Russel’s entry into US politics
Occasionally you actually learn something at question time. Not often, but occasionally. Today it was mostly farce (particularly this exchange between Rodney Hide and Winston Peters.) But we did learn today that While US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not have time to discuss with our Foreign Minister his views on Islam, New Zealanders’ opposition not only to the US’ illegal war in Iraq, the use of torture by the American military, or the long-term detention of people without access to fair trial, at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, she did have time to discuss our Russel:
Dr Russel Norman: Did the Minister, in his meeting with Dr Rice, repeat the 2005 comment of the leader of New Zealand First that moderate and militant Muslim groups are “like the mythical Hydra, a serpent underbelly with multiple heads, capable of striking at any time and in any direction.”; and can he reassure the House, in line with the Prime Minister’s answer earlier, that he does not conduct the foreign affairs of this country in line with those embarrassing comments?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I was mindful of and thought about, in talking to Dr Rice, was a young novice MP who had just turned up in this Parliament, and who had shown no understanding of the big issues. However, I am bound to say that, now that I know he reads my speeches, he is about to get himself a serious education.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was not about me, whatsoever; it was all about what Mr Peters said to Dr Rice, and whether he talked about his view that moderate and militant Islamic groups are exactly the same. That was what the question was about.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to add to his answer, please.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I am happy to add to it, in the sense that I did discuss with Dr Rice the characteristics of some politicians. I said that one of the characteristics that is most unwelcome in politics is the “dingo-istic” attitude that somebody is showing in this House!
Never one to use a joke just the once, Peters re-rolls out his ‘dingoistic’ joke from 1997.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
How touching!, Dr Normans concern for terrorists and murders really was something worth watching in the house today.
Whats next?, the “Free William Bell” petition?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Sheesh ! Winston really is “something else”!
How/Why can the Minister of a very important portfolio get away with NOT answering the question asked, but instead, giving an answer aimed at belittling the questioner.
(I guess the answer is that Winston is incorrigible!)
August 1st, 2008 at 6:29 am
Maybe Russel could ask Michael Cullen where the provision for next years Kyoto payment is in this years budget.
Rumour has it that it was removed on Helen Clarks orders so as not to cause embarrassment in the run up to the next election.
But that means double will be in the next budget.
Supplementory question could be on what state funding cuts or tax increases, will be implemented to pay the Kyoto debt?
August 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
eredwen, i think you’ll find that sort of evasion happens all the time in parliament. Contrary to what frog said, I think we learned bugger all!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Big Bro wrote:
“How touching!, Dr Normans concern for terrorists and murders really was something worth watching in the house today.�
From my reading, it did not appear that Dr Norman was showing “concern� (at least not concern of the sympathetic variety) for Dr Rice.
And I do wonder what, if anything, informs Mr Peter’s views on “moderate and militantâ€? Islamic groups. I was seconded to work with the Jihad al Sazandegi organization in Iran in the late1990’s, and so have some knowledge of Islamic organizations whose activities extend into every sphere of life. Working within a jihadi organisation is an uplifting experience which I would strongly recommend to Mr Peters. It might help him to learn something about humility, self-sacrifice and service to the community.
In Mr Peters’ defence, while his response to Dr Norman’s question seems to descend to the level of personal abuse, it is fair to note that during his brief time in the House of Representatives Dr Norman does appear to have adopted a gratuitously belligerent stance towards Mr Peters.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“How/Why can the Minister of a very important portfolio get away with NOT answering the question asked, but instead, giving an answer aimed at belittling the questioner.”
The speaker has for years refused to demand that members of parliament not insult the public by actually answering the questions they are asked. Precedent or not, the people of New Zealand deserve better than playground antics. Question time should be an important part of our democracy. It isn’t.
I’ll be glad to see the end of Margaret Wilson as speaker, but I’m not hopeful that whoever replaces her will be much better.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“Working within a jihadi organisation is an uplifting experience”
Many would interpret that as ‘you worked with suicide bombers’…
August 1st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Pathetic.
No, not you frog;
Peters.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The question appears to be one that is intended to embarrass and / or score points, rather than seriously elicit information. Does anyone think Peters WOULD have discussed those comments with Rice? I hope now.
Given the question, I don’t see how anyone could expect a serious answer to it.
Of course, Peters could have simply said; “No” and sat down…..and thus answered both questions.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
StephenR wrote:
“Working within a jihadi organisation is an uplifting experience�
Many would interpret that as ‘you worked with suicide bombers’…
There was, of course, no pun intended, and bombing of any kind, whether conducted from the relative safety of a B52 or with backpack of explosives, is no joking matter.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“jihadi” being the word most open to interpretation that I was thinking of…
August 4th, 2008 at 8:06 am
In the same way perhaps that the word “crusader” is open to interpretation within the Islamic world. The jihad that I was involved in centred around educational work, re-forestation, village electrification and so on. These are very serious and committed people. They constitute a formidable response to the challenge of western imperialism, whether in Afghanistan, Lebanon, or anywhere else in the Islamic world. It would be in the interests of the west to learn a lot more about the reality of the jihadi movement…
August 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
It certainly would, which is why I wouldn’t go around saying ‘I used to work with jihadists’ without a lot of clarification first! cheers
August 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Geoff Fischer
Very interesting! I’d love to read/hear more about your first hand experiences with the Jihad al Sazandegi, and learn more about the jihadi movement … including the role(s) of women.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Isn’t the better learning about the word Jihad?
The meaning in the Koran is very clear, but the meaning in English is not! The Koran, in fact, teaches against the very acts of terrorism that are (purportedly) occurring in the name of God (Allah), in EXACTLY the same way that the new testament teaches against the acts of aggression and repression undertaken by the Roman Christian Church in its history. However, the Koran DOES provide a mechanism whereby the faithful are allowed to defend themselves and Islam for attack and persecution; the new testament, on the other hand, encourages Christians to turn the other cheek against such acts.
Religion has, in fact, never been the root cause of a single war that I can find in history, whereas people and their greed are a recurring theme! Even the conflict in Northern Ireland - supposedly conducted between “Catholics” and “Protestants”) was about that most emotional of all things human - land.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD HOWEVER. Last week, anyone hoping to get either a sensible answer or a rise out of W. Peters Esq. was n a trip to the heartache hotel! He was primed for bear, and rabbits in the way were always going to get short shrift. Just like H1 and TaxThemTooC, MeFirstAndLast has many years of house riposte to dig deep into to politically negate those without that experience (a commodity that sadly is acquired just after you need it.) Anyone looking to attempt to score political points in Question Time had best spend a reasonable apprenticeship there learning from craftsmen how to find a level and the centre of a circle, else their workings will leave much to be desired and their craftsmanship less than skillful.
To borrow one particular example of how a skilled question time practitioner scored a perfect 10 recently - diddums!
August 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Strings, that is a very perceptive observation, and in my view it explains why we should not accept Islam into New Zealand.
I prefer to be tolerant, but I’m not tolerant of a religion that assumes the right to use violence against it’s persecutors. (Unless that persecution is direct, physical, and supported by the laws of the host country, just as some forms of self-defence are already accepted)
August 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am
GreenGeek
I assume you have no problem with Christianity here though?
That is the religion which, without allowing for even self-defence (which is what Islam allows) persecuted people for simply adopting other forms of itself. Indeed, I believe the statute to excommunicate a roman christian who regularly attends Salvation Army worship is still on the books in Rome!
At least Islam (and I am NOT a practitioner or believer,) allows someone who dies in the belief that what they are doing is for the protection of their faith to be called a martyr! The Romans require a VERY DRAWN OUT process of CERTIFICATION - involving the payment of fees by the proponent of the title.
Christianity is the ONLY religion I have studies that, again through the Church of Rome, has in its history the ability to BUY YOUR WAY TO HEAVEN through the purchase - from the clergy - of indulgences. It is also the only religion where the church, outside of any writings in its holy books, has introduced a concept purely for the purpose of increasing sales volume - purgatory!
I may (and do) disagree with the ends to which some Muslims have bent their religious teachings to endorse their war-like ways. However, all the lessons they have learned have come from the Christian Church, except suicide bombing - which they learnt from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka; another organisation that aggrandises and makes very wealthy its leaders - just like Christianity!
August 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The problem with religion is not so much what specific religions teach, but that all depend on blind faith in the un-provable. Once you’ve taken this first step, any lie is possible. A quote from Carl Sagan is relevant here:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new ones rise. ”
From The Demon-Haunted World – Science As A Candle In the Dark
August 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Valis - I am suprised. Even science is based on agreed unprovable concepts! The very etymology of the word axiom implies that it is unprovable but taken on faith, then supported by direct experience. This is the very essence of religion and science. I don’t believe that you can make this distinction validly. I am more than happy to accept that the scientific method is more rigorous, but it is still based on unprovable concepts.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Axiom:
Definition: a statement or idea that people accept as self-evidently true
Synonyms : maxim, adage, saying, proverb, truism
Science
Definition: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject
Synonyms: Discipline, research, knowledge, skill
Conclusion. The common wisdom of an axiom is defeated by the scientific research that proves that wisdom is not a common commodity!
A scientific “fact” is replicably provable, hence the use of the word “MAY” in many claims regarding a link between cancer and tobacco! Socialist Nanny’s say that “smoking CAUSES cancer”, whereas scientists say “smoking MAY cause cancer”. The reason for the difference is that scientists have yet to be able to replicably prove that there is a cause:effect relationship between tobacco smoking and cancer. Indeed, they acknowledge that they never will be able to, as there have been heavy smokers who have never hosted a cancerous cell, and non-smokers who have dies from lung cancer!
Ergo, while scientific research may start with a hypothesis, nothing is termed ’scientifically proven’ until there is a demonstration of it that can be duplicated at will and adnauseum provided the necessary equipment and raw materials are available.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I take your point about how christianity used to be (and perhaps catholics still are??).
No, I have no problems with the flavour of christianity here at present. However, that probably isn’t the only flavour of christianity currently in vogue around the world.
I would most certainly have a problem with christianity if it’s proponents gave up the idea of turning the other cheek and started fighting back (as they probably do elsewhere).
So many dangerous acts are fuelled by the concept of “God wants me to subjugate you to his will”.
I don’t mind “God” dishing me out a helping of punishment, but I do object to mere mortals assuming that same mandate.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am
What the Frog??????
Valis - I am suprised. Even science is based on agreed unprovable concepts!
Ok that statement might very well be the most absurd thing ever said on this blog.
No science is very much not based on unprovable concepts, an unprovable concept by its definition of unprovable isn’t scientific.
If I construct an hypothisis i must then construct a falsifable experiment to either disprove or support my hypothisis, this experiment must be reproducable and each time it is run it should produce the same results, from this observation we can construct a basic scientific theory to explain what we are seeing.
Within the physical science’s there is no absolute truth for any scientific theory, however within Mathematics many problems have absolute truths, the Computer Science field also gains the ability to have absolute truth since its just a branch of Mathmatics.
The biggest danger of the modern society is the ease with which human beings use technology with out acknowledgement to the basic scientific philosophy which allowed the technology to exists.
Frog to people like myself who went to University and earned Bsc degrees statements like yours are rather insulting. Of course since my Bsc degree is from Canterbury University its rather worthless due to the fact that the
Science curriclum at Canterbury includes such non-scientific courses as
Economics and Human Psychology or course it could be worse at least
they haven’t started offering Astrology & Eastern Science or Maori Science yet but who knows give the new age rejects enough time and i’m sure we will be right back in the Dark ages buring witches etc.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Greengreek christians can be very dangerous go take a look at the dominionist which are very powerful in the US the destiny church in NZ is an example.
There is nothing wrong with religion as long as you remember to keep the rules of your religion out of the new zealand parliment, I have a very real problem with mp’s who bring their religions beliefs into the house of parliment where it doesn’t belong.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:43 am
My wife (being a chemistry teacher) says much the same thing. But I think it is wrong to believe that science is as provable as you claim.
Scientific method is based on trial and error, but until the final answers are fully known, science is about as much use as religion.
Let me give an example:
Global warming: some scientists say it is manmade, some say it’s natural, and some say it doesnt exist at all.
Yet all of these people are scientists.
All we can say about their science is that time has not proved any of them right yet; so science does not have the answer for this yet.
The science might not be correct and provable, but that doesnt mean it is worthless. (Very similar to religion in fact)
August 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
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.
Science often involves competing theories that cannot be simply verified by experimental fact. In such times, it relies on consistency with accepted data, agreement by peers, rigorous methods, and so on to determine a good theory. While global warming may not be experimentally “proved”, it is most definitely “accepted”. That doesn’t stop scientists from being skeptical and attacking the bits they don’t think work- that’s part of what makes science work so well. Likewise, many scientific theories we treat like fact- such as relativity, gravity, quantum physics, etc… are all merely “accepted”, often despite quite good experimental verification. Why? Well, because usually there are more complex details remaining undiscovered that will likely complicate the theory and make it wrong in small ways.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
GreenGeek
My friend, you have just provided an excellent example of confusing adjectives and nouns.
Science is a noun. It names ‘a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject’ (see above).
Scientist is an adjective. A word that serves as a modifier of a noun to to specify a thing as distinct from something else. (in this case making distinct a scientist person from a plumber or doctor or any other type of working person.
Scientific statements are provable, demonstrably and replicably. Scientists statements are as likely to be correct as any other person’s if they are not stating science. Hence the fact that some scientists say tobacco causes cancer and some say it doesn’t; science is mute on the point, and lawyers say it MAY! The Tobacco and Global Warming situations are parallels, there is no definitive science that proves global warming exists, and there is none that proves it doesn’t; hence the Church of England position (in reference to the virgin birth) that it might be true and so we will agree with both sides rather than take a stand, has been adopted by most thinking people. After all, scientists said that bleeding you would make you well, but science later proved it could kill you!
ON ANOTHER POINT
>
>>
I take your point about how Christianity used to be (and perhaps catholics still are??).
>
I think you will find it’s far more than just Romans who were and are - there are many extremes, as Senator Obama can attest!
>
>>I have no problems with the flavour of Christianity here at present.
I do believe that’s a quote from that French woman who led an army because her voices from God told her how to do it, though I think that was a day or two before the Church burned her a a witch. However, I see and am comfortable with your point and meaning, as I have no problem with the flavour of Islam here at present.
I hop[e we are in harmony now.
Happy daze
August 5th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
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, thats the beauty of science it constantly evolves and should never get caught up in dogma except of course the human ego loves to create dogma. Science is far more useful than religion as religion has given humanity nothing yet science has opened our eyes to the universe.
You can’t wait until science has the absolute answer because unlike religion science will never give you it.
I was a small boy on a field around about the age of 8 when i fell in love with science, our teacher took us out to a field and sent one kid down the end of the field with a rubbish bin and a cricket bat in order to demonstrate to us that light is faster than sound.
Well your example is flawed greengeek as you a non scientist is giving it, you should either learn climate science so you can comment on it or remain silient, note you need to be able to spot bad science greengeek just because someone wears a white coat that doesn’t give them knowledge, stop being afraid of them, what i mean is often people commenting on global warming are scientist’s from another branch. They have no business commenting on climatology unless they are a climatologyist. The second thing is that the media suck at science, journalists are ignorant when it comes to science yet they are the ones trying to explain it and report on it this doesn’t make sense. Of course this is a problem because we live in a technological society full of beings who don’t have a clue what they are using and have no understanding of science or respect. You use science every single day greengeek right now you are using a computer an application of years of scientific understanding.
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.
The ultimate human flaw is to throw your hands in the air and explain away something you don’t understand as the work of god.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
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!!
August 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
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.
yep, definitely.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ouch
God and Science never mix.
Thank Gaia for consistency!
August 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“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?
August 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
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?
August 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
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
August 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I posted a response to turnip but it vaporised!!!
August 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
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.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
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.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Neither, but racial ambiguity is one of the reasons I use it.
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.
Right, because as we all know, difference totally precludes equality of worth. *rolls eyes*