Not Up to Fatima & black holes
Brian Dean errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 09 Aug 1999 21:00:15 -0400 (00934264815, 37AF799F.CB877137@worldnet.att.net)
> >> Ray
> >> How ridiculous can you get? It wouldn't violate any natural laws if you
> >> claimed to be regularly screwing all the best looking starlets in
> >> Hollywood, but I wouldn't beleieve it. Seeing as a myriad of scientists
> >> (who obviously know an infinitude more than you do about black holes) have
> >> only recently agreed that they have finally probably located a black hole,
> >> I would give your black hole claim the same consideration I would a claim
> >> of your being the biggest stud in Hollywood, namely zero.
> >
> >BRIDEAN
> >I see, so now we are adding more criteria to our stack of things that you would
> >be skeptical of. Not only does it have to not violate the laws of natural
> >science
> >but it also has to not be "ridiculous". Funny, I still have no idea what
> >criteria
> >you use to judge whether something is "ridiculous" even after reading the above
> >paragraph two times. Care to enlighten me?
>
> Ray
> The criteria is very simple. Whenever something is claimed that is very
> unlikely based on my experience of life,
BRIDEAN
In other words, if a scientist were to discover an alien transmission from another
planet, you would be skeptical of that claim. After all, you have NO experience
of this in your life, therefore you would have to be skeptical based on your own
criteria.
RAY
> I am skeptical. The more it does
> not fit, the more skeptical I am. For example, it is very unlikely that
> some unkown person would call me on the phone with a really great
> investment. I would be so skeptical I would probably not even listen to
> him. I might miss out on something great that way, but I'll risk it. When I
> hear about some miraculous claim I am skeptical because every case I have
> ever looked into had holes in it. If someone writes that a person he heard
> about could walk on water, for example, I am just skeptical as hell. I
> figure that if there were an all knowing omnipotent God that wanted to show
> me a miracle or communicte something to me, he could no doubt do it in a
> clear and unambiguous way.
BRIDEAN
I saw a person walk on water and it didn't require much faith to believe that
he was really walking on water. Have you ever seen the show "Real People"?
> RAY
>
> When I say that I am skeptical about something that does not fit my
> experience of life, I do not mean it cannot be unusual. Quantum physics is
> very unusual and not at all intuitive, but I accept it as a good
> description of the way matter behaves. Although I do have a limited
> scientific knowledge of it (I have a degree in physics and worked as an
> engineer all my life), I am not a scientist. But my life experience
> supports accepting it even though it is so wierd. For example, the atomic
> bomb was predicted to be possible based on QM and it was correct.
> Experiences of life like that (there are many more examples) say that
> scientists generally know what they are talking about, at least when they
> talk about science and generally agree.
BRIDEAN
Perhaps you could share with us more of your personal experiences of
particles appearing and disappearing without cause. Funny, there are a
lot more people who seem to experience Christ or Buddha, than who
experience particles appearing or disappearing.
RAY
> Religious "authorities" however
> have a miserable track record and I am naturally skeptical therefore of
> their pronouncements. I can't imagine why everyone isn't. I might be
> missing out on something there too, but I doubt it and am willing to take
> my chances.
BRIDEAN
Well, to sum it up it merely doesn't fit YOUR experience. Einstein said
the atomic bomb was impossible. I guess that doesn't make him much of
a scientist. If I wanted to I could make science appear as if it has a miserable
track record by listing a bunch of stuff it predicted but didn't come true.