MovieChat Forums > Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014) Discussion > How much of the content is true?

How much of the content is true?

posted 10 years ago by becometheavatar
165 replies | jump to latest

I saw this series, I really loved it. Everything said in it looked accurate, but I just wanted to be sure if everything shown in there was true.

[–] DrakeStraw 10 years ago

Unfortunately, too much of it is opinion which may or may not be true. When they stick to the facts, it's fine.

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] vernuf 9 years ago

It should be noted that Drake's posting history indicates he's not qualified to comment on what is and is not scientific fact.

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

It should be noted that Drake's posting history ...

vernuf words it much more like an opinion than a fact!

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=ur0987364]

[–] gd5150 9 years ago

Much like the producers of Cosmos ASTO, separating opinion from scientific fact seems to be an issue for many on this board. Note: Neal saying it, does not make it fact. Neal saying 100x, does not make it fact, just makes it more likely untrue. Hard observable evidence is the only thing that makes something scientific fact. Not opinion, even when theres so-called "consensus".

"When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler

[–] gard_86 8 years ago

Exactly what is not factual enough in this series?

[–] greg-233 8 years ago

"Exactly what is not factual enough in this series?"

* The creationists insist evolution is not factual enough because it's "only" a theory.

* The climate change "sceptics" insist climate change is not caused by humans because the climate changed before humans existed. (Which is a bit like saying forest fires aren't caused by humans because forests caught fire before humans existed.)

[–] gard_86 8 years ago

Oh come on. You cant take creationists seriously. Evolution is not a fact? What about the breeding of dogs, evolution of polar bears, or the specialization of all animals to their habitat? What about the fact that we share 99 prosent of our dna with chimps? The creationists also think the world is 6000 years old. This series pretty much tells you that why are we then able to see billions of years back to the past?

When it comes to climate change, there is no doubt we humans have a responsibility for what happens in the atmosphere. Just think of the amount of pollution in the whole world, every day. We managed to fix the ozone layer by banning certain chemicals. Climate change wont kill us, but it will shift the worlds temperatures and lead to mass migrations.

[–] vernuf 9 years ago

Yeah, if you weren't a scientific illiterate, your opinion of what my posting history says about the matter would be worthwhile.

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

Yeah, if you weren't a scientific illiterate ...

I never claimed to be a scientist. High school physics was as far as I went. I have more expertise at spotting political BS, and that's my opinion of Global Warming and to a lesser extent Climate Change. It's all part of a globalist agenda. 0bama supports it or he could never remain in power.

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

I have more expertise at spotting political BS. . .

No, you have a vulnerability for falling for political BS and letting that form your opinions on scientific subjects instead of paying attention to what actual scientists think.

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

... paying attention to what actual scientists [are paid to] think.

I might believe them if there had actually been any global warming in the past 18 years. That failure puts both the global warming and climate change agendas into question.

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

I might believe them if there had actually been any global warming in the past 18 years.

Wow, you are even more of a scientifically illiterate wingnut than I originally thought. Most climate change deniers aren't so mind numbingly stupid as to go as far as denying facts; they just create scientifically bogus explanations for the facts.

Let me guess. . .you're a creationist, too? How old do you think the Earth is?

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

How old do you think the Earth is?

Billions and billions of years. It could have had a nice makeover 6,000 years ago!

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] Deus_Ex_Veritas 9 years ago

a nice makeover 6,000 years ago!

Why, thank you. It was a move for the better, I think. I'm glad you like it.

Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

I see the clown was involved in this thread.
Last 14 years since y2k no warming at all. Thats why garbage global warming pushers like to use graphs that end on 2000.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Elemenoh 9 years ago

Dead-ass wrong:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

[–] qed77 9 years ago

DrakeStraw; Are you against vaccinations and the theory of evolution as well?

Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night. God said, "Let Newton be!" and all was light.

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

Are you against vaccinations

I don't believe they're completely safe. I'm definitely against forced vaccinations. I don't trust big pharma.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html

... and the theory of evolution as well?

Yes, I believe it is only a theory. Too many unanswered questions to declare it fact.

_______________________
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

Like it or not, evolution is true. 

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Too many unanswered questions to declare it fact.

Such as. . .?

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

Such as. . .?

Missing links, codependency etc.

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

No reputable biologist has any doubts that evolution happens.

After 150 years, there is no longer any dispute among the scientific community about species evolving from simpler forms.

As for "missing links", they don't do anything to undermine the evidence. Actually, the term doesn't really mean that much.

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

Such an absurd sweeping statement,you're obviously young and inexperienced.There are an army of reputable biologists who refute it. You simply don't wish to believe they exist!
After 150 years there's no more dispute..! Gufaw..! Do you realise how naive you sound?

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

There are an army of reputable biologists who refute it. You simply don't wish to believe they exist!

You are obviously completely clueless when it comes to science. There are more biologists named Steve that support evolution by natural selection than this entire imaginary "army" of yours. . .which doesn't exist in the first place.

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

Have you never heard of the Emperors New Clothes ? You're just one of many who follow where your led out of fear of being seen to be different. There's a word for such people, and you"re one. You can't see simple truth for all the lies which are promoted as science. If you understood the basics of real science you would understand you've been duped!Evolution cannot be proved by true science ,therefore anyone who promotes it as fact is an outright liar and those who follow such men are fools!

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

You're just one of many who follow where your led out of fear of being seen to be different.

No, I'm just educated rather than wallowing in complete ignorance like you.

You can't see simple truth for all the lies which are promoted as science.

Please document a single one of those lies using precise, specific language and respectable sources. You can't cite YouTube and you can't site a creationist website. You have to stick to sources that are serious.

Good luck with that!

If you understood the basics of real science you would understand you've been duped!

Please describe these basics and then show how evolutionary biology goes against them. Don't be vague. Be specific, showing us how well versed you are in "the basics of real science".

Good luck with that!

Evolution cannot be proved by true science. . .

Nothing in science is "proved". If you understood "the basics of real science", you would know that science is about constructing and testing models, not proof.

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

So you are admitting there is no 'proof' for evolution?
The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Although the new atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” The question, therefore, is this: Which faith stands up under test—that of the atheist or that of the religious believer?

Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

For 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification,” his 1950 paper, “became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th] century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint.

What made Flew change his mind? In a word, science. He became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. “The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Yes, of course.

And predictably, since you are completely ignorant of the actual science behind evolution, you went to your favorite creationist website and proceeded to cut and paste a series of misleading, irrelevant, or completely mythological bits of nonsense that have already been completely debunked. I've seen this all before.

You were not able to do what I asked. Not even close.

Thanks for demonstrating in a public space how intellectually bankrupt you people are.

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

Rather than accuse me of being 'completely ignorant' why don't you tell us all about 'the actual science of evolution'?
I gave you what you asked for with references, and what 'creationist' website are you alluding too? Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with the new earth creationist theories but adhere to the logical explanation offered in Genesis.

Please, name just one of the 'bits of nonsense' that has been 'completely debunked'!

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

Rather than accuse me of being 'completely ignorant' why don't you tell us all about 'the actual science of evolution'?. . .Please, name just one of the 'bits of nonsense' that has been 'completely debunked'!

I will do no such thing until you respond as I originally requested, as follows:

Please document a single one of those lies using precise, specific language and respectable sources. You can't cite YouTube and you can't site a creationist website. You have to stick to sources that are serious.

"Serious" and "respectable" means: from a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific source with zero affiliation with religion or anti-evolution propaganda. After all, you first claimed there was an “army” of such sources, so this should be easy for you unless you are completely deluded.

And as I said before: Good luck with that!

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

I can only assume you can't read or think very deeply! If you think the references and quotes from such journals as Scientific American are not 'Serious' or 'Respectable' or 'peer reviewed' then which of us is truly deluded?

Here's something for you to ponder :

"The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;
All his ideas are: “There is no God.”

Psalm 10:4

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." Heb 3:4

To contradict such simple logic is what is truly deluded!

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

I can only assume you can't read or think very deeply!

No, those problems are yours. I asked you to do something very clear and specific, and you couldn't. Of course, I knew you would evade my request since in order to fulfill it, you'd have to know something about science and talk about it in your own words.

But you know nothing, so you found a propaganda site and pasted quotes from it rather than focusing on a specific "lie" about science and discussing it in detail, as I requested. You have no such intellectual capacity--and revealing this was the entire point of my request.

So thanks.

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion. So as you like to say...good luck with that!

Microbiologist Radu Popa in 2004 stated “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous
emergence by chance seems impossible.”
.
Between Necessity and Probability:
Searching for the Definition and Origin
of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 126-129.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.

This is a meaningless point, since no serious scientist has ever thought that proteins of any meaningful complexity formed in a completely random matter.

And because you know absolutely nothing about the subject and get your information from deceptive propaganda sites on the Internet, you ignorantly cut and pasted an out of context quote from a scientist who actually believes that life developed on its own through completely physical processes. That's what his book is about.

Your task was to document a lie put forward by scientists in your own words with respectable scientific sources backing up any of your factual claims.

You can't. In fact, the only lies are your own.

[–] palawandy 8 years ago

You like to tell others that they 'know absolutely nothing' without adding anything of substance yourself. You say I ' ignorantly cut and pasted' without knowing it was written by an evolutionist, but as in so much you are again mistaken.The point it was written by one makes it more substantial.
You're coming across as a petulant child with every reply you make.Accusation after accusation without any answers. I'm not even sure that you're male as you seem to be a fan of The Hunger Games (typically teenage female territory).
I'm quite a busy man, so I'm ending this, but please feel free to have the last word as I know your bruised little ego demands it.
I have much bigger fish to catch.Bye

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

You like to tell others that they 'know absolutely nothing' without adding anything of substance yourself.

If you had earnestly attempted to start talking in detail about the lies that science has been spreading, you would have seen plenty of substance from me in reply. I gave you the opportunity and you wasted it.

Which was exactly what I knew you would do, since I know your type all too well.

You say I ' ignorantly cut and pasted' without knowing it was written by an evolutionist, but as in so much you are again mistaken. The point it was written by one makes it more substantial.

Again, your ignorance is on display in a public space.

Your dishonest quote falsely gave the impression that the author was pointing out a serious problem, one only your silly God could solve. Instead, he was setting up his own theory about how nature could have generated life without divine intervention.

You people are basically liars to the core. You have no interest at all in understanding reality.

Oh, and don't let the door slam you on your behind on the way out.

[–] greg-233 8 years ago

"There are more biologists named Steve that support evolution by natural selection..."

Steve Jones being a good example. 

Anyone on an internet message board who says evolution doesn't happen is either a creationist, or a troll PRETENDING to be a creationist. (More likely the latter.) They're definitely not a biologist.

[–] NonNon_Jean-Francois 8 years ago

I sincerely believe creationists are the result of a CIA thought experiment gone awry. Now prove me wrong.

Hehe.

Joking aside, the US is a weird nation indeed: you guys have the greatest scientists in the world, and yet number the most politicians passing creationism into law.

That must be hard getting up in the morning for some of you guys...

[–] dougyd-91816 8 years ago

I am an American so I think I can speak to your point. The main problem we have in the USA is the shear mass of information and the huge number of sources it comes from. We are told one thing in school, another at home, then another at church, then another in the news, then another in popular media. On the same subject we can be exposed to multiple versions of the truth and each claims the others are lying or misinformed. We tend to pick one or two sources of information and discount the others. This is not universally true, but applies to the majority. This is not just an American trend either. Most people tend be well informed about a few subjects and lightly informed about everything else. In my mind, the main culprit in misinformation is the lack of any penalty for lying. A politician can lie outright and even if the lie is proven, they just shrug and continue on with another one. I give you our current presidential race as an example. The same happens in new shows, popular media and daily reporting. Sometimes justice is served, but if carefully done, you can say that you were just misinformed or that the facts are open to interpitation.

Why watch Idiocracy when you have a TV and the internet?

[–] gd5150 8 years ago

After 150 years there's no more dispute..! Gufaw..! Do you realise how naive you sound?

This same argument technique is attempted with the man-made global (insert flavor of the week cause) and it's only been around 5 minutes. Tomorrow it will have a new name, be a new cause, and the "consensus" argument will be attempted again to try to squash open minded debate (the heart of science). The name changes weekly, the solution is always the same. More government, more communisism. This modern leftwing political crap has been around for 100 years. Easy to spot, easy to avoid. So now they disguise their politics by hijacking science and education and disgracing a great program on science that was the original Cosmos. When a program starts with an introduction from a political leader, it's agenda is obvious, and it's not science.

"Recently, we’ve waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting" - Carl Sagan

We know a little about evolution, global climate, the Big Bang, science is far from having proven conclusions, consensus, or a need to end debate. Anyone attempting to end the open minded study of these topics confirms their motivations, their ignorance, and their political agenda.

"When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

Anyone attempting to end the open minded study of these topics confirms their motivations, their ignorance, and their political agenda.

The only ignorance and politics here is coming from right wing nutcases like you. In all your posts here, you have not submitted one iota of actual science to show why the modern consensus around global warming or evolution is false. That says it all, doesn't it?

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Missing links, codependency etc.

1. The term "missing link" is virtually meaningless and is, these days, only used by bad journalists. What, specifically, do you mean by employing the term?

2. Codependency poses no special problems for evolutionary theory. Parasitism is just as "baffling" and it started showing up in the earliest artificial life games almost immediately.

[–] hansenmv2002 8 years ago

Has to be one of the most moronic comments i've ever seen on IMDB.

[–] bek-12 7 years ago

You're a climate change denier? That is disappointing to hear, but we thought the earth was flat for a long time. Eventually, the truth wins out.

[–] DrakeStraw 7 years ago

I'm a denier that climate change is significantly man-made. I also deny that government is able to fight it effectively due to politics and money.

DrakeStraw
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] greg-233 7 years ago

"I'm a denier that climate change is significantly man-made."

How many climate scientists did you speak to before you came to that position?

"I also deny that government is able to fight it effectively due to politics and money."

If governments were able to work together to phase out CFCs, there's no reason why they couldn't work together to phase out fossil fuels. Obviously, that's not what the fossil fuel lobby wants, so it's using all the influence it can to ensure world leaders keep dragging their feet.

[–] DrakeStraw 7 years ago

How many climate scientists did you speak to before you came to that position?

The key is listening to retired climate scientists who are not concerned about where their next grant is coming from. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel is my favorite. He retired in 2014 and devotes a lot of his time now to debunking man-made climate change.

... there's no reason why they couldn't work together to phase out fossil fuels.

Try to mass produce windmills without using fossil fuels. We will depend on them for a long time into the future.

DrakeStraw
LinkLikeThis
[link=nm0171087]

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

One crack pot who founded a TV show is a joke of a reason to stupidly reject what an entire field of science believes.

[–] DrakeStraw 7 years ago

Here's another crackpot climatologist. I might believe you if the movement were not so politically driven:

https://youtu.be/GujLcfdovE8

BTW: Once windmills make up 12% of the power grid, it will come down. How do you make that green energy transition work?

DrakeStraw
https://youtu.be/GujLcfdovE8
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] greg-233 7 years ago

Human induced climate change isn't politically driven. It was fossil fuel driven long before it came to the attention of any politicians.

The transition to green energy isn't as difficult as the coal industry wants you to think.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

I might believe you if the movement were not so politically driven

That's a hilarious case of projection, seeing as your side is all politics and mine is all science.

[–] njumeil 9 years ago

Why would anyone listen to someone who has confederate flag as their avatar picture. Go and say your evening prayers, boy.

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

Why would anyone listen to someone who has confederate flag ...

It wasn't there when I posted that! I've added the stars and bars since as a response to excessive political correctness. I definitely ignore political correction coming from the left.

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

It wasn't there when I posted that! I've added the stars and bars since as a response to excessive political correctness. I definitely ignore political correction coming from the left.

So in addition to being scientfically illiterate, you're also a racist. Good to know, but hardly surprising.

[–] DrakeStraw 9 years ago

So in addition to being scientfically illiterate, you're also a racist.

I'm tired of responding to those who believe the confederate battle flag is inherently racist, so I've changed it to reflect the citizenship of many of my relatives and the country I would prefer to belong to since 2009.

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

I'm tired of responding to those who believe the confederate battle flag is inherently racist, so I've changed it to reflect the citizenship of many of my relatives and the country I would prefer to belong to since 2009.

I guess we should add ignorance of history to the list of your shortcomings, since the South only started pushing the Confederate flag in the mid-20th century as a means of protesting the civil rights movement. It was then and is now a symbol of racism, pure and simple. You people aren't fooling anyone.

[–] gd5150 9 years ago

Actually the confederate flag didn't become politically incorrect until this century about 15 years ago. That's why it was on Dukes of Hazard with zero controversy. And why the Clintons fought proudly to have it hung over the Arkasas capital. Then again it was their party, the Democrat party, that lead the vote against the civil rights act of 1964.

That aside, Cosmos ASTO was a failure compared to that of the original masterpiece Cosmos. Rather than generating discussion on science, it inspired empty political and religious debates. Let's join together as one and hope the producers of the next Cosmos choose to go back to focusing on science rather than politics and religion.

"When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Actually the confederate flag didn't become politically incorrect until this century about 15 years ago. That's why it was on Dukes of Hazard with zero controversy.

Translation: the reality that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol didn't start becoming part of the nation's political and moral consciousness until generally about 15 years ago. It always was such a symbol before then, but only those of us who are morally and ethically sensitive about such things recognized it.

That aside, Cosmos ASTO was a failure compared to that of the original masterpiece Cosmos.

It got great ratings and great reviews. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Rather than generating discussion on science, it inspired empty political and religious debates.

Translation: the show discussed some important and relevant issues that make historically and scientifically illiterate wingnuts very mad. Good job, Cosmos. Keep doing it. We need it.

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

"I'm tired of responding to those who believe the confederate battle flag is inherently racist, so I've changed it to reflect the citizenship of many of my relatives and the country I would prefer to belong to since 2009."

This reminds me of someone saying the swastika flag is not inherently racist, as the swastika is an ancient religious symbol from Asia. Nazis hijacked the swastika, rendering it a symbol of racism, and the Confederate flag, taken up by the Ku Klux Klan... well that symbolizes racism too... 

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vmelkon 10 years ago

How much? Sorry, I didn't sit down and count.

The majority is fine.

There was one case about some 16th century guy preaching (or writing books) that stars are suns and have their own planets and life on them. The catholics didn't like him and killed him. Neil presented this as religion choking scientific free thinking yet again.

The reality is that he was just a guy with ideas and no way to prove them, although proof doesn't matter when it comes to the church.
They just burn you for not believing the same junk they do.
He had all sorts of ideas so at some point, the church declares you a free thinker and then burns you.

And then they go to bed and enjoy themselves, have a big lunch and congratulate each other on a job well done at defending their Jesus.

[–] gd5150 10 years ago

The series is about 50/50. Some facts. Some opinions. And some opinions presented as facts.

There was one case about some 16th century guy preaching (or writing books) that stars are suns and have their own planets and life on them. The catholics didn't like him and killed him. Neil presented this as religion choking scientific free thinking yet again.

The reality is that he was just a guy with ideas and no way to prove them, although proof doesn't matter when it comes to the church. They just burn you for not believing the same junk they do. He had all sorts of ideas so at some point, the church declares you a free thinker and then burns you.

The guy's name was Giordano Bruno. Problem is this entire fantasy was made up to create a perception of the church. A show supposedly on science, making things up completely, destroys its credibility. Add to that they decided to waste half of episode 1 on this fairytale, and you know why the show became irrelevant.

Watch the original Cosmos and you will quickly learn why it's still a masterpiece, and why Cosmos ASTO faded away like a white dwarf. It's important for science to stay fact based. When scientists become corrupted by their wishes, they can no longer be trusted.

"When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler

[–] DoctorFell 10 years ago

if the church did not arrest, beat, imprison, torture & burn Bruno for expressing an opinion that differed from their's, nobody would be condemning the church for arresting, beating, imprisoning, torturing & burning Bruno for expressing an opinion that differed from their's.

1, holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;

2, holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;

3, holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;

4, holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;

5, holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;

6, claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;

7, believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;

8, dealing in magics and divination.

any of these charges was enough for a person to die,

trashing books is like the Special Olympics even if you burn them all you are still a retard.

[–] vmelkon 10 years ago

The guy's name was Giordano Bruno. Problem is this entire fantasy was made up to create a perception of the church. A show supposedly on science, making things up completely, destroys its credibility. Add to that they decided to waste half of episode 1 on this fairytale, and you know why the show became irrelevant.

made up? So are you saying the guy didn't say that far away stars are actually suns with their own planets and life on them?

A show supposedly on science...

Nah, it isn't just on science, just like the original Cosmos. It touches on history as well. It touches on the "human condition" of religion.

[–] silentidominus 9 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Imprisonment.2C_trial_and_execution.2C_1593.E2.80.931600

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 9 years ago

The catholics didn't like him and killed him. Neil presented this as religion choking scientific free thinking yet again.

The reality is that he was just a guy with ideas and no way to prove them, although proof doesn't matter when it comes to the church.
They just burn you for not believing the same junk they do.

Okay, so what about this isn't true?????

And your saying the same thing.(the italicized)

[–] vmelkon 9 years ago

It has been a long time since I have seen the show.

The point that I was making was that I think the show was presenting that to be religion crushing science yet again while the guy (Giordano Bruno) wasn't a scientist and was more interested in religion.

The case doesn't compare to that of Gallileo who was making actual observations and the many others of his time that were living in fear of the Catholic church.

[–] graham-167 10 years ago

Pretty much all of it. Few minor quibbles here and there.

[–] becometheavatar 10 years ago

Cool. Thanks, people.

[–] privatepracticedoc 10 years ago

Hi becometheavitar,

It is somewhat strange, but this is a complex question.This series, like the original Cosmos is a survey of people's knowledge of the universe over thousands of years. During that time people had many different ways of explaining the world and what they observed in the skies. Just like anything else in the world, technologies have advanced and the way people explain things and the way they are able to observe things have changed over time.

The hosts and writers of Cosmos have attempted to take the viewers on a journey to explain this. In more primitive times, early humans observed cause and effect, for example a river flooding and watering their crops. They attempted to get some control over this event. One possibility was that a god caused this to happen. So they prayed and gave gifts and sacrifices to the god to encourage the god to cause the river to flood. This was a form of early religion. Is this accurate? It is accurate historically. However it is not scientific. Science had not been invented yet.

As the centuries passed, religions became more sophisticated. The Greeks, Romans, and the Egyptians all had complex religions. However they all worked to please the gods to make their lives better. There were others in these societies that started to use the scientific method, compared to today, this was a primitive form of science, just as these religions were more primitive than today's religions. The scientist used observation and looked for consistency in these observations. They used logic and tried to replicate, repeat each conclusion. These were early experiments. They strived for accuracy.The developed mathematics and used mathematics to record and standardize their findings. Religions were more interested in the results, rather than the process. If certain methods, sacrifices, words, etc, worked they used them. If they did not work they concluded they had angered the gods. They never concluded that their basic premise was wrong. That is one of the basic differences between science and religion. Science is always ready to admit they made a mistake.

During the middle ages, in Europe, there was a time that Religion rejected all scientific knowledge. The ancient knowledge was kept alive by the Arabs, Jews, and Chinese. This was the time of Inquisitions. Religion became very dogmatic and people like Bruno or Galileo could be burned at the stake for their radical ideas. Fortunately, this did not last more than several centuries and with the Reformation, followed by the Enlightenment, knowledge began to flourish.

Today, we have the technology that allows us to truly study the universe. And indeed we do. As far as accuracy, Dogmatic religions are still with us. Like their dogmatic predecessors they are not open to new ideas. They believe they have all of the answers. They believe that the answers were all given to us in a book that is thousands of years old. Yet they do not follow the rules given in this book. The founder of the religion they follow obeyed these rules, why don't they?

In order to understand scientific accuracy, one must understand how science works. Science is always on a quest for accuracy or truth. However, science is always questioning it's findings. Science does science by trying to disprove their results. They set the criteria very high. If an experiment can meet these criteria, then it is a success, but with a margin of error. That error may only be 1%. But it is always there. That is very accurate. So, evolution is real. Gravity is real. Yes the Earth and planets in our solar system do revolve around the star we call the Sun.

Cosmos is accurate. It is as accurate as its writers, Ann Druyan, Steven Sotor, and Carl Sagan could make it. And it is as accurately presented as its host Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson could present it.

*****************************************
Ignorance is the enemy of civilization

[–] DoctorFell 10 years ago

knowledge was also preserved by the Byzantines, the eastern church has kept many old manuscripts to this day, as they never condemned science.

trashing books is like the Special Olympics even if you burn them all you are still a retard.

[–] becometheavatar 10 years ago

Thanks you, miss. You put the efforts and I am glad to know. :)

[–] lobopampeano 9 years ago

I'm sorry but your account is far from accurate.
The catholic monks preserved human knowledge through the dark ages part of the middle ages. The made hand written copies of everything and culture and science books even pagan or non christian books. The arab books among others, were translated by monks and priests and made thus available to the western world.
The monks were the ones who knew how to read and write and taught others. Discussions between monks were very varied and open. Anselm and Gaunilo's debate on the demonstration of the existence of God is a good example of what happened on a daily basis.
Later on, the catholic church started to build universities all over Europe and that was the cradle of further human knowledge development and debate. Back then there was a lot more debate than in contemporary times at universities. Disputed matters were held and written down as a common practice. It is a common though terrible mistake to say that science was repressed in the middle ages and a symptom of how inaccurate your account is can be easily proved by the fact that your only reference to back this claim was the Bruno (1548-1600) and Galileo (1564-1642) affairs, witch happened during modern times. Plus Bruno was not much of a scientist and Galileo (I cannot get into details here) is case wildly distorted.

Modern ideas about motion, for example, emerged from a progression of discussions and experiments which can be traced back to the men of the universities of middle ages.

Your depiction of science is not accurate as well. Empirical science (contrary to what happens in logic or math) is a non demonstrative science. They make theories to describe a set of phenomena and therefore those phenomena cannot prove the theories without committing a fallacy:

a ---> b
b
therefore a
is fallacy.
(a, being the theory, b the phenomena)

Some claim that theories on the contrary can be disproved in a valid way:
a → b
-b
therefore
-a

But though this is logically true, in reality, due to the fact that we cannot be certain of knowing all the elements interacting in any given moment due to the limits of measurements and observations, we cannot be sure of our rejection of theories.
There are many more elements to take into account and I must point out that medicine and quantum physics
You should read Popper, Khun, Feurabend, Hempel, etc, etc. to get a better idea about how science works.

I'm not looking forward to discrediting empirical science (one of many types of science), only advocating for a more accurate depiction of matters.

[–] privatepracticedoc 9 years ago

So sorry but there are some flaws in your argument.

Yes, it is true that monks during the middle ages spent timeless hours copying ancient manuscripts from the Ancient World, but these were not necessarily manuscripts containing ancient scientific knowledge. They were mostly liturgical manuscripts.

The early Christians destroyed much of the scientific knowledge of the Ancient World. The most famous was the Great Library of Alexandra destroyed by Saint Bosco.

Knowledge was preserved by the Ottoman Empire and their universities were open to any who chose to attend including Christians, Jews, and scholars from the Far East. These people were all scholars in their own right and not only preserved knowledge, but added to it. Under their care, science, literature, medicine and all knowledge grew.

It the Catholic Church had the knowledge of the Ancients, why did they not use it during the middle ages? Why did superstition reign supreme? The Ancients were better at healing than the doctors of the Middle Ages. The Ancient Egyptians performed successful brain surgery, 6000 years ago. Galen could reduce inflammation 3500 years ago. The Ancients understood the need for cleanliness, yet it took the Europeans until the 18th century to stop doctors and surgeons to just wash their hands and stop treating people under filthy conditions. It is amazing.

As far as the Universities, they were started by royalty, For example, Cambridge in England was started by Henry VI and Oxford by Henry VIII. Yes there was church involvement, but not monks. Third sons of royal or noble families went into the church as bishops or archbishops. They were involved in teaching. Priests and nuns were instructors of the children of the nobility. Lower orders, non noble nuns or monks were enclosed. The poor were not educated.

With the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment and the end of religious persecution, knowledge was allowed back into Europe and the knowledge that had been preserved by The Ottoman Empire was finally taught at the major Universities. Their was finally open science and experimentation, as well as medical practice in the 17th century.

There is still disagreement between some religions and science. There are fundamentalists who still will not accept the benefits of science and will die or allow their children to die. The Catholic Church is not among those.

One example here in the US is the talented puppeteer Jim Henson who died several years ago of sepsis. He could have easily been cured with antibiotics, but refused treatment because of his religious beliefs. In my opinion his was a useless and unnecessary death. And there are many more.

Yes, science does not speak of truths, but theories. That is because the was science works is scientist are always working to disprove their theory. It is a fail safe device. But, don't confuse the scientific method with observed historical events. It is not a theory that King Louis XVI of France was decapitated. It is a fact. There is no need to apply the scientific method in cases like this. It is absolutely true that had Jim Henson been given antibiotics before his sepsis had become fatal he would have survived. This is true. No need for scientific method.

It is a fact that if the doctors of the dark and middle ages had used the knowledge of the ancients fewer people would have died during the Black Death. They tried their best, but if they only knew about sanitation, or the medicine that reduced inflammation and fever; they could have saved lives.

Sorry, but I believe you need to do some research, not Wikipedia. It's a good start, but try the university websites. They are more reliable. There is more to this than the scientific method and logic. There is history.

Dr. Erlich, Ph.D

*****************************************
Ignorance is the enemy of civilization

[–] lobopampeano 9 years ago

You seem to have a very biased and old version of the middle ages (whose name reveals a great historical bias). No up to date serious medieval history scholar would make those grotesque generalizations nowadays... but don't take my word, approach any scholar with no anti-religion agenda (and a non religious one too) and you will get a whole different picture.
I made historical corrections regarding Galileo, etc. which prove you have not very good
knowledge of medieval times rather a collection of common place misconceptions and propaganda.
Some further historical corrections.
Abbeys were the first place where culture was transmitted and saved through the dark ages period and it is not true they only copied christian books.
Christians translated Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and many many other of the most important pagans. They also translated neoplatonic texts,stoic texts, arabic texts, etc. And that is an undisputed fact. But copies were hand made, and did not spread very fast. Many things were lost due to the invasions of tribes from different parts "barbarians". It was not till Charlomagne that things became a little better.

Universities had monks and priests as teachers and they were not all created by kings and, by the way, all kings at that time were christian and had a very, very close relation ship with the church. Most noblemen were taught by priests, monks, etc. All institutions created during the middle ages were deeply christian like it or not. And in medieval universities discussions (they were public, lasted days, etc.) were not only common but the essence of it unlike nowadays.

Another thing... the ancients is a generalization... as people of the middle ages is... but ancients were more heterogeneous. Western Europe under Christianity shared Latin as a common tongue (as a religious and scholar tongue) and the west had Greek.
Egyptians had their own writing which was not universally known or taught, it was quite far from western Europe (for that time).
There are many different and complex reasons for the knowledge of this or that and even among christian people knowledge was not evenly spread due to many reason which I can not go into detail (e.g. some things were translated to Greek and not Latin).
During the last decades of the middle ages the printing press was invented and texts began to spread a lot faster.

Regarding the Library you are wrong:
(I do not like using wikipedia AT ALL but it is the only online quick available resource I can come up with... quoting books and serious literature would require a lot of time at the library I do not have for these casual discussions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria
And anyway is only a particular case. Pagan religious things that were meant for worship were destroyed and there is no clear evidence of book destruction. AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERVENTION WAS NOT DURING THE MIDDLE AGES BUT BEFORE. (middle ages "starts" either with the fall of the western roman empire or with a little later with the foundation of Monte Casino Abbey) It took place little time after a long period of christian persecutions and massive murders. PLUS: SAINT BOSCO IS FROM THE XIXTH CENTURY!!! IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE DONE THIS.
The fact that you name Saint Bosco is yet another proof of your huge, ignorance of this particular field (and no offence meant... but you keep piling mistakes that are way too big to ignore).
So I find very ironic that you tell me to do some research. By the way... I am in Spain finishing my Ph.D on a medieval author! I would certainly be amazed if your Ph.D was on anything medieval related. And it would surprise me too if you are a history, or philosophy scholar. In any case I kindly suggest you get a deeper look at the medieval world and abandon those middle age vs renaissance or modern age cartoonish representations which do a great disservice to serious historical reconstruction.

[–] privatepracticedoc 9 years ago

Thank you so much for replying to my post and for your corrections. I am not a history scholar, I am a well read and interested amateur. I have been reading and studying history for 60 years. I have taken both undergraduate and graduate courses in European, Middle Eastern, and Asian history. My Ph.D. is in Psychology. I only brought it up because as a holder of a Ph.D. I do know how to do academic research. I also know how to accept and appreciate correction and new information with grace.

You are right about St. Bosco. That is a myth. The Great Library of Alexandra was destroyed in 391 C.E. by a Christian mob incited by Theodosius of Alexandria. The mob leveled the Serapedum and destroyed the classical library. (www.britannica.com)

While movable type and paper were invented by the Chinese long before the 15th century, the printing press was invented by Johannes Guttenberg in what is now Germany in the 15th century.(www. britannica.com) This made the dissemination of knowledge much easier throughout Europe and changed the Zeitgeist.

Of course the Egyptians had their own language. I happen to have a casting of The Rosetta Stone hanging in my dining room.

I am perfectly aware of the relationship between Royalty and the Catholic Church. If you recall I mentioned that younger sons of Royalty and Nobility went into the church. The church, the Pope, could also excommunicate kings or put countries under interdiction and deny they access to sacraments which, in their minds would place their souls in extreme danger.

My point was, in general, the knowledge of the ancients was not put into practical use. The church considered many thing heretical. Yes monarchs did fund and found universities, such as Cambridge and Eton (Henry VI) and Oxford (Henry VIII). Others were founded directly by the church. For example, The University of Paris. However the curriculum was one of Christian Orthodoxy. (www.britannica.com)

The early middle ages were times of Crusades. Times of stamping out heretical religions and cultures and reclaiming Jerusalem. The later middles ages were times of inquisitions. Time to rid Europe of heretical beliefs such as Islam, Judaism, or Catharism. Most of these movements were done with the blessing of the Pope. Some were not.

And at least the church, for the most part, cared for the needy.

However I do not believe that I am as ignorant as you seem to believe I am.

I wish you luck in earning your Ph.D. I also hope you learn some wisdom with it. A Ph.D. does not make you all knowing. Yes you do have a great deal of expertise, however you can always make mistakes and you can always learn more. Learning is wonderful. Do not stop just because you have earned the highest degree academia has to offer.

Dr. Erlich
*****************************************
Ignorance is the enemy of civilization

[–] lobopampeano 9 years ago

First, thank you for your courteous reply... specially since on a second reading of my own reply I thought I could have written things a little nicer maybe? Anyway as you may have already guessed English is not my mother tongue and writing something quickly, nicely, etc, etc, would take me more time than I have and I tend not to read what I wrote before posting (and I should).

Thank you for your advise. If anything being in a university with other scholars taught me how much pseudo history, pseudo science, etc, goes around and on the other hand it taught me how much I ignore even about my own field of specialization.

But I'd like to make a final remark if I may: Early middle ages was not a time of crusades. They started around around XIth century. I cannot address the crusades which it is a modern name for a group of enterprises which are not all the same and each deserve a deep analysis. Catholic church did not promote the spreading of faith through the sword... and many of such happenings are related to the fact that the Muslims set to conquer Europe, the early intervention of Roman Emperors in church affairs, the fact that the emergence of modern age countries had kings willing to have all under a same tongue, religion, etc. as a way of having unified peaceful subjects, and many other reasons. It is very complex and It would require looking at what happened in every country. In Spain, for example the invasion of the Muslims has an enormous importance. Muslims invaded a land that was not their own and they were driven out not because of their beliefs.

The ancients were not ignored and were very, very respected during the middle ages though not everything or most things were available to the majority. I know nothing about medical knowledge of the ancients and how it was or wasn't spread. Catholic monks and priests debated many things even those that were integral part of their faith (like whether or not god existence could be demonstrated and how). Science of modern times did not come from secular or anti religious people, out of the blue or in spite of Christianity. It emerged from the place where study took place and those were christian places devoted to search for the cause of things. Medieval times had nothing against reason nor promoted blind faith... they believed no one could believe something irrational and that though something might be above our reason it had to be reasonable and therefore it could not be contradictory in itself and be coherent with other knowledge... they were all about searching and finding answers. In modern age times, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes all philosophers and important mathematicians and scientists were part of a tradition of Christians and many of their ideas and debates can be traced back to sources in the late middle ages.

Anyway. Nice talking with you. Best wishes.

[–] privatepracticedoc 9 years ago

Hello lobopampeano,

Thank you again. This has been a very interesting and informative conversation. Unfortunately, I cannot attach articles from a research database for you to read, however, I did find a few websites other than Wikipedia. While not scholarly, they seem more reliable, if you are interested in perusing them.

http://www.cathar.info/cathar_wars.htm

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-inquisition/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition.html

http://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades

http://www.bl.uk/the-middle-ages/articles/medicine-diagnosis-and-treatment-in-the-middle-ages

http://www.britannica.com/topic/public-health

I really developed an interest in the Cathars a few years ago and read everything I could get my hands on. Lately I have been reading up a storm on Richard III and the Plantagenets. I took a segway into Chinese history and also Egyptian history. My mother and I shared an interest in history and philosophy and now I share this with my son, son-in-law and grandson. My husband and daughter add science into the mix and we have a grand time.

I am so pleased to find a fellow scholar and critical thinker on these boards.

Again, best of luck on your studies. And, for a person for whom English is not your first language, you are doing an excellent job communicating.

Dr. Erlich

*****************************************
Ignorance is the enemy of civilization

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Science of modern times did not come from secular or anti religious people, out of the blue or in spite of Christianity. . .In modern age times, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes all philosophers and important mathematicians and scientists were part of a tradition of Christians. . .

You need to be careful with statements of this sort, because the nuances of historical reality make parts of this claim only superficially true, and others completely false.

Takes Descartes. Sure, he claimed to be Christian. But people today forget that after the publication of his major works, he was positively vilified by many other scholars and authorities as being a closet atheist whose ideas threatened Christian dominance in natural philosophy. And they were absolutely correct in the second point, though I doubt he was a secret atheist.

Now stop and think about this for a moment.

If we got to the "science of modern times" not "in spite of Christianity", then why is his being a closet atheist whose ideas threaten Christianity even part of the conversation? Why would that matter to anyone unless there was a widely felt desire by Christians to maintain dominance and control of scholarly discussions at the expense of free inquiry?

In the decades after his work was circulated, if you sided with Descartes or even appeared to be insufficiently vehement in your attacks on him, it was pretty much guaranteed that you would be labeled as an atheist and an anti-Christian. (Of course, this differed from region to region.)

Do not think for one moment that these accusations were just talk that had no effects on people's lives. I invite you to read a most excellent and scholarly book, "Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650 - 1750" by Jonathan Israel. He documents hundreds (I'm barely exaggerating) of cases where scholars challenging the status quo were hounded out of their towns, imprisoned, had to flee for their lives, or had to publish secretly or after their deaths.

And the one common core to this attack on their intellectual freedoms was that they were undermining Christianity.

I'm sure most of these bullied scholars were Christians themselves, but we're fooling ourselves if we don't understand that the fundamental successes of the Enlightenment that lead to modern science really did, as these attackers knew, require the undermining of Christianity in scholarly discourse on the nature of reality.

So yes, we got to where were are in spite of Christianity. It's just a fact.

EDIT: Most of the bullying I learned about from "Radical Enlightenment" involved scholars' views being friendly to those of Spinoza, not Descartes, though the two were often tied together in the minds of those doing the bullying. Descartes wasn't nearly as controversial as the other guy.

The point still stands, though: Christianity was used as a cruel bludgeon to inhibit the free exchange of ideas.

[–] lobopampeano 9 years ago

Descartes and Spinoza are only superficially similar... the differences between them are HUGE. But Descartes opposed skeptics of his time and defended the existence of God in a way which is compatible with the Catholic faith. That is a fact.
What people form many circles say is not irrelevant but it is not crucial either.
Yes it was common to say that "x" discourse was a threat to Christianity or to moral and ethics, etc. It is even common today and depending on who, how and when it is a perfectly valid form (or not) of expression.
Christianity has always had inside its belly a myriad of discussions. Accusations are common between people... (all kinds of people, proof: IMDB forums!) even nowadays in the world of "freedom of speech" certain ideas are condemned and even persecuted (even by civil law in western countries) because they are found to be discriminatory (following the recommendation of Marcuse in Eros and civilization). Political incorrectness can cost someone its job.

But I degress... in order to say that X thing was obtained in spite of Christianity, you must first define X very well and then describe the essence of Christianity in a way that (lets focus simply on Catholics) that matches the official definitions of Catholicism and then show the opposition between X as defined and Catholicism.
Otherwise you may fall willingly or not into the typical circular argument that goes: Christianity was not in favor of the free search of truth, Reply: But look at a, b and c who are prominent authorities of Christianity promote free search of truth, Reply to reply: Oh well but in as much they promote that they are not real Christians...

The problem with historical Christianity is that the so called "christian" societies in many different ways did not live according to Christian principles and many ideas were mixed with different kind of pagan or heterodox christian ideas. This happens with all kinds of societies.
And thus many times were ideas criticized just as today many ideas are criticized and persecuted even by law today. Christianity preaches and ideal which most Christians strive to achieve and fail in different degrees... but the enlightement happened in europe and not in non christian societies for no reason. Enlightment did havs oem anti christian ideas, and no it was not a unified homogeneous movement either, and not everything they promoted was great. But some things were and they are nearly impossible to explain without christianity and specific christian doctrines that can be pointed out (like thesis from the spanish shool of thought from Salamanca University)

But then again I cannot conduct a proper explanation here.

Thanks for the input though.

But the subject is highly complicated and is not appropriate

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Descartes and Spinoza are only superficially similar... the differences between them are HUGE.

That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that in both men we see the beginning of a new way of thinking about natural philosophy that began to pull the West out from underneath the chains of Christian ideology.

It is also completely irrelevant that neither man saw himself as doing this. It is clear from the responses of their peers that they could see the threat to Christian hegemony in what was being discussed in their works.

What people form many circles say is not irrelevant but it is not crucial either.

No, what people write when doing natural philosophy is the only thing that is relevant. I challenge you to cite something else that matters.

But I degress... in order to say that X thing was obtained in spite of Christianity, you must first define X very well and then describe the essence of Christianity in a way that (lets focus simply on Catholics) that matches the official definitions of Catholicism and then show the opposition between X as defined and Catholicism.

Now you a just being completely ridiculous in a desperate effort to ignore the history of ideas in the West. No one is required to play this silly game of yours.

It is a fact that scholars defending the status-quo during the Enlightenment were extremely concerned, often to the point of obsession, to defend Christian orthodoxy in philosophy against perceived threats in the works written by Spinoza, Descartes, and their followers.

They could clearly see that there was a germ of thought in these scholars which would push religion out of the picture in discourse on natural philosophy, and said so repeatedly. They didn't just whine, they used the powers of the state to hound and persecute anyone who would not fall into line and respect current Christian thought.

They were right to be concerned.

Take a look a what natural philosophy turned into: modern science. Please, tell me: where is there any concern or even discussion of Christian ideas in any form when you read peer reviewed papers in physics, cosmology, biology, geology, or brain science?

There is none. And there could be none if these fields were ever to thrive. That was the ultimate achievement of the Enlightenment, and yes, it happened in spite of the efforts of powerful Christians to stop it. This is just a fact of history.

The problem with historical Christianity is that the so called "christian" societies in many different ways did not live according to Christian principles and many ideas were mixed with different kind of pagan or heterodox christian ideas.

A. That isn't a "problem". It is a feature of the way human intellectual life operates.

B. There is no such thing as something called "Christianity" that is independent of the things people who call themselves Christian think, write, say, and do. Christianity is ONLY what people who call themselves Christian think, write, say, and do.

If powerful Christian philosophers and theologians wrote that thinkers in the camps of Spinoza and Descartes were undermining official Christian belief, you can't preserve some mythical version of Christianity by playing games and trying to claim that these philosophers weren't "true" Christians. They were Christians, absolutely. And so were many of the people they persecuted.

But some things were and they are nearly impossible to explain without christianity and specific christian doctrines that can be pointed out (like thesis from the spanish shool of thought from Salamanca University).

Scholarship by Christians in the West, serving as a melting pot where a variety of ideas from different cultures and stages of history, was essential to getting the Enlightenment started.

But you don't understand the entire triumph of the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science unless you understand it as an entire culture turning its back on religion as a tool for objectively understanding the universe and our place in it. That the scholars who began and participated in this journey were Christian is just an accident of history, not something essential to the ideas that ultimately emerged.

[–] lobopampeano 9 years ago

Look your claim is full of assertions without proof (which is to a certain point ok since you did not write an academic paper).

I will only point out a few things before leaving this discussion. If you want to continue with this it will have to be elsewhere not in IMDB.

"Now you a just being completely ridiculous in a desperate effort to ignore the history of ideas in the West. No one is required to play this silly game of yours."

Claiming it is ridiculous does not make it so.
Claiming I ignore the history of the west is not an argument (showing it would be valid). My requirement is not only valid it is the only way of actually trying to prove such a claim. Serious and complex studies of history require descending from general claims to that kind of analysis in order to back them. It is the way a paper or dissertation would need to be constructed in order to prove a historical / theoretical assertion. Otherwise you fall into the a) "everybody knows that X is true" claim which is not an argument it is a fallacy at best or b) into the dubious reasoning that follows: "if X calls himself Muslim and does P, therefore we may conclude that X did P BECAUSE he is a Muslim". But in order to prove that, you need to show how behaving in order to produce P is intrinsically related to being a Muslim otherwise it is unfounded.
Maybe he did P because he was a coward or because he was part of an extreme polytical party or because he liked rock&roll :)

Christianity was spread among people who had beliefs and customs that preceded Christianity and that remained during christian times. Visigoths became Christian at some point in history, yet their culture and beliefs were not evaporated without trace and that explains them being different to Christians from other tribes or places of the earth.
So when an important Visigoth did something in the VI century, are we to attribute it to his Christianity? to his being Visigoth? to his personal views as opposed to those that reined in his time? In order to answer that question you need to do the kind of analysis which I suggested.
Or you can adhere to ideological simplifications of history to which many Christians and anti Christians have incurred and religious-neutral people have incurred. History of middle ages and modern times has changed and perfeted itself quite a bit in the last 60 years. No serious scholar simply opposes modern times to christiany like batman vs the joker anymore.

So when you say:

"But you don't understand the entire triumph of the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science unless you understand it as an entire culture turning its back on religion as a tool for objectively understanding the universe and our place in it. That the scholars who began and participated in this journey were Christian is just an accident of history, not something essential to the ideas that ultimately emerged."

That is a huge claim which was not proved by you. And since universities were created by priests and monks and main philosophers like Descartes were true Christians you also have (not all but a bit more) of the burden of proof.

Anyway. If you still want to discuss, send me your email. Otherwise. Good luck!

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Look your claim is full of assertions without proof (which is to a certain point ok since you did not write an academic paper).

Every factual claim I made is already understood to be true by anyone who has had a basic education in the intellectual history of the West regarding the events of the Enlightenment.

I also invited you to read a major source documenting in exhaustive detail many, many aspects of these facts.

Do you dispute that scholars were persecuted for writing natural philosophy which challenged current Christian thinking? Do you actually need a citation in order to be convinced this happened quite often? Seriously?

Do you dispute the fact that intellectual authorities during the Enlightenment accused followers and defenders of Spinoza and Descartes of undermining the centrality of Christian doctrine to natural philosophy? Do you actually need a citation in order to be convinced this happened quite often? Seriously?

Do you dispute the fact that the modern science which emerged from natural philosophy during the Enlightenment is completely free of all the Christian doctrines which contemporary critics of Enlightenment philosophers said were being stripped from consideration in studying the world and our place in it? Do you actually need a citation in order to be convinced of this? Seriously?

Forgive me if my assumption that you were highly educated in this history was mistaken. I assumed you knew all of these basic historical facts already.

My requirement is not only valid it is the only way of actually trying to prove such a claim.

No it isn't. It's a game. You obviously aren't even paying attention to the substance of my argument, which actually makes room for what you were trying to say, much of which is valid, but not terribly important.

It is the way a paper or dissertation would need to be constructed in order to prove a historical / theoretical assertion.

This is an informal debate forum, so I can appeal to facts that are already generally known to people who have a basic education in the subjects at hand. If you are seriously going to challenge any of three central observations that I made and ask for citations, I will provide them, but if you do you will reveal that you are not being particularly serious and probably have some sort of ideological agenda, because none of these observations are controversial in mainstream intellectual history scholarship. And you should know that.

So when an important Visigoth did something in the VI century, are we to attribute it to his Christianity?

If he did it in the name of Christianity, particularly if he cited commonly understood Christian doctrine of the time, of course. Failing to do so would be absurd.

So the scholars I referred to who persecuted other scholars for violating Christian doctrine of their time were doing so BECAUSE of their Christianity. Failing to acknowledge this is absurd.

That is a huge claim which was not proved by you.

Actually, I did prove it.

I pointed out that Christian authorities of the time recognized that the ideas these guys were promoting would ultimately remove Christianity from discourse about the natural world and our place in it. The Enlightenment scholars they were criticizing won the day, and guess what: Christianity was completely removed from mainstream discourse about the natural world in what is now modern science. This is exactly what the critics were afraid of, and as Christians, they fought it.

To the degree that you find appeals to Christianity in the works of Enlightenment philosophers, I submit that this was a tactic to keep the authorities off their backs, because what they were offering was clearly an alternative to current Christian dogma, and let me repeat again: the end result was Christianity being wiped out of the conversation scholars studying the natural world were having with each other.

Now, if you want to twist yourself into hopeless knots and claim that there was something intellectually embedded inside of Christianity which basically caused it to self-destruct and remove itself from discourse about the natural world in the process of transforming "natural philosophy" into modern science, you might have an interesting idea there. That's literally the only argument you could offer that makes Christianity central to the Enlightenment's success while also being completely honest about history.

I will only point out a few things before leaving this discussion. If you want to continue with this it will have to be elsewhere not in IMDB.

Why did you even come here, then?

I'm not interested in emails, I'm here for public debates and discussions where anyone can jump in. IMDB has a Philosophy section and a Science section not tied to particular movies or TV shows. This discussion would be welcome and possibly more appropriate in either.

At any rate, if you won't continue the conversation, this post of mine will stand as a reply for onlookers or future participants.

[–] lobopampeano 9 years ago

I wil make a brief final remark. You manners are lacking for someone who is so sure of what he/she thinks. So things like "Every factual claim I made is already understood to be true by anyone who has had a basic education in the intellectual history of the West regarding the events of the Enlightenment" and "seriously?" are not arguments just plain bad manners.
I did check some random posts by you and it seems you are not above name calling.. well rational discussions need to keep such antics far away. so even if you were 100% right it would not excuse your behavior. You do remember that Enlightment promoted tolerance, right?

Anyway, I know many claimed natural philosophy was replaced by modern science. Besides actually studying natural philosophy and therefore being in a position to talk about the subject. I happened to assist to a philosophy course dedicated to that subject, i.e. wether natural philosophy is the pre-modern times version of modern science. In that course I read among other things a book by Jaques Maritain called "Natural Philosophy" which tackles the issue. There is a Jaques Maritain center of studies in the University of Notre Dame. A more recent detractor of many common place misconceptions of modern scienc and philosophy vs philosophy of nature is William Carroll Fellow in Theology and Science at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, and a member of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Oxford. just a few random papers:
Creation and Science (London, 2011).
Galileo: Science and Faith (London, 2009).
La Creación y las Ciencias Naturales: Actualidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino (Santiago, 2003).
Aquinas on Creation, co-author with Steven E, Baldner (Toronto, 1997).
"Stephen Hawking's Creation Confusion," Public Discourse (8 September 2010): http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1571
"Creation and the Foundations of Evolution," Angelicum 87 (2010), 45-60.
"Thomas Aquinas on Science, Sacra Doctrina, and Creation," in Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: Up to 1700, vol. 1 (of 2), edited by Jitse M van der Meer and Scott Mandelbrote (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 219-248.
"Divine Agency, Contemporary Physics, and the Autonomy of Nature," The Heythrop Journal 49:4 (July 2008), 582-602.
"Creation and Science in the Middle Ages," New Blackfriars 88 (November, 2007), 678-689.
"At the Mercy of Chance? Evolution and the Catholic Tradition," Revue des Questions Scientifiques 177:2 (2006), 179-204.
"Galileo and Biblical Exegesis," in Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001, edited by José Montesinos and Carlos Solís (Orotava, España: Fundación Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, 2001), 677-691.
"Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas," Revue des Questions Scientifiques 171 (4), 2000, 319-347.
"Big Bang Cosmology, Quantum Tunneling from Nothing, and Creation," Laval théologique et philosophique, 44, 1 (1988) 59-75.

So you have at least 2 well known and respected scholars who worked and taught in highly respected universities who do not agree with some of your self proclaimed evident historical claims. So there is room for discussion whether you acknowledge it or not.
You can keep on ranting and have the last word in front of all the IMDB for all I care. Goodbye.
PD: Jonathan Israel has been criticized. His book is not a widely accepted one.

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

So things like "Every factual claim I made is already understood to be true by anyone who has had a basic education in the intellectual history of the West regarding the events of the Enlightenment" and "seriously?" are not arguments just plain bad manners.

Bad manners or not, every factual claim I made is true and you know it.

wether natural philosophy is the pre-modern times version of modern science.

Natural philosophy gave birth to modern science--that is beyond dispute. It still remains as its own discipline although it doesn't hold much interest these days, though coincidentally I'm reading a very good, modern book devoted to the subject at the moment. (Which is to say, it is a book OF natural philosophy devoted to reforming modern science.)

When I wrote that it was replaced by modern science, that was a bad choice of words, and is in fact a false statement, so I welcome the correction.

PD: Jonathan Israel has been criticized. His book is not a widely accepted one.

What he has been criticized for is making too much of Spinoza's influence, which is irrelevant to any point I have been making.

And by the way, on virtually every page of this huge book of his, you will find criticism of claims made by Enlightenment scholars based on their ideas subverting Christianity. Virtually ever single page.

That's why you questioning this whole aspect of history is so completely outrageous--no, it is NOT up for discussion that this happened and was widespread.

[–] DirkNoItsMe 10 years ago

none of it is true.
only nature is true.
science is just an educated guess with lossy math precision.

[–] andrew_carruthers 10 years ago

Everything in the show is true ... but with a disclaimer or two ...

Regarding the science...

It's true in the sense that it's highly researched and gives an accurate reflection of the best understanding that the scientific community has about everything currently. But the way science works is basically nothing is ever assumed to be 100% fact. Most of the things presented in the show have a lot of evidence to support them but there's always the chance that new evidence will come to light that disproves something or puts something into question. In fact, it's quite certain that if they remake this show again in 20 years, some of the now accepted facts will have to be changed (though maybe only slightly).

Also, many scientific theories (including some presented in the show) will have dissenting voices in the scientific community that don't agree.

These are aspects that makes science work and make it so interesting. Nothing is ever truly assumed, and our sphere of knowledge is constantly growing and morphing with time!

Regarding the history ...

It's true in the sense that it's well researched and gives a pretty good idea of what many historians think happened (in most cases, the majority of historians).

But history is fallible (ie. it's not always totally accurate). It relies on writers that could be biased (or even just lying) and sometimes just on oral history passed down over generations. So we can never really be sure that something is 100% right.

Also, there's the issue of "editing". The most accurate way to represent a moment in history would be to present everything exactly as it happened in real time. But obviously we can't do that - there's not enough information to go on, and the show doesn't have enough time for that. So the show has to choose what bits to include, it might have to add a few things, and it has to settle on a sort of "tone". All these things inevitably add a kind of bias.

None of this is a reason to totally distrust science or historical "facts". A lot of work goes into anything that is reported as fact in a proper science/history context. But we should also accept that we haven't figured everything out yet, and we will have got a few things wrong along the way.

Hope this helps :)

[–] gd5150 10 years ago

Thats a really good answer.

None of this is a reason to totally distrust science or historical "facts".

Cosmos ASTO is not "science" as a whole. Cosmos ASTO is a TV show produced by people with agendas. Once it was established that it was going to lie to push forward an agenda, it could no longer be trusted. This is not a commentary on all or any science. This is a commentary on Cosmos ASTO. When Cosmos ASTO chose to spend half of episode 1 on the Bruno fantasy, a story which had nothing to do with science, and was a complete lie, it undermined the entire program and destroyed its credibility. This has nothing to do with science as whole, only Cosmos ASTO.

Science is science. It's fact based. Facts that can be tested. Tests that can be repeated. Scientists can be corrupt, agenda driven, bias, they are people. Science itself cannot be altered, only exploited by corrupt people.

"When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler

[–] Faustus5 10 years ago

When Cosmos ASTO chose to spend half of episode 1 on the Bruno fantasy, a story which had nothing to do with science, and was a complete lie, it undermined the entire program and destroyed its credibility.

1. The point of the story had everything to do with science in the sense of how it developed from a branch of philosophy into what we now recognize. The church impeded the free thought that was essential to this development, making the Bruno story entirely relevant.

(Don't come back with some idiotic screed about how he wasn't a scientist. There were no scientists back then--only proto-scientists, of which he was one.)

2. I have recently read a scholarly book on the life and history of Bruno. Please cite what part of the show lied about him, because I haven't encountered anything that contradicts mainstream history.

Considering that this is about the third or fourth time I've made this request of people like you, with no one ever responding, I'm not going to hold my breath that you will have anything substantial to say.

You in particular never back up anything you say, ever.

[–] ethermusic1981 9 years ago

Thanks for putting this gd5150 ass in his place.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

ZERO evidences of it existence but its sold as the fact.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your own citation lists several instances of the evidence that has lead most credible scientists to believe it is real.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Ohhh yes I know that. They do list some pseudo-evidences...

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Would you care to employ your scientific expertise to explain why it is "pseudo-evidence"? This should be hilarious considering the chances you know squat about any science at all is pretty much close to zero.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Wow this arrogance and stupidity of claiming You know what I know.
Speak no more. Idiots are never convinced.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Wow this arrogance and stupidity of claiming You know what I know.

The fact that you would call "pseudo-evidence" what thousands of very smart and educated experts regard as convincing evidence pretty much is the height of arrogance and stupidity on your part.

And the fact that you couldn't explain a single reason to doubt that it is legitimate evidence pretty much confirms that my perceptions of your scientific ignorance were right on the money.

Speak no more. Idiots are never convinced.

Correct. You idiots are never convinced.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Sorry if my non-conformism offends You but I will not fuel Your delusions. If You wanna believe anything without evidences - be my guest. Bye.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Unlike you, I'm educated enough about science to know that there is a convincing case for dark matter and that it is based on real evidence. The scientific community could turn out to be wrong, of course.

But be my guest--keep making a fool of yourself in public spaces by denying mainstream science and then refusing to articulate why you know more than the world community of scientists.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Put up or shut up.

Your delusions about You knowing my education and knowledge and that I said "I know better than scientist" don't shake me.

Put up or shut up.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Put up or shut up.

Yes, please: put up or shut up. That is what I asked you to do in my first reply to your ignorant claims. Put up or shut up.

In other words, describe scientifically what you figured out about evidence for dark matter that the scientific community doesn't understand.

Clearly, if they think there is good, convincing evidence and you think it is pseudo-evidence, it logically follows that you think you know better than they do.

So put up or shut up.

(Trust me, I know you won't because you can't. I encounter losers like you all the time and each of you is the same.)

[–] pops87 9 years ago

OK I can play Your Game of Delusions too:

Why do You claim that the Sun is made out of gold?
You were dropped on Your head when You were two.
You can't locate U.S. on the world map (just like 20% of Americans).

And You still didn't even tried to claim any evidences.
Btw. nice logic. You wanna me to provide evidences that DM doesn't exists? I claimed that there are no evidences that it does. Are You a creationist? Or just can't read?

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Five posts and counting where you fail to explain what is wrong with the evidence the scientific community says supports the existence of dark matter. Five posts where you just keep making a complete fool of yourself.

Please, continue! 

[–] pops87 9 years ago

5 posts and You still can't read. There are no evidences.
5 posts and You keep pouring Your delusions on me.
5 posts and I keep telling You it doesn't work on me.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

6 posts where you fail to justify your claim that you are right and the entire world of scientists is wrong.

Continue.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

I can't debunk lack of evidences and You can't mustard anything so basically the job is done.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

7 posts where you can't explain why scientists are wrong when they say this or that is evidence for dark matter. Sorry, cupcake, but just repeating that there isn't any doesn't cut it. You have to show why we should believe you over thousands of scientists around the world.

Continue displaying your ignorance.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

"when they say this or that is evidence for dark matter"

Hahaha. Thats some epic evidences. Keep up the delusions and anytime U'll be ready to provide any proof I'm here.
___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

8 posts of you completely face palming yourself and avoiding any discussion of science, a subject you obviously know next to nothing about.

You yourself cited a link to a list of things the scientific community regards as evidence for dark matter. Pick one and explain how they are mistaken.

(Don't worry, we all know this request is beyond your abilities.)

[–] pops87 9 years ago

"when they say this or that is evidence for dark matter" - evidences for Dark Matter © Faustus5

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

So now we have 9 posts of you running for the hills with your tail between your legs, doing everything you can do to avoid discussing scientific matters that are clearly way, way over your head.

Let me hold your hand, because you really need it, cupcake.

According to your own citation, one of the many observations that support the existence of dark matter is structure formation in the universe. Please explain scientifically why the observed structure of the universe should not be used to infer dark matter.

Good luck with that!

(Don't worry, anyone following this discussion knows how helpless you are. My next post will no doubt refer to your 10th post of avoiding science.)

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Clowns don't understand that to debunk something it first has to be ANY shred of evidences for it. Still can't find any in Your posts... SO CLOWN AROUND CLOWN!

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Yep, just as I predicted, you can't even begin to articulate why scientists are wrong to think that structural formations in the universe are evidence for dark matter. You really are one of the dumbest and most arrogant lunatics I've ever encountered on the IMDB.

10 instances of you failing, more to come.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

"you can't even begin to articulate why scientists are wrong to think that structural formations in the universe are evidence for dark matter"

The IDEA of DARK MATTER WAS CREATED BECAUSE OF IT... ITS NOT AN EVIDENCE FOR IT CLOWN. LACK OF MASS IS NOT AN EVIDENCE FOR DARK MATTER U DISABLED CLOWN :p

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] pops87 9 years ago

"you can't even begin to articulate why scientists are wrong to think that structural formations in the universe are evidence for dark matter"

The IDEA of DARK MATTER WAS CREATED BECAUSE OF IT... ITS NOT AN EVIDENCE FOR IT CLOWN. LACK OF MASS IS NOT AN EVIDENCE FOR DARK MATTER U DISABLED CLOWN :p LACK OF EVIDENCES IS NOT THE EVIDENCE!

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] pops87 9 years ago

"you can't even begin to articulate why scientists are wrong to think that structural formations in the universe are evidence for dark matter"

THE IDEA OF DARK MATTER WAS CREATED BECAUSE OF IT... ITS NOT AN EVIDENCE FOR IT CLOWN. LACK OF MASS IS NOT AN EVIDENCE FOR DARK MATTER U DISABLED CLOWN :p LACK OF EVIDENCES IS NOT THE EVIDENCE!

YOUR DISABILITY IS PREPOSTEROUS!

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Wow, we're up to thirteen instances of your scientific illiteracy! I'm willing to dare you to go up to my favorite number (23) before I think we can crown you the queen of internet idiocy. Then I'll leave you alone to play in the sand.

Cupcake, you don't know the first thing about scientific reasoning.

In science, when you observe something that goes against what your existing models tells you that you should observe, you form a hypothesis to explain why.

Then, you look around to see if you can make further observations that are consistent with what your hypothesis predicts.

Every single one of these observations will count as evidence in favor of your hypothesis.

No one cares if a complete nobody like you doesn't allow that these count as evidence. The scientific community decides these things, not knuckle-dragging trolls like you.

So, explain to us, kitten, why scientists are wrong in thinking that structural formations imply the existence of dark matter? Or if that one makes you uncomfortable, pick any of the other examples of evidence from your own citation.

Coming up on post number 14 of you failing. . . .

[–] pops87 9 years ago

And You still whine and claim You know what I know. You claim You are better when You don't know me.

I guess You are scared that what You believe in has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Now after I rebuked what You call "evidences" for DM (but sadly those are not even close to any evidences - those are just basic assumptions that DM theory was made on) You just whine about how You are great in science and everyone else - people You have no clue of - are wrong.

Sad but true... You are a clown ;/

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] pops87 9 years ago

And You still whine and claim You know what I know. You claim You are better when You don't know me.

I guess You are scared that what You believe in has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Now after I rebuked what You call "evidences" for DM (but sadly those are not even close to any evidences - those are just basic assumptions that DM theory was made on) You are just left with whine about how You are great in science and everyone else - people You have no clue of - are wrong.

Sad but true... You are a clown ;/

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] pops87 9 years ago

And You still whine and claim You know what I know. You claim You are better when You don't know me.

I guess You are scared that what You believe in has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Now after I rebuked what You call "evidences" for DM (but sadly those are not even close to any evidences - those are just basic assumptions that DM theory was made on) You are just left with whine about how You are great in science and everyone else - people You have no clue of - are wrong. I like facts and truth and I don't like people making stuff up when they don't know something. You are basically following DM religion.

Sad but true... You are a clown ;/

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

16 wasted opportunities to defend your position using science. Let’s get to 23 before the end of the week, shall we?

And You still whine and claim You know what I know. You claim You are better when You don't know me.

I know enough about you from your avoidance of science to draw the conclusion that you are a scientifically illiterate moron. If you knew anything about the topic, you wouldn’t have made 16 posts in which you completely avoided discussing the science.

I guess You are scared that what You believe in has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Hey, no need to capitalize the personal pronoun as if I’m some sort of deity. I have an ego, but you are going way too far. You made me blush!

Now after I rebuked what You call "evidences" for DM (but sadly those are not even close to any evidences - those are just basic assumptions that DM theory was made on)

Wow. You are so ignorant that you don’t know the difference between an observation and an assumption. Sorry, sparky, but your own citation did not list a series of assumptions. It listed a series of observations.

You have been given 16 opportunities to explain why scientists are wrong to think these observations are evidence in favor of the existence of dark matter. Because you know nothing about the science, you have avoided doing so each time, and anyone watching knows you will continue to do so.

Basically, your only skill in life is making a fool of yourself in a public space.

You are just left with whine about how You are great in science. . .

I’m not great in science. Not at all. I just possess a basic education in the subject and you do not.

. . . and everyone else - people You have no clue of - are wrong.

No, not “everyone else”. Just idiots like you.

I like facts and truth and I don't like people making stuff up when they don't know something.

Then why haven’t you posted a single fact or a single true statement? Why are you making up crap about science?

You are basically following DM religion.

No, I’m just following the facts. You are the one ignoring reality for religious reasons.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pops87 9 years ago

"I know enough about you from your avoidance of science"

I love science but I don't like clowns that make stuff up like DM. Put up any evidences or shut the f up clown :] Still waiting... unless they exist only inside Your brain...

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Okay, we're up to 17 instances of you avoiding the task of up backing up your ignorant BS, since intellectually such a task is way, way over your capabilities.

Put up any evidences or shut the f up clown

You yourself offered up a link to about a dozen instances of evidence for dark matter. You have had 17 chances to explain for us why scientists are wrong for thinking any of those is actually evidence. But you can't, since you know nothing about science.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Still in the same delusions? Ok I can wait man. When You'll overcome them and when You'll be ready to give ANY FREAKING EVIDENCE for DM... let me know.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

18 lost opportunities due to your bottomless ignorance of science.

When You'll overcome them and when You'll be ready to give ANY FREAKING EVIDENCE for DM... let me know.

Look up your own citation, drooling moron.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Look up my post again disabled clown. Produce at least one post with one evidence... other than that last one laughable "because the universe lacks mass" argument. Till that time... You are a joke sir :P

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

We're now up to 19 examples of you failing!

Produce at least one post with one evidence...

You already did this yourself with your first post. Go to your own article, which lists about a dozen examples of evidence. Enjoy!

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Why You are counting posts if ITS U CLOWN THAT NEED TO PROVE IT... I HAVE NO IDEA... people those days are so dumbed down..

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

20 fails, and now you are even having trouble composing proper sentences in English. Going down fast!

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Let's see... still no evidences? ok... waiting..

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Let's see... still no evidences? ok... waiting..

No evidence? I keep telling you: you cited about a dozen examples of evidence for dark matter in your own initial post.

And now you have had 21 wasted opportunities to explain why you know better than the scientists who regard these dozen examples as evidence.

All you have to do is go back to your own article and pick an example, then explain to us why, on scientific grounds, it fails to suggest the existence of dark matter.

But we all know you won't do this, because you don't know a thing about science.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Don't bother responding if You can't provide ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. I don't even read it. But when u'll have some - let me know.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

No evidence? I keep telling you: you cited about a dozen examples of evidence for dark matter in your own initial post.

And now you have had 22 wasted opportunities to explain why you know better than the scientists who regard these dozen examples as evidence.

All you have to do is go back to your own article and pick an example, then explain to us why, on scientific grounds, it fails to suggest the existence of dark matter.

But we all know you won't do this, because you don't know a thing about science.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

scanning... ok u failed again to provide ANY EVIDENCES.

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Congratulations, ignorant one--you've made it to the magic number of 23 posts where you ignore the evidence you yourself posted in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you have no scientific or intellectual competence to judge that evidence.

I hereby invoke the powers that no one gave me to crown you QUEEN OF INTERNET IDIOCY. Let these posts remain undeleted as a testament to your embarrassing stupidity in a public space.

I’ll leave you alone to play in the sand now--no need to respond, since you will evoke nothing from me any more. Bye.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Put forward any evidences or stfu clown :] How many times do I have to repeat myself ffs. And clown instead of providing evidences counts posts... You have some brain damage or sth?

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] Frydac 9 years ago

I think you are confused about the definition of scientific evidence, a definition Faustus5 provided you in one of his earlier posts, i.e. an observation that supports a hypothesis. ( which is how it is explained on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence )

The structural formation of the universe is claimed to be an observation that supports the hypothesis of the existence of DM, as in that it would be different if DM didn't exist. So by the above definition of evidence, it is just that.

So if you weren't confused about the definition of evidence, what is asked is that you explain why you reject the claim that the structural formation of the universe is and observation that supports the existence of DM.
All you did upto this point is saying (and repeating) it isn't, without explaining why.
One way of doing this, for example, is to explain that there is another reason/hypothesis why the structural formation is how it is observed. In order to do this successfully would mean you have intimate knowledge on the subject, in a degree that not many ppl have, and very unlikely someone who expresses himself in the way you do on a forum like this.
Another way is to refer to a scientific publication that does the work for you, which you would have done if you found one.
Which is why I am 'hypothesizing' you where (still are?) confused about the definition of scientific evidence, as I claim that my observation of your writing supports it, i.e. I claim it to be evidence in that way. Now does this undeniably prove my hypothesis? No of course not, but as long as no other explanation for my observation is given, no fault in my observation is pointed out, or counter evidence is given, my hypothesis holds ;)
I have no doubt that my hypothesis can be proven wrong of course, but it serves as an illustration.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

You can have any definition You like. It's still not an evidence. With those standards You can make up literally anything that is not impossible.

_
I'm only 28 but Hollywood cliches are killing me... who still buying into it?

[–] vernuf 9 years ago

You can have any definition You like. It's still not an evidence. With those standards You can make up literally anything that is not impossible.

As someone so eloquently stated earlier in this thread.

Idiots are never convinced.

Good job, pops.

[–] pops87 9 years ago

Well... no one asked You to describe Yourself and it doesn't input anything to the subjects... but thanks anyway.

_
I'm only 28 but Hollywood cliches are killing me... who still buying into it?

[–] NonNon_Jean-Francois 8 years ago

Well, actually, he's proven proven his claim, or at least pointed to sources providing evidence. You're the one who has to disprove it. The onus is on you. I'm afraid.

[–] pops87 8 years ago

Can't disprove lack of evidences... sorry.

_
I'm only 28 but Hollywood cliches are killing me... who's still buying into them?

[–] Poisoned_Dragon1964 9 years ago

You can't mustard anything



§« https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pnw-KN40Ik »§

[–] Frydac 9 years ago

hehe, I actually read them all.

EDIT: I just notice I only read one page of them.. oops

I'm always glad ppl like you exist Faustus5, I don't have the energy to do the 'good work' ;)

Its a bit like this series, it keeps defending science.
During my childhood (in Western Europe, I'm 34) I never experienced science as something that needs defending, it is just a pragmatic and often productive way to deal with/explain nature/reality, it's what advances our common knowledge. The concept of the scientific method is simple, natural and logical, nothing to accept, believe in or to deny. So when I grew older I was astounded (and keep being astounded) by the fact that it indeed seems to be something that actually needs defending.

So keep doing what you do Faustus5 (and many others, very much generalizing here), so I don't have to ;)

[–] NonNon_Jean-Francois 8 years ago

I quite agree with you.