• In total there are 26 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 26 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

My reading of this book had no motive other than I saw the book and was interested. I've heard a lot about dark matter and energy much of it wrong. I am also taking “From the Big Bang to Dark Energy”! an online class offered by The University of Tokyo.

The 'gaps' argument is worn threadbare from over use and is applicable to the atheists as well when they invoke the idiom, "we don't have the answers yet but ..." In point of fact the atheists are using the appriach they accuse Christians of using.

No reference was given with respect to Wittgenstein's retraction; please provide a citation. But I point out that Wittgenstein's principle was only one side of the coin that convicts youkrst. The other side of that coin is Alfred Tarski. I normally ignore youkrst and only responded to him this time due to the connection to ' The Logical Sins of Richard Dawkins.'

The 4% Universe book, to my surprise chronicled the seamy side of Science including follow the money, and too big (costly) to fail. Another concern I have expressed before is the cult of celebrity some 'scientists' cultivate. Carl Sagan was an example. So is Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, etc. I was amused to read this week that Bill Nye will compete on Dancing With The Stars.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

The 'gaps' argument is worn threadbare from over use and is applicable to the atheists as well when they invoke the idiom, "we don't have the answers yet but ..." In point of fact the atheists are using the appriach they accuse Christians of using.
Good point.

I was amused to read this week that Bill Nye will compete on Dancing With The Stars.
Maybe Richard Dawkins will perform one day.


You would like this book as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Oracles-Science-C ... 0195310721
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

Stahrwe wrote:My reading of this book had no motive other than I saw the book and was interested. I've heard a lot about dark matter and energy much of it wrong. I am also taking “From the Big Bang to Dark Energy”! an online class offered by The University of Tokyo.
Forgive me for guessing the motive behind your 'interest'. A young earth creationist interested in dark matter. I'm sure it's purely erudite.
The 'gaps' argument is worn threadbare from over use and is applicable to the atheists as well when they invoke the idiom, "we don't have the answers yet but ..." In point of fact the atheists are using the appriach they accuse Christians of using.
If the 'gaps' argument has been worn threadbare, it's because it's so often applicable. In most versions I've seen the argument for a god in the gaps applied, it's by showing anomalies in scientific understanding. What's lopsided about your assessment is that each time scientists have come to an impasse, they've eventually crossed it. Meanwhile, each time a theist claims divine causation for some phenomenon that's entirely naturalistic, they've more likely than not turned out to be wrong, in light of expanding scientific knowledge.

In the case of YEC's, the argument is more about science denial than reference to gaps. You have to deny bits and pieces from every field of science(in some cases, entire fields of science) to keep your YEC beliefs. Even though the connection to your motive is right there for everyone to see, you deny it on pretense.
No reference was given with respect to Wittgenstein's retraction; please provide a citation.
it is the job of mathematicians to find out which mathematical sentences are true;
it is the task of physicists to discover which physical sentences are true;
It is the task of historians to determine which sentences about human history are true, and so on."
Is your argument that youkrst doesn't have a degree in theology, thus any argument he has in the field is invalid? Based on what Tarski and Wittgenstein wrote? I need no citation to form a counter argument. Outsourcing of thought isn't my style, as much as you seem to rely on it yourself. As I wrote in the other post on this subject, show me the argument you're making. If it's valid, you have no reason to fear the exercise.
Another concern I have expressed before is the cult of celebrity some 'scientists' cultivate. Carl Sagan was an example. So is Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, etc. I was amused to read this week that Bill Nye will compete on Dancing With The Stars.
All this 'research' is driven by the same motive. You're motivated to believe something that science tells us isn't true. So you'll attack the character of scientists hoping that it in-turn casts doubt on their work. If you had the gallstones to address their work directly, rather than attempt indirect ad-hominems, you'd find the truth staring back at you. Actually, I take that back. You'd find a reason to not believe the evidence.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:I normally ignore youkrst and only responded to him this time due to the connection to ' The Logical Sins of Richard Dawkins.'
stahrwe, please be consistent. either ignore me all the time or none of the time. otherwise of course i suspect you will ignore me when you're unable to refute and reply when you think you've got a chance at making a salient point.

i find you a dodgy poster at times because i remember one thread where you got blown out of the water and you didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge it :D

i hope you'll keep reading my posts, i read all yours :D

as one clear headed fellow wrote
show me the argument you're making. If it's valid, you have no reason to fear the exercise.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

ant wrote: And you accuse what I said as being the same thing as a god of the gaps to start an argument about a god of gaps?
Are you freaking nuts or something?!

This is BS, bro.

I don't give a f what you're angry about.
ant, surely you recognise that you rarely if ever just come out and make a point.

usually when you are posting about something i get to the end of heaps of posts and still can't quite pin down what your point is.

it would make things easier for everyone if you were a little more forthright, because when you don't actually say what you are trying to get at we can hardly be blamed even if we do actually fail to apprehend your point in posting.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

Interbane wrote:You love to make up acronyms and rules that seem to support your position, Stahrwe. Being a former literalist himself, I'd say youkrst is qualified to speak about literalism. I pointed out in another thread that Wittgenstein's philosophy has problems of it's own. How do you justify using some of the man's philosophy as a rule that should apply to everyone? I also wonder if you read where Wittgenstein retracts his own propositions as nonsense?
The term literalist has no meaning in 'this' universe. To be fair one would need to go Verse by verse through the Bible. We tried that and the particopants were unwillng or unable to do so. In my opinion you will get more original and unique information from an echo than from youkrst.

As for 'reading where Wittgenstein retracts his own position,' you are relying on what others are telling you, and they are wrong. Instead of reading what people say about what Wittgenstein said, you should read Wittgenstein. Have you done that?

In Tractatus, Wittgenstein's precept 6.54 editorialized on his work to that point. His reference to 'nonsense' was a characterization of the logical process, not his precepts or conclusions. The application of logic requires a level of extreme simplification of language. Tarski used a process of creating a 'simple, experimental language. Wittgenstein went to extremes to get his Tractatus published, and intact including 6.54. If Wittgenstein considered his work nonsenre, why did he fight to get it published?

"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed upon it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. "

Suppose for a moment that you are correct, Wittgenstein considered his precepts 1-6 et al nonsense; BUT, the precept I am applyiog is #7, and it is beyond the point where Wittgenstein invoke the term nonsense.

"7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

starhwe wrote:In Tractatus, Wittgenstein's precept 6.54 editorialized on his work to that point. His reference to 'nonsense' was a characterization of the logical process, not his precepts or conclusions. The application of logic requires a level of extreme simplification of language. Tarski used a process of creating a 'simple, experimental language. Wittgenstein went to extremes to get his Tractatus published, and intact including 6.54. If Wittgenstein considered his work nonsenre, why did he fight to get it published?
In Philosophical Investigations, published in 1953, his view of philosophy is that it is therapeutic. His stance in the Tractatus and PI is anti-dogmatic, yet he admits parts of the Tractatus are dogmatic in nature.

Your use of the 7th precept seems dogmatic, which is precisely what Wittgenstein did not want. I've read parts of the PI, but I haven't read the Tractatus. For that, I've had to reference what other people have said.
"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed upon it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. "
The concepts conveyed by his words are more important than the words themselves. Once you've read through the words and understand the concepts he was attempting to elucidate, the words can be discarded. Yet you're doing precisely the opposite. You're focusing on his words as if they are doctrine by which to form rules "The Logical Sins of Richard Dawkins."
The term literalist has no meaning in 'this' universe.
The conceptual definition of what a "literalist" is apparently differs from what you think a literalist is. Just because your definition is different does not mean the word is meaningless. I'm sure you could come to an agreement with youkrst on what a 'literalist' is.

For example, do you think the parts of Genesis that deal with creation of the universe are a metaphor for an evolutionary process? Or do you believe there is a God that actually performed the deeds mentioned, as they are mentioned? I'm sure the specifics of your belief are slightly different from either of these, but if you spell them out, we can come to an agreement on what a literalist actually is. I believe you are a literalist, since you believe the words in the bible are intended to be read literally, rather than metaphorically. If that's not what you believe, then my apologies.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

Creationists have no more of a problem explaining the age of the universe than scientists do. In what respect can a scientist claim that the universe is LITERALLY 8 billion, or 11, or whatever the current number is, years old?

Show me a quote where Wittgenstein RETRACTS his Tractatus.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

Stahrwe wrote:Show me a quote where Wittgenstein RETRACTS his Tractatus.
The only quote I have is from a source I don't trust, so I retract my own statement. My post above(the more recent one) is a bit more thoroughly researched. What Wittgenstein said about his earlier works is that they tended towards dogmatism. The sources are all listed on the SEP, and I can dig to the quote if you wish.

Which means his warning against taking his words as doctrine, which I expressed in my previous post, still stands. Your logical sins goes against what he believed.
Creationists have no more of a problem explaining the age of the universe than scientists do. In what respect can a scientist claim that the universe is LITERALLY 8 billion, or 11, or whatever the current number is, years old?
The source data to determine the age of the universe is not linguistic. Therefore the conclusion wouldn't be a literal interpretation of anything. It is an explanation of what the available evidence points to.

There is no comparison here to taking your explanation from a book written by men, as if the men were telling the truth. The data doesn't corroborate their story. Show me the source data that biblical authors pulled from. Creationists do have a problem, they just refuse to accept it.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

Unread post

There I s nothing wrong with dogmatism. The scientific method is an example of dogma.

As for the age of the universe all of the discussions of its origin invoke LANGUAGE which cannot be empirically justified.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”