scott wrote:If I may be so bold...(Crazy murder fantasy deleted. Why is it always murdering with you? You should talk to a Rabbi or something.)

Duke, you just told a story that, if true, would have left all kinds of evidence that it took place. Evidence that, if I had any inkling (hunch, even) you'd done it, I could ferret out and show to anybody who doubted me. Flight logs, presence of lead in volcano, residue in grinder, receipt for kiddie pool, the photo... Seriously, you'd sooo be in jail.

So what's the evidence that Big Ernie had a hand in anything? Not the vague possibility that it might have happened that way, but the affirmative evidence that it did. What have you got?

Bupkes.

Barbo wrote:I personally think string thoery is a 6 dimensional mound of feces. Mutlidimensional manifolds at each point in space just so the numbers work out doesn't really bode well with us experimentalists.

It may seem kind of nutty but it's better than the mathematical sleight of hand called, "renormalization".

disco suicide wrote:(A little fascinating factoid: Readers may already know this from the movie with the title that relates to the fact that when a person dies, they weigh 21 grams less than they did when they were alive. Some would say that this is the soul leaving the body. I'm not sure what the scientific explanation for this is. I would like to know.)

I think it should be noted that Duncan MacDougall's researched is often considered meaningless and without scientific merit. His research was sloppy and the actual weight lost at death was inconsistent.

P.S. - 21 grams is a pretty decent movie though.

Chromodynamic wrote:

Barbo wrote:I personally think string thoery is a 6 dimensional mound of feces. Mutlidimensional manifolds at each point in space just so the numbers work out doesn't really bode well with us experimentalists.

It may seem kind of nutty but it's better than the mathematical sleight of hand called, "renormalization".

Agreed. There's a novel out... um... here it is: Oh Pure and Radiant Heart, which is mostly Pure and Radiant Crap... that postulates what Fermi, Szilard, etc., might think of the modern state of science. I think it's Fermi in the novel who wonders why scientists are so into numbers rather than experimentation with the known, physical universe. But to a lot of scientists, numbers are both known and physical attributes of the universe, and therefore worthy of experimentation in the same way as these more tangible physical manifestations of our universe. String theory isn't just noodling about in one's mind -- it works on paper despite one's mind's usual experiments, but not in a way that is counter-intuitive. Rather, the math that has always both derived from experimentation as well as predicted further effects in the physical universe is still good math, and therefore still a derivative of the physical universe (though it may be invisible to our dodgily inadequate eyes).

Just 'cause you don't have x-ray vision to see the exploded appendix in your gut doesn't mean you don't have an exploded appendix in your gut.

scott wrote:Ya see Steve, I put the body through a grinder, took the ground remains and put them in a vat full of molten lead, poured the molten-lead-plus-remain-grindings into a kiddie pool made of steel, waited for it to cool, had my body painted in fake-silver body paint and took a photo of me standing on top of it in a pose like on The Oscar... then I took the huge metal disc and dropped it out the door of a TH-57 into the heart of an active volcano.

But I guess since there's no evidence of it to be found (like, ever) then there was no murder then, huh? And when I show you a picture of me in the statue pose and tell you "that's me right there, with the remains from the murder" you'll say "yeah, sure, whatevs yo".

Allow me to point out (and in a much less tacky/irritating fashion) that Steve said, "nor any other evidence", conveniently highlighted no less, yet completely overlooked by yourself. Just because you have cleverly disposed of the body does not mean there is not evidence of a murder.

steve wrote:Duke, you just told a story that, if true, would have left all kinds of evidence that it took place. Evidence that, if I had any inkling (hunch, even) you'd done it, I could ferret out and show to anybody who doubted me. Flight logs, presence of lead in volcano, residue in grinder, receipt for kiddie pool, the photo... Seriously, you'd sooo be in jail.

That there are people out there who specialize in things like forensic botany and even forensic entomology is rather interesting and also further.. er.. evidence, that it is nearly impossible to leave no evidence behind.

EDIT: FYP - moderator

Happy Oestregen Sunday, you religious nutcakes.

the 21 grams mentioned earlier is a load of rubbish

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

This determination to equate religious/supernatural "faith" with "faith" in science is futile. Even if I accept that I have no direct, first hand experience of a particle being fired at a sheet of metal, but that I believe this experiment to have taken place and yeilded certain results, this isn't religious faith.

You could say that I trust that the scientific community isn't one big conspiracy to trick non-scientists into believing things that aren't true, and I'd agree with this, but it is still nothing like religious faith.

Scientologists believe in Xanu and aliens, and that Tom Cruise can levitate. This is very different to me trusting that scientists are not, as a group, lying to the world.

To say "Science seems crazy" is merely to say "the world seems crazy." Which indeed it does. Religious faith is proof of that alone.

kenoki wrote:
thus, there is no such thing as the worthwhile hunch... exhausting a mere idea is lame and unscientific. nothing could come of it, unless it does, and then nevermind.

steve wrote: If your hunch leads you to discover something substantial, then great. It was a worthwhile hunch. You're clearly not talking about that sort of hunch. You're talking about a pure hunch that has led you to nothing but an unsubstantiated confidence in the hunch itself. In other words, wishful thinking. I don't think one ought to rely on that kind of hunch (or give it credit in a greater culture) for anything at all.

So, you say that one shouldn’t waste his time (we’re back at the phantom murder scene) trying to determine WHY he can’t detect the murder, as opposed to focusing on the crime itself. I think you are intentionally phrasing things like that just to paint “people of faith” as Scrappy Doos who can’t research the problem without beforehand having problems figuring out how to research the problem, resulting in a new and more hilarious problem and maybe seeing a ghost. Another image would be a cross-eyed cat chasing its tail. I don’t think you are talking to those people, and I am not speaking on behalf of them, so don’t bother. Furthermore, the analogy doesn’t make sense because a murder is a physical thing human beings have seen--together, alone, one after another--time and time again since the beginning of our time (I hypothesize). You are relegating the entire unknown, the freaking UNKNOWN, to an episode of Medium or the King’s bible. It pains me.

The unknown; being open to the idea of things that we may be unable to see, understand, nor verbally communicate at present, and certainly provide no hard evidence of to satisfy your mind; with or without a “God,” afterlife or recycling of souls attached; is not limited to yr religious folk, but the problem with some of them is that they think they know everything without even trying. The most unknown of the unknown is the hardest to find and takes time. To reject that notion, or enact an unspecified research limit seems like a disservice to everyone and is inherently very unscientific. The foundation of religion is formulating answers for things you do not know about (yet), and behind that is a question, one which begs from inside even primitive man to be answered. Science can aid to that, and has. Religion can help fill the gaps where these strange seemingly other worldly vagaries are concerned like the soul (you) or this moment--items most of us can acknowledge without even thinking. Of course along the way science (history and anthropology) will disprove relics of religion, or help flesh out the unwritten. But the act of faith and wonder will not be fucked with.

I do not back a total separation of religion and science because all sides stand to assume that religion has always been what it is to the majority, and that science lacks humor. Both are corrupted by ego and corporate funding, so you reorganize every thing and criticize old hats to suit the new arrangement. No thanks. Many of our greatest, wisest scientists and physicists were men of faith but if you read some of their writings you could sense they were as thoughtful of their religion as of quantum theory or evolution. My boyfriend mentioned the Orthodox Church and an idea that religion, philosophy and science are nothing without all. This sounds pretty good to me, but you should still be discerning since not everyone finds the time.