Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Broomstick hoax and how we acquire ideas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Broomstick hoax and how we acquire ideas

    Recently, a viral meme has been circulating, NASA has demonstrated that when the heavenly bodies align that a broom can be stood on end. Except NASA did not make such a statement. But it passed into common lore, common lore about science.

    That brings up the question of how we acquire ideas on science or any subject (even religion!). Science is less about a reasoned approach to the natural world than the accumulation of countless naive science theories; scientists always find themselves needing to counter the preconceived notions about science. Evolution and global warming are two very controversial examples, the broomstick nonsense is harmless by comparison.

    Since the likes of Dawkins says some very controversial things on religion, few are willing to use him as a resource on biology, would any real Christian ever appeal to Dawkins? Robert Sungenis wrote some very detailed and exhaustive books on religion (specifically, Catholic apologetics on key point of the Protestant- Catholic divide), then decided to approach cosmology in the same way, proposing geocentric views. Sungenis may be a credible source (!) on scriptural support on Catholic views on faith and scripture. And his latest endeavor brings in the broad topic of natural revelation and understanding nature. Should we look to Sungenis for science?

    I don't know the extent of Russian influence in affecting public opinion, but much of the flotsam and jetsam we glean from the internet is picked up uncritically. Even when we will put any political statement from the other side to the fiercest scrutiny.

    Maybe we have not left the age of superstition, but our superstitions merely evolve.

  • #2
    Originally posted by simplicio View Post
    Recently, a viral meme has been circulating, NASA has demonstrated that when the heavenly bodies align that a broom can be stood on end. Except NASA did not make such a statement. But it passed into common lore, common lore about science.

    That brings up the question of how we acquire ideas on science or any subject (even religion!). Science is less about a reasoned approach to the natural world than the accumulation of countless naive science theories; scientists always find themselves needing to counter the preconceived notions about science. Evolution and global warming are two very controversial examples, the broomstick nonsense is harmless by comparison.

    Since the likes of Dawkins says some very controversial things on religion, few are willing to use him as a resource on biology, would any real Christian ever appeal to Dawkins? Robert Sungenis wrote some very detailed and exhaustive books on religion (specifically, Catholic apologetics on key point of the Protestant- Catholic divide), then decided to approach cosmology in the same way, proposing geocentric views. Sungenis may be a credible source (!) on scriptural support on Catholic views on faith and scripture. And his latest endeavor brings in the broad topic of natural revelation and understanding nature. Should we look to Sungenis for science?

    I don't know the extent of Russian influence in affecting public opinion, but much of the flotsam and jetsam we glean from the internet is picked up uncritically. Even when we will put any political statement from the other side to the fiercest scrutiny.

    Maybe we have not left the age of superstition, but our superstitions merely evolve.
    This appears to be a projection of your own accumulated superstitions that merely evolve. Keep you broomstick at hand, and when you dig a ditch keep your shovel handle handy.

    This does not remotely reflect science nor NASA, but I do believe NASA suffers from government bureaucracy and political whims.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      The link between religious belief and critical scientific thinking is pretty tenuous. Some of the most secular societies in Europe have heavy use of homeopathy, large anti-vaccination movements, etc.

      Who you should use as a source is the one who's got the evidence and interpreted it using a rigorous framework. (And don't use anyone who argues for a geocentric solar system.)
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #4

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I am speechless at any possible response. I hope this was an extreme epileptic fit of sarcasm.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              The link between religious belief and critical scientific thinking is pretty tenuous. Some of the most secular societies in Europe have heavy use of homeopathy, large anti-vaccination movements, etc.

              Who you should use as a source is the one who's got the evidence and interpreted it using a rigorous framework. (And don't use anyone who argues for a geocentric solar system.)
              Actually, I think the geocentric case is the most interesting to study, to examine the way we (outside of science as well as from inside) pick up and accept ideas. While the "moon hoax" might be conspiracy nonsense, it is supported by a certain eclectic mix of science views. Evolution/Creationism, geocentrism/astronomy, moon hoax/whatever, show different levels of religious underpinnings. (creationism being highly religious, moon hoax, pretty much independent of religion).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                Actually, I think the geocentric case is the most interesting to study, to examine the way we (outside of science as well as from inside) pick up and accept ideas. While the "moon hoax" might be conspiracy nonsense, it is supported by a certain eclectic mix of science views. Evolution/Creationism, geocentrism/astronomy, moon hoax/whatever, show different levels of religious underpinnings. (creationism being highly religious, moon hoax, pretty much independent of religion).
                Science weeds out hoaxes, myths, bad science, and outdated science over time. Ancient religions do not and are a poor filter for changes and advances in the knowledge of science and the world in general. No advances in the knowledge of science are not revealed in scripture for the most part, but . . .

                "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun."

                Baha'u'llah in 'Seven Valleys and Four Valleys.'
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-05-2020, 07:31 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                48 responses
                135 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Sparko
                by Sparko
                 
                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                16 responses
                74 views
                0 likes
                Last Post shunyadragon  
                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                6 responses
                47 views
                0 likes
                Last Post shunyadragon  
                Working...
                X