The Skeptics Thread

[Asmoday]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html?_r=1

This is an awesome read for you skeptics.

Yeah, well, uneducated people are easy marks, especially when they are scared. I can see perhaps creating a device in house that you claim nationwide will detect bombs and such and putting it in the hands of the local law enforcement in hopes that when you bring it out to scan a car the driver might show added signs of stress and create probable cause to further search him and his vehicle, but if it gets to that point I am guessing the guards stationed there and everyone around them is in for a really bad day. The notion of buying them at $19-60k each is just fucking ridiculous though.

 

[norton9478]

Yeah, well, uneducated people are easy marks, especially when they are scared. I can see perhaps creating a device in house that you claim nationwide will detect bombs and such and putting it in the hands of the local law enforcement in hopes that when you bring it out to scan a car the driver might show added signs of stress and create probable cause to further search him and his vehicle, but if it gets to that point I am guessing the guards stationed there and everyone around them is in for a really bad day. The notion of buying them at $19-60k each is just fucking ridiculous though.

I think that the best part about it is that it might actually decrease violence if the bad guys think that it might work.

Or bystandars who need some form of reassurance.

Like taking your shoes off at the airport

 

[Nesagwa]

“I know more about this issue than the Americans do. In fact, I know more about bombs than anyone in the world.”

Really?

But man, talk about war profiteering. $60k for a divining rod?

 

[RATM]

There can be non-experimental evidence that can be taken into account. If the textual evidence goes through peer-reviewed and is deemed credible, then scholars can say that there was a man named Ceasar although we cannot be 100% confident that there was one; there is going to be uncertainty since it relies on the credibility of historians.

Then you concede two key points: that forms of evidence other than experimental evidence can be used to make reasonable conclusions, and that the null hypothesis is not determinatively applicable to situations that do not involve experimental data.

You're still relying on the fallacious idea of there being a first cause.

I think what you really mean here is that I'm relying on the idea that there must be a first cause.

While studies in quantum mechanics indicates that causality is not a universal truth, in the context of cosmological origins it is necessarily true that there was a first cause, and illogical to conclude otherwise.

Presumably, you hold that the universe was generated through the culmination of random and uncaused activity by some type of substance. Because only the simplest of particles have been observed demonstrating this type of random activity, we have only them to refer to as the appropriate type of substance involved in this phenomenon. Thus, for the logic of this explanation to hold up, we must hold that the existence of these simple particles, and these particles alone, preceded any other type of cosmological development.

For these particles to be capable of preforming the process necessary to initiate new developments they must be capable of motion, that being the act of transition, whether it be subtle or otherwise. On this basis we can draw two possible inferences regarding the state of these particles prior to the development of the universe. Either none of the particle displayed motion, or at least some of them did. However, the idea of either of these possibilities could occur without a first cause is problematic because of the following...

If none of the particles displayed motion, a state static motionlessness, they would be in complete defiance of scientific principles. All matter by definition is characterized by motion. If "matter" is motionless (characterized by a reading of point zero on the kelvin scale) then it is actually not matter at all because it has no energy, and cannot be said to exist. At that point, the "matter" simply becomes a void. I should note that despite the efforts of researchers, no substance has ever been reduced to a state of no motion/point zero kelvin. Thus, if all of the particles lacked motion then they would not be particles at all, or more practically, they could not possibly initiate the universe into being because they wouldn't exist in the first place. Something would have to first bring them into existence, but this would represent a first cause. In it's entirety, the concept that none of the particles displayed any motion, and on there own initiated the universe is implausible.

Now, if at least some of the particles displayed motion, and it seems that they would have to, then we can introduce the concept of time. Under its most mundane definition, time is a measurable interval between two transient events. If displacement occurs, which it does when there is motion, you have two transient events and you can measure the interval of duration between when each event took place. Therefore, if you have motion you also have to have time.

Now this is where it gets tricky. If you have time without an initial cause then you must conclude that there has been an infinite number of events preceding the present. However, this introduces a paradox. If there are an infinite number of events leading up to the present, then that means you must cross over an infinite number of events in order to reach the present. This is of course impossible. The only way to reconcile this is to reject the concept of infinity. However, if you do that, then you create a constraint that necessarily require a first cause, and a last event.

Thus, at least under our current understanding of the matter, the idea that the universe could exist without a first cause is invalid, in spite of the fact that some events can occur without cause.

 

[frobenius314]

Then you concede two key points: that forms of evidence other than experimental evidence can be used to make reasonable conclusions, and that the null hypothesis is not determinatively applicable to situations that do not involve experimental data.

Yes I do concede non-experimental evidence can be used to make reasonable conclusions. Actually your second point is not true, I can test correlations between unemployment and the inflation rate. Neither of this data is gathered through the use of controlled experiments, rather the data comes in forms of aggregate observations.

Something would have to first bring them into existence, but this would represent a first cause. In it's entirety, the concept that none of the particles displayed any motion, and on there own initiated the universe is implausible.

You're still relying on a posteriori reasoning which is dependent on experience. Like I said before, David Hume showed that these causal relations were not true a priori. It has also been demonstrated that gas molecules can bounce around a wall of a container without requriing anything or anyone to get them to move. Please look up the law of of conservation of energy.

Now this is where it gets tricky. If you have time without an initial cause then you must conclude that there has been an infinite number of events preceding the present. However, this introduces a paradox. If there are an infinite number of events leading up to the present, then that means you must cross over an infinite number of events in order to reach the present. This is of course impossible. The only way to reconcile this is to reject the concept of infinity. However, if you do that, then you create a constraint that necessarily require a first cause, and a last event.

Thithout a first cause is invalid, in spite of the fact that some events can occur without cause.

You're argument is confusing and I don't think has any substance. When there is a first cause you assuming a base case, i.e. at time t_o and then t1, t2,...,tn. You're assuming 1. Discreet Time, 2. The same inductive reasoning. It also leads to the assumption that every event was the determined by one common cause, i.e one chain of events.

 

[aria]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the afterlife can be learned from Freejack.

 

[Deuce]

Everything there is to know about the afterlife, however, can be learned by getting into a sensory deprivation tank (assuming, of course, they offer complete suspension of any and all sensory input... I would not know, as I've never had the pleasure).

There's no there there.

 

[BoriquaSNK]

This thread came at a great time.

November 9th is Carl Sagan's borthday, he would have been 75.

Here's a YouTube link with the last interview he ever gave in 1996 with Charlie Rose.

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.

 

[aria]

This thread came at a great time.

November 9th is Carl Sagan's borthday, he would have been 75.

Here's a YouTube link with the last interview he ever gave in 1996 with Charlie Rose.

Wow, he looks so frail --makes me sad. Made me think of Tammy Faye Bakker's last interview (she died the next day) --and their complete difference in belief just illustrates how moot "what/who is right" is (at least to an atheist like me). The right view is whatever gets a person motivated to fight and be happy. Bakker's beliefs don't harm me, and the humanist in me just wants to see quality of life without any concern for post-life.

 

[HeartlessNinny]

Wow, he looks so frail --makes me sad. Made me think of Tammy Faye Bakker's last interview (she died the next day) --and their complete difference in belief just illustrates how moot "what/who is right" is (at least to an atheist like me). The right view is whatever gets a person motivated to fight and be happy. Bakker's beliefs don't harm me, and the humanist in me just wants to see quality of life without any concern for post-life.

Well said. I don't entirely agree, but I appreciate the sentiment of what you're saying quite a bit.