow contempo terminology? Well, I consider it among the most sublime works of non-sacred music in the Western tradition - and it's supernal subjectively for me, by which I mean a liminal threshhold or window (as with an ikon) into metaphysical reality - but I would not say it's objectively supernal to make it liturgy-adjacent. There are other works of Bach that are not as sublime nor, objectively, sacred but that are closer in spirit to the supernal and thus more fitting for liturgy.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Liam... that is a nice video. Is that Bach in the very center of which all musical notes rotate around?
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    No. Bach is generally not in the center of his music. Even when he's clever or fun*, which is frequent. I imagine Bach's ego was more likely manifest in his dealing with choristers, patrons, pastors and vestries, and his pedal work, than in his creative compositional work as such, which seems to have more of the ego-less aspect of certain genius mathematicians like Ramanujan who are just driven to discover.

    * Not quite as fun as, say, Wm. Byrd could at times be. Ah, Byrd. When I think of our great composers of sacred music, I am lost contemplating his life and work - in the sense that I just have to bow my head in silence to venerate.

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Oj Boże. This thread is why I try to steer the conversations at parish coffee hours toward less-controversial topics like Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Pius VI's condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,211
    Those changes, are apparent and verifiable in living organisms extinct or extant


    Being close to extinction myself, I get THAT 'change.' But--asking for a friend, of course--please elaborate on 'changes....in....extant'.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,211
    And don't tell me that raccoons who eat from garbage cans in the Big City have "evolved." They adapted, yes.....but that's not "evolution."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,927
    We can observe through academic and scientific study, the changes that occurred in extinct animals and plants over time. Some changes occur over loooooooooong periods of time. We can observe and study smaller changes in extant animals and plants but on a lesser scale. There are more long-term changes in humans such as vestigial organs that don't seem to do much anymore, changes in dentition, and so on. For the the changes in ourselves that don't take millennia to occur, look in the mirror or at old photographs. Sometimes a real eye-opener. The key is that all things change over time.
  • http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

    We've got lots and lots of ways to determine stellar and galactic distances and almost all of them yield distances greater than ~6k light years. Just plain old replicable observation and maths. The Andromeda Galaxy, visible with the naked eye, is 2 million or so light years away. According to YEC, it never existed. It's a gigantic lie on a cosmic scale. Same with most of the galaxy streaking across the night in a clear sky. All those supernova events? Never happened, even as we watch them happen. There's an expanding bubble of reality 6k light years wide round the earth, as all that light phases into being information about nonexistent events into information about existing stars. Totally makes sense. Sounds like something the Divine Creator would do....right?
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian Elmar
  • jcr
    Posts: 131
    When science is honest it provides a method for testing and uncovering a great deal of knowledge. However, science is frequently placed at the service of those who have a position to defend or possibly an ax to grind relative to their parents, the church in which they were raised, etc. Science is a method of inquiry and testing phenomena in the pursuit of increasing our knowledge of the universe around us. It uses inductive method (specific to general) rather than deductive (general to specific) means to achieve its ends.

    When a hypothesis is presented that is not supported by the necessary data it must be rejected. Micro evolution is demonstrable. Macro evolution is not. Those raccoons, however modified by adaptation they may be, are still raccoons. Discoveries yet to be made may find evidence one way or the other, of course, but cows can't have kittens at this point.

    I do not present this as an argument for any particular position in this discussion. I only say that pseudo science is alive and flourishing in the world today and it will be massively funded in favor of serious research that does not support the zeitgeist!
    Thanked by 2madorganist tomjaw
  • When a hypothesis is presented that is not supported by the necessary data it must be rejected.
    I don't think this is accurate. YEC is a hypothesis, there is no data to support it. When contrary data is presented, a hypothesis should be rejected, until then it remains just a hypothesis, not a known fact.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,927
    There are many honest researchers out there who work to benefit us all. However, many scientists live and die on research grants. Without those grants, they can't raise their families, pay mortgages, and etc. As I have often heard in a take on the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. So yes, there is plenty of junk science, aimless research that's a fling at the moon, and funds wasted on research directed for political outcomes. It happens. You take the bad with the good. In practice, there doesn't seem to be a good way to separate the two as long as funding sources stay the way they are.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    Science is a method of inquiry and testing phenomena in the pursuit of increasing our knowledge of the universe around us. It uses inductive method (specific to general) rather than deductive (general to specific) means to achieve its ends.
    Not quite: it uses both. In practice, most of the time and energy (and money) is spent on the deductive part: Take your pet hypothesis, derive a prediction of the outcome of some experiment or 'real world' observation, do the thing, check against the prediction, find some discrepancy, modify your experiment and predict its outcome ... go over this cycle zillions of times; then finally try to induce some new piece of knowledge.
    When a hypothesis is presented that is not supported by the necessary data it must be rejected.
    No, in the first place you try to gather data that may or may not support the hypothesis; it is when new data is systematically against it, in the (more common) case of inconclusive data you are going to modify the hypothesis rather than reject it altogether.

    Having a hypothesis definitively rejected (especially a very general one, like macro-evolution) is a rather complicated process - as science history shows over and over again.
    [Do not ask me details on biological subjects, that's not my discipline.]
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    No, in the first place you try to gather data that may or may not support the hypothesis; it is when new data is systematically against it, in the (more common) case of inconclusive data you are going to modify the hypothesis rather than reject it altogether.

    Having a hypothesis definitively rejected (especially a very general one, like macro-evolution) is a rather complicated process - as science history shows over and over again.
    Thank you for your knowledge on this subject.

    Please share with us data that supports the hypothesis of evolution?

    Also, please share with us data that supports the hypothesis that the earth rotates around the sun?

    We would like to see this data.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,011
    Here's the short version:

    The fossil record, with fossils of simpler species in earlier geological strata and more complex species in later strata, as well as shared DNA sequences among species support the theory that life on earth began in simple forms and evolved into more complex forms through gene mutations in offspring and the effect of the environment naturally selecting the best adapted individuals for survival to pass on their genes.

    Stellar parallax and stellar aberration both prove that the earth orbits the sun. Neither phenomena would be observed on a stationary earth.

    The fact that we have successfully sent spacecraft to other planets, comets and asteroids, using the sun's and other planets' gravitational fields to slingshot spacecraft around space and alter their trajectories to arrive successfully at a planet that is moving proves that the solar system is heliocentric (barycentric, if you want to be technical about it) and operates according to Newton's laws of gravitation (account for Einsteinian General Relativity, if you want to be even more precise). A geocentric system with Ptolemaic eccentrics, deferents and epicycles in planetary orbits would have a system of mechanics that differed considerably from that caused by gravitational forces; a Ptolemaic, geocentric universe is not possible with Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity, by necessity of how it works, gives the planets elliptical orbits around the most massive body in the system, which is the sun.

    Young Earth Creationism is false. Geocentrism is false.

    The earth and the universe are very old, and the universe has no absolute center.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Elmar CharlesW
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Hi Mark... that is the theory... I want to see supporting data behind it... for example, in a scientific paper or a book that clearly proves it. Thank you for your short.
  • Mark,

    I'm a skeptic on the fossil record. It's not that I doubt there are fossils, but I don't think there is a correlation as most people assert that there is. More basic organisms continue to exist even in our advanced age, and more advanced ones have died out. Additionally, I don't see the fossil record as demonstrating that the more advanced organisms are more developed versions of the things which preceded them. A DVD is more advanced than an LP, but one would be obtuse if one claimed that the DVD evolved from the LP, the mere passing of time and the generous hand of natural selection being the only forces to work on the LP.
  • Chris, if you can't see the obvious differences between an inanimate object that is fabricated by humans and a living, breathing organism, then I'm not sure what to say.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,131
    Often people present arguments that seem reasonable to them, but are really only effective against caricatures of the theory under consideration.
    Thanked by 2Elmar sergeantedward
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,674
    Cambrian explosion and the other two... lots of hand waving but very little explanation as to why the number of beneficial mutations increase and decrease... Most importantly no experiments to prove the theory. Sorry I am biased, in my science if we waved our hands around in front of a black board we then had to go into the lab to show our hand waving was not a pile of hot air.
    Anyway I teach that macro evolution is probably not an accurate description of the evidence in my science lessons. If my students have further questions I pass them on to a biology teacher friend of mine that is involved in 'Daylight'.

    He was just like me, he accepted evolution because other scientists said it was a good explanation. Well he teaches in a Catholic school and was asked by the Religious instruction dept. to give a talk on Evolution. He decided to read up on a topic he had not really studied, well when he came to give the talk much to the surprise of the Religious teachers, instead of trashing Genesis, he pointed out all the flaws in evolutionary theory. I now follow his lead. Fortunately evolution is not really taught in the exam syllabus in the U.K. we have one or two lines that are true when applied to micro evolution (adaption)

    Young Earth Creationism is false. Geocentrism is false.


    I don't think science is able to prove this... balance of probabilities yes, but that is in a state of flux. I saw above comments about scientific TRUTH, I do wonder what that means? While we have Laws of Gravity, thermodynamics, motion... just because they are laws does not make them true.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,137
    For "supporting data" on stellar parallax and aberration, on has a plethora of astronomical observations, as well as a long history of "proofs" ... in books ... as well as readily available online.

    Stellar parallax is simply explained by geometric/trigonometric considerations (high school mathematics) and a plethora of observations provide the necessary data:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/para.html

    Stellar aberration is only slightly more subtle to explain (although it was actually observed earlier than stellar parallax), but again the explanation is mathematical:
    https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm

    Both stellar aberration and parallax illustrate the folly of geocentrism:
    https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-stellar-aberration/
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    an interesting quote from Lawrence Krauss

    "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

    This has the effect of a pause and think moment
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,137
    There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

    The atheist speaks ... and ignores the manifest possibility of: coincidence.
    Thanked by 2Elmar MarkS
  • Schoenbergian,

    I don't mean to suggest that there's NO difference by which the LP-DVD can't be distinguished from organic life. Nevertheless, since I intended it by analogy, let me use an analogy of organic life.

    In our own time we see large dogs and small ones. The small ones sometimes are immature versions of the big dogs, such as when a litter of pups is born. In other cases, however, the small one is,.... a small dog which will never develop into something significantly larger because it is already the adult form of its kind of life.

    Alternatively, there are two kinds of snakes which could easily be mistaken by casual observers as the same kind of snake. They aren't related to each other, i.e., cousins, nor are they joined by familial bonds (fathers and sons or even "more developed" forms of each other. Rather, they're completely distinct. That the fossil record shows simple organisms in one level and more complicated organisms in a "later" level doesn't, by itself, show the causal connection which is absolutely necessary for "evolution" to be taken seriously as a scientific theory.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Here is 'a short' on the opposite side. (weed through the islamic bent)

    http://www.aboutatheism.net/articles/ghyiwfg-planck-satellite-data-and-lawrence-krauss-the-earth-is-at-the-center-of-the-universe.cfm

    Who is right!!!!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Thank you Charles, for beginning to put forward empirical data of some sort.

    Are you implying that we are the center of the 'axis of evil' by coincidence and not the intention of a Creator? I am unclear.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    Sorry that due to my lack of knowledge in biology, I cannot comment on the context of this sentence
    Most importantly no experiments to prove the theory
    but this statement is at best pointless, and at worst misleadig.

    Experiments (or other observations, for that matter ... you aren't asking for biological experiments on million-year-timescales, are you?) never prove a theory. In fact, a scientific theory cannot be proven in principle, science is not math. At maximum you can refute a theory by experiment, but there are obstacles in defining what would constitute such a refutation.

    This is merely epistemology at high school level. Consult your favorite philosopher for more detail; also on:
    I saw above comments about scientific TRUTH, I do wonder what that means? While we have Laws of Gravity, thermodynamics, motion... just because they are laws does not make them true.
    Most scientists therefore prefer to speak about succesful vs. failing theories (and the so-called 'laws of nature' are in fact parts of theories, they cannot even be expressed without reference to the framework of a theory), and accepted/controversial/rejected hypotheses.

    In communicating with a non-scientific audience, the latter is usually called 'false' or 'wrong', which covers it sufficiently well in everyday language.

    (Much in this thread reminds me of this: Not even wrong!)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Most scientists therefore prefer to speak about succesful vs. failing theories (and the so-called 'laws of nature' are in fact parts of theories, they cannot even be expressed without reference to the framework of a theory), and accepted/controversial/rejected hypotheses.

    In communicating with a non-scientific audience, the latter is usually called 'false' or 'wrong', which covers it sufficiently well in everyday language.
    Well, I am sorry to be speaking non-scientifically... so if I must ascend to the level of "science speak", then I will oblige and would suggest that there is new empirical data that begins to make the present widely-held and unchallenged view negatively successful and perhaps more positively failing.

    But I am still open minded (with a mind that thinks for itself) BTW... I am not buying anything of anyone's view at this point in time... except God's.

    It is fascinating to discover that most of "scientific fact" is just theory upon theory.

    Which brings me right back to what I thought when this thread was begun:

    "God interposes and shews from the things he hath made, that man cannot comprehend his power and wisdom.

    [1] Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

    [31]Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? [32] Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? [33] Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?"
  • I don't buy YEC. I also don't buy TENS. What does that make me?
    The notion of a Creator working through evolution has some bad theological consequences, chief of which is that the Faith must also be evolving.
    I don't work in a field for which the age of the universe has any consequences, so I don't give it much thought. As for whether YEC discredits the Catholic faith, it seems to me that the reason bus left at about the time of first Communion. Once you "worship a cracker", everything else is just the frosting on the cake.
  • 60 years ago I wanted to be a cosmologist. At the time the big bang theory was in the ascendant, and astronomers told us the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Now they tell us that the expansion is speeding up. Then we understood, in a general way how gravity held galaxies together. Now we are told that we need a double helping of dark matter to hold them together, and we have no idea what dark matter is.
    But the fact that people shoot their mouths off when they have only just nibbled at the edge of a question does not invalidate science.
    I did study cosmology as a sideline to other things for a while. I met and talked with Stephen Hawking, and concluded that there were much cleverer people than me (and much more single minded), and that I should devote my time to something of more immediate use.
    I have used my phone today to show me the whereabouts of the bus I was intending to catch. That depended on Einstein's theory of general relativity, and quantum mechanics both working, at least to a good approximation..
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    "theory" in science is not congruent with "theory" in the humanities.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    Well, if I must ascend to the level of "science speak", then I will oblige and would suggest that there is new empirical data that begins to make the present widely-held and unchallenged view negatively successful and perhaps more positively failing.
    Don't get your point, except if it is intended as mockery ... I repeat that I have no formal training in philosophy.
    I am also open minded, but I am aware that thinking for myself is no substitute for learning from experts.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    "theory" in science is not congruent with "theory" in the humanities.
    Could you explain the difference in a nutshell?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    Don't get your point, except if it is intended as mockery ... I repeat that I have no formal training in philosophy. I am also open minded, but I am aware that thinking for myself is no substitute for learning from experts.
    It is not mockery, really... just a little jab taken at the 'scientific thinking plane' from a 'non-scientific thinking plane'. (which one is higher than the other? Niether! There is no up or down in the universe! ...well, relatively speaking...)

    As far as learning from 'experts' (higher plane?), as the years and decades go by I have come to realize that there really aren't any out there except the Saints. 99.99% of the 'experts' are usually representing a "school of thought". I much prefer to read the works of Saints and holy men and women.

    There is an entire universe of knowledge and wisdom on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus and the Catholic Faith. And it is all TRUE... not built on theories.

    If you are open minded, then can I assume you are also open to the possibility that the 'axis of evil' is the universe pointing to the earth?
  • Elmar,

    Experiments can't "prove" a theory, in the usual senses of the words "prove" and "theory", but an idea can't be called scientific if it can't be tested in some way, and thus be able to be falsified. Accordingly, since evolution is alleged to take place over millions of years, and since we can't conduct experiments over a few million years.... can it really, intelligently, be called a scientific theory? We can measure continental drift. We can make predictions about the orbits of the planets or the appearances of comets, and see if we are correct at least as far as the prediction goes. We can, Lysenko-like, claim that we turned one crop into another or insist that man-made climate change is the cause of all evils (including an increase in hot air coming from within the city of Rome), but these last claims can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
    Thanked by 2francis Elmar
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    Interesting to read on your distant past, hawkins!
    I met and talked with Stephen Hawking
    lucky you, I only walked over his ashes recently after the Evensong ... wonder what he would have said that his remains would be treated on this fine sacred music on a daily basis ...
    Now we are told that we need a double helping of dark matter to hold them together, and we have no idea what dark matter is.
    An interesting way of saying "our best accepted theory has a huge problem, and we really have no clue what's going on". Interesting times, like fundamental physics around 1900.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    As far as learning from 'experts', as the years and decades go by I have come to realize that there really aren't any out there except the Saints. 99.99% are usually representing a "school of thought". I highly advise taking in the wisdom of their thinking.
    Unfortunately we do not know (yet) which of the people who are writing or teaching on evolution, cosmology etc. are saints. Would make it a lot easier!
    Still I maintain that my own 'school of thought' is NEVER an adequate substitute for learning from more knowledgable people's 'schools of thought'.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    Francis

    Duck Duck Go is your friend.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 500
    Accordingly, since evolution is alleged to take place over millions of years, and since we can't conduct experiments over a few million years.... can it really, intelligently, be called a scientific theory?
    Here we get into something; but hold on, you cannot experiment on planetary systems, supernovae, on how our 'unusual' moon may have formed etc. - that would mean that large parts of astronomy wouldn't pass your test of 'being scientific' either, right?
    There must be other procedures of what counts as 'scientific scrutiny'.