Ari
(out of sheer interest, is that short for Arivinda or (H)ar(r)i(y)?)

Neither, but racial ambiguity is one of the reasons I use it.

The Government nominates one of its own because the speaker has the casting vote in the event of a tie (and there have been many over the years) but in honour bound to do so so as to perpetuate the status quo, an interesting requirement for stability.

Just shunt the tiebreaker to the Prime Minister instead. While I certainly believe Speakers try to remain neutral, it’s pretty easy to have unconscious biases.

(An example – woman would dearly love to be equal in all ways to men, but their brains are demonstrably different, as is their physiology, so no matter how much they wish things were different, science has proven that they are not equal but different.)

Right, because as we all know, difference totally precludes equality of worth. *rolls eyes*

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greengeek – its called ethar, that medium of yours. einstein beleived in it, though it has supposidly been disprooven, though i dont understand how it can not exist :S.

Scienctific theories are never prooven, hypothesis’ are extracted from theories and are then tested, their results provide support to or remove support from the theory. the results are then interprited and used to construct new better theories that better explain the obesrved phenomona.
True scientists attempt to disproove their theories rather than proove them.
The biggist problem with science is that it relies on the epistimology of positivism.
Science, Religion and Philosophy are all systems of explaining and interpriting the world around oneself, most are compatible.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28 Says:
Of course your hypothesis is absurd, since the definition of a vacuum is the absence of matter, yet you claim matter exists in your vacuum which in logical terms is a contradiction making your hypothesis invalid.

Actually I didn’t use the word “matter”, I said “I suspect we will discover that the “vacuumâ€? is full of something acts as a transmissive medium for quanta, and equally capable of forming the building blocks of matter. An ‘energy grid’ if you will”.

Whatever it is sits on the boundary of energy and matter, capable of transmitting energy, and forming the building blocks of matter. Maybe we could call it “proto-matter”

In any case, in my view science is not just a set of knowledge that is constantly expanding over time, as you suggest, but some of that knowledge has to be discarded and refined. That is essentially my point.

Science does not have some perfect methodology for finding the truth. It can still be flawed and we shouldn’t get arrogant about putting blind faith in it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I posted a response to turnip but it vaporised!!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greengeek every post in this thread has shown your ignorance of science

The evidence we have supports our theories of gravity so any new understanding will just be a superset to our current knowledge if it proves it wrong as you claim then the experiments will need to produce different results.

Science is a set of knowledge constantly expanding over time, no one is saying that science is stuck and doesn’t change over time.

Of course your hypothesis is absurd, since the definition of a vacuum is the absence of matter, yet you claim matter exists in your vacuum which in logical terms is a contradiction making your hypothesis invalid.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thalidamide was a product of research that, in common with most drugs, is not established science by the definition I subscribe to (which comes from the OED). If it was science, then it would have consistently delivered the same result in all cases, which clearly it didn’t.

Gravity is interesting in that every test for it as of now produces a predictable result. That doesn’t mean that advances in science cannot create a test that will not produce the same effect; that, however, is not the same as establishing that gravity can, somehow, be disrupted and so the test produce a different result.

As for your prediction, I hope so too, infact that was first postulated in about 1965 by Issac Asimov, who suggested that hydrogen was distributed in the ‘vacuum’ of space in sufficient density to act as an energy source.

Happy daze

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

My concern is some scientists think they, and they alone hold the keys to all knowledge. How can the study of the natural determine conclusions on the supernatural? unless of coarse you start with a belief or faith that there is no supernatural. I have witnessed things that cannot be explained by the scientific method, to have these experiences wiped away as a delusion is not only insulting it would also appear to be very arrogant.
It wasn’t only christians that argued the earth is flat.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Strings Says:
Please. Don’t give the impression of being a dimwit, when it is clear that you don’t need to be. Just accept the difference between proven theories/hypotheses/concepts/dreams, and unproven ones.

I think science is full of both proven and unproven ones.

Thalidomide was proven to be ok, then proven to be not so ok under some circumstances, and now proven to be ok once more (but only for those with leprosy). Sometimes science struggles to measure and describe the complexity of our universe.

And what about gravity?? Is our understanding about gravity scientific or not??

If you could just give me a quick rundown on where we are at with the Unified Field Theory I would be grateful.

I await the next Einstein with eagerness. No doubt such a person will push the boundaries of our scientific knowledge somewhat.

I think they may find evidence that our current scientifically accepted ideas about gravity etc are wrong.

In fact I will be so bold as to make a prediction: at some time in the future I suspect we will discover that space is not a vacuum after all. I suspect we will discover that the “vacuum” is full of something acts as a transmissive medium for quanta, and equally capable of forming the building blocks of matter. An ‘energy grid’ if you will.

But then I could be wrong.

What is so difficult about accepting that science changes over time?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

What are you talking about Shunda Barunda,
Are you claiming that christians have a world view that describes the univerise. You don’t have to submit to anything Shunda but you do submit to science you are doing it right now by reading this post.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“How can the scientifc method be a god, its just a good way to help understand the universe. If you claim that you believe in god and your god resides outside of the universe and can’t interact with the universe then science will not ridicule you, BUT if you claim your god exists in the universe and interacts in the universe causing say earthquakes for example then you god belongs in the domain of science and he is open for ridicule and attack and you MUST provide evidence.”

So you require people that believe in God to submit to the established world view of scientists, and the rusultant system of reasoning before debate can begin, but scientists don’t even have to even begin to understand, say a christian world view.
The christian world view is a total package, start to finish, if the total world view and the resultant logic cannot be presented, how can my faith be ruled illogical?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ouch

God and Science never mix.

Thank Gaia for consistency!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Not true I dispell peoples beliefs as delusional if they can’t provide evidence to support their hypothesis.

The scientific method is not seen as absolute by scientists, it is seen as absolute truth by non-scientists because they don’t understand it.

How can the scientifc method be a god, its just a good way to help understand the universe. If you claim that you believe in god and your god resides outside of the universe and can’t interact with the universe then science will not ridicule you, BUT if you claim your god exists in the universe and interacts in the universe causing say earthquakes for example then you god belongs in the domain of science and he is open for ridicule and attack and you MUST provide evidence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28
“These leaps of faith and suspending of understanding you are refering to are usually scientific dogma which comes from mans ego etc and this does hold back scientifc knowledge, remember everything is valid in science as long as you are following the scientific method.”

And that is the problem, the scientific method is seen as absolute truth or “god” by scientists, when it is wideley known it has limitations to explaining all phenomena in the world around us.
The scientific method is the primary excuse for dispelling peoples belief as “delusional” and ending wider debate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

GreenGeek

Again, you are confused. There is a great difference between research and science. That the former leads to the latter is absolute! That they are the same beggars belief!

Please. Don’t give the impression of being a dimwit, when it is clear that you don’t need to be. Just accept the difference between proven theories/hypotheses/concepts/dreams, and unproven ones. If I hypothesise a Faster Than Light propulsion system can be created from melting some element in a stream of superheated plasma , that does not make it science, only a hypothesis. The scienTIFIC approach to research will determine if the hypothesis becomes science. QED

BTW, note that the schoolboy definition of QED, as taught by thousands of science teachers, is “Quite Easily Demonstrated”, a delightful basis for their learning.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greengeek the practise of science is just a method in order to advance our understanding of the universe it has nothing to do with information.

These leaps of faith and suspending of understanding you are refering to are usually scientific dogma which comes from mans ego etc and this does hold back scientifc knowledge, remember everything is valid in science as long as you are following the scientific method.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You are pushing a position that science is a random process where people sit around and dream up hypothesis, where as the hypothesis will be based in some observation but as you stated science is a process and an untested hypothesis isn’t much.

Einsteins theories covered newtonian experimentation in fact newtonian’s couldn’t account for the very big or the very small and it was this fact that einstein was trying to enhance on, he wasn’t proving Newton wrong, as that was impossible since the experiments confirmed newtons positions. We don’t reject newton in fact you would learn newtonian physics in a physics class room because it works. The first thing Einstein’s theories had to do was account for the newton, you need to think set theory greengeek,
newton is a subset within einsteins theories, einsteins theories don’t supercede they just offer more covering, I beleive they still need to be worked on since and we may arrive at an even more covering position.

Creating a light bulb is the application of science(engineering) which isn’t science its engineering and yes it lags science and can take a long time, some science can’t be engineered.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28 Says: I will continue to say this and post it there is nothing similar between science and religion they are polar opposites of each other, one suspends understanding the other seeks understanding.

I wasn’t disparaging science. I value it.

But I don’t support the idea that science should be regarded as providing a finite and factual base of information. Everything always has to be open to question.

Many of the best scientists “suspend their understanding” and take a leap of faith toward a particular experimental path. Unshackling themselves from currently accepted ‘knowledge’ can let them apply a fresh mind and fresh approach to matters not fully understood.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Strings Says: After all, scientists said that bleeding you would make you well, but science later proved it could kill you!

True, but modern science says that blood donors live longer than people who are non-blood-donors.

And leeches are part of the modern (scientific) medical arsenal.

Science only ever offers a snapshot of flawed and incomplete human information. Helpful but incomplete. It is dangerous to let scientists become too arrogant and full of self-belief. There is always more to learn.

I hope we are in harmony now.

yep, definitely.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28 Says:
What you think is not important Greengeek and if your hypothesis has no evidence to back it up its not science.
The scientific method is not based on trial and error it is based on a continuing evolving set of knowledge which at any point can be proved wrong or altered

Just because a hypothesis has no evidence to back it up does not mean it is not science. Galileo could not offer evidence for all of his views, but he was often right. Science took time to give the evidence he already believed in.

Evidence comes last, the hypothesis comes first. “Science” is a process, not a destination.

Einsteins theories were considered laughable by Newtonian physicists, but his hypotheses were correct. The evidence came much later.

In fact, the most valuable scientists are the ones who believe in a hypothesis when there is no evidence for those beliefs. Once they test the hypothesis there is an opportunity to advance scientific knowledge.

Without the hypothesis there can be no growth of knowledge.

Scientific method is most definitely based on trial and error.

Edison tried 5000 filaments before he got one that worked well enough. Now that is a true scientist.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ari
(out of sheer interest, is that short for Arivinda or (H)ar(r)i(y)?)

>
>>
Which is part of why we need constitutional reform. Why should the speaker of the house be chosen by the government? Surely we ought to have an independent speaker not affiliated with any political party.
>
Interestingly enough, the role of speaker has always been one of the more successful aspects of a Westminster style parliamentary system. The Government nominates one of its own because the speaker has the casting vote in the event of a tie (and there have been many over the years) but in honour bound to do so so as to perpetuate the status quo, an interesting requirement for stability. Occasionally there have been accusations of bias, but in the main these have not been substantiated, mainly because the Speaker is advised on the appropriate action/position to take by the Clerk of the House, who must be above any potential accusation of bias as the prime servant of the Parliament – not Government. In New Zealand, we were fortunate for many years to have, in David McGee, a Clerk who lived and breathed probity, and was able to inculcate his staff with that same ethic; today’s Clerk, Mary Harris, is one of David’s disciples and, while having a personality and mind of her own, has carried on the great tradition of Clerks of the House in providing the speaker with excellent advice.

I think you are wrong to suggest that the speaker should be determined any other way than that currently applying, as there are few who know the extent of a person’s knowledge of Parliamentary practice and Roberts Rules of Order better than MPs. Indeed, dare I say that Winston Peters would make an excellent speaker, as he has made a study of the requisite rules and precedents so that he can find a way through them at will!

ON ANOTHER TOPIC
>
>>Science often involves competing theories that cannot be simply verified by experimental fact.
>
I believe that what you are referring to is better termed ‘speculation” than science. As I stated earlier, science is – by definition – an organised statement of knowledge on a particular topic. Until a speculation is provable by repetitive demonstration, it is hypothesis or speculation – not science; no matter how many of us would wish it were otherwise. (An example – woman would dearly love to be equal in all ways to men, but their brains are demonstrably different, as is their physiology, so no matter how much they wish things were different, science has proven that they are not equal but different.)

Cats – get back in that bag!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)