@ GinVid
Irrational means, by its very definition, void of logical reason. Beliefs are void of logical reason, as they appeal to emotions. Anything which appeals to subjective emotions is, by its very definition, irrational. The word is merely that--it is not meant to be either negative or condescending, however, it's not my fault you choose to view it that way. Calling something irrational is not equivalent to insulting it--it just means it is not based on a logical foundation, and beliefs by their very definition are not based on this. We are all capable of being irrational--my love for certain books and disdain toward others, for example, is based on personal preference and is therefore both irrational and subjective. I wouldn't take offence to that, as it is entirely true. As for being unreasonable--I don't recall ever calling anybody that, so I dunno what to say. However, I've said time and time again, I wouldn't change anybody's personal beliefs--but as they are entitled to voice them, I am entitled to voice the converse.
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I've said in my prior post regarding mental illness--I am
not implying people who believe irrational things are mentally ill per se. What I've been trying to ask is--how do we distinguish between the beliefs of mentally ill people and those who merely choose to stick to something irrational simply because it suits their fancy or soothes their ego (or whatever other reason you can think of)? Under which criteria, putting logic aside, do we tell one he is absolutely a nutter, and tell the other his beliefs are suitable, when neither appeal to anything one would recognize as reason? The entire basis for some mental illness diagnoses, such as anything having to do with delusion, is a deviation from the status quo of what is accepted as reality--therefore, how would you justify naming one person thus and excusing the other, when neither's beliefs can be proven true?
Regarding the R. Kelly song--I know the song is meant to be a metaphor. I'm not analyzing the song--this discussion is not about that--however, in its metaphoric state, Kelly very obviously penned a drastic belief to deliver a message across, so as to tell the readers he believed in himself so much it amounted to an ridiculous statement, which I took at face value to serve as a statement to prove my point (mainly because I find the song amusing). I think it is obvious that nobody thinks Kelly believes he can literally fly. However--under the influence of drugs, and sometimes due to mental illness alone, there are people who truly
do believe they can fly--and they try and very obviously fail, so my example was not unfathomable--belief and reality are two very different things, as they come to discover.
As for scientists "filling in the blanks" with "beliefs"--they are not beliefs, they are called hypotheses, educated guesses based on existing information (similar to estimating numbers in mathematics) not beliefs pulled from one's bottom without any rhyme or reason, and the fact that things have been later revised and replaced with more current findings actually serves as a testament to the scientific method, not a criticism against it. It does not invalidate either scientific thinking, or findings. In fact, it tells us even things which we currently hold as facts are suitable for further examination and study--it does not stop at, "I found it!" Clearly--otherwise, nothing would ever be debunked.
Belief, however, is held on to stubbornly by those who are believers
despite evidence of proof to the contrary, and originates either through conditioning (passing down of beliefs and values through generations, such as religious affiliation) or through a good-faith yet flimsy attempt to explain the mechanisms of the world. It is plainly pulled from thin air--it is not like scientific hypotheses, based on at least
some evidence indicating the probability of the idea.
Regarding views such as "blank slate," the debates between opposing sides have been enduring for ages now as well--if it were always accepted as fact, there'd be no need to debate over it. Moreover, "tabula rasa" (blank mind) was originally formed in the 18th century, by philosopher John Locke (on Arabic philosophical influence), and belongs in the realm of philosophy, as Locke argued for it with philosophical arguments in his essays, and did not present scientific facts to support it.
Static universe was an idea presented by Einstein and supported by Dutch scientist Willem de Sitter as a response to Einstein's general relativity equations. Despite the fact that our universe is not static at present, the idea of a static universe is not an incorrect idea per se, as cosmologists have found it to be within the realm of possibility in the future.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524094126.htm Another response to these equations was one by Georges Lemaitre, considered one of the first to attempt to apply Einstein's theories to cosmology. His findings influenced Edwin Hubble, who is responsible for the expanding universe theory and Hubble's law. Einstein did not block Hubble out when he disproved his theory, now did he? He admitted his blunder, and the correctness of the Hubble model.
The claims spouted by phrenology were not considered scientific facts either--it was regarded as a pseudoscience and was stated as such despite its popularity, even within the 19th century. It was never accepted into the British Association for the Advancement of Science, for example, and was compared to other belief-based forms of pseudoscience such as astrology and palmistry.
Finally, cold fusion was never considered fact, as others failed to replicate the "findings" of Fleischmann and Pons. This failure to replicate results was the very thing which caused the downfall of cold fusion. Due to the energy crisis at the time, it was hoped that Fleischmann's and Pons' claims would hold to reproduction by other groups and usher in a revolution, however, they failed to do this, and since cold fusion could not be successfully reproduced by others, it was not considered scientific fact.
As for the tyrannosaurus rex being some sort of scavenger instead of both a hunter and an occasional scavenger, (or as some Christians dare to believe, a plant-eater), here is some interesting research going on in regards to the T-rex's behaviour as a hunter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126081714.htm
Like most predators, the T-rex was probably a hunter and an opportunistic scavenger, not a pure scavenger like vultures.
Have another:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41274041/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Blaming the exaggerations of "Jurassic Park" on scientists is about as useful as citing "Jaws" to prove sharks want nothing more than to kill humans. The media (this includes film media) has a tendency to exaggerate (or sometimes even fabricate)things for sensationalism and ratings--I am sure, being on a Michael Jackson fanboard, we're all very familiar with their penchant for this. Regarding the Jaws example I've put forth--scientists have been advocating for sharks for ages since that film came out and caused mass hysteria regarding sharks. Despite the rarity of shark attacks, and the low fatality rate of them, thanks to Hollywood people still hold them in a generally negative light. You can't judge science through Hollywood--it's not the director's job to get things right, his niche is to entertain. Inaccuracies exist even in historically-based films, it is called artistic license. However, you wouldn't judge history because x director's film presented it one way, I would hope.
As for Australopithecus Afarensis, clearly, the debate over its lifestyle and even its walking habits is still ongoing, however, from the remains gathered, certain information is present--the bones allow one to examine the creature at length. Do not underestimate findings simply because of bones--skeletal remains are very useful, and by studying deviations from the norm, one can find anything from a possible cause of death to possible traits and abilities, as the bones of this "Lucy" species have shown--it is the deviation from most primate remains which causes scientists to think of this now-extinct species as either a direct ancestor of homo sapiens, or a close relative of one. Tooth structure, etc. can tell volumes about an animal's possible diet--so it is not, "I believe this animal species is vegetarian," but rather, the teeth found in members of x species are as such, therefore, a vegetarian diet would have suited them best.
Moreover, what has been found, Lucy's remains, are clearly more than "fragments." Here is a comparison between Lucy's skeleton and a human one:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthrop.../web/australopithecus/Lucy vs humanfemale.jpg
More information on Australopithecus:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/2002projects/web/australopithecus/austro.html
Regarding King Tut, his body was very badly messed with, evidently, and the previously held notion that he may have been murdered because of a fracture to the skull is not a wildly far-fetched one, but actually fairly plausible given his authority and the fracture itself--probable cause, and apparent evidence. However, upon deeper examination, it was found that the fracture is insufficient to cause death, and so further analysis ensued Finally, here is an interesting article regarding Tut and the now solved mystery behind his death:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7128729...t/scans-resolve-mystery-over-king-tuts-death/
Science and belief (not specifically religion--that's not how this started, but religious beliefs would also be applicable) are worlds apart. One actually cares to provide at least some objective evidence to back its claims, and can accept without reproach when future findings either expand upon or debunk previously held findings, whereas the other functions on faith alone and evidently cannot stand rationally-based opposition (or any other kind of opposition, if we are to get religious about this, as they all claim to be the one "true" faith). I disagree with Pace--there is no room for faith in reason, and for reason in faith--the two things, by their very definition, are like water and oil. What you say regarding science applying only to the physical and religion to the spiritual does not work because there is no objective proof (meaning, non-belief based) that the spiritual even exists.
With that, I conclude my rebuttal (assumingly, for now). As an aside, it's Severus.
:hug: to everyone in here...
