David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Guest Guest]

Just a quick illustration of what a colossal idiot you are (though wise to stay anonymous):

Yes, I assume things about reality.  I assume that reality must be like A or like ~A (and I remain open to a description of ~A that is different from the one I suggest).

Reality can be only one or the other minus a third option.  You apparently have no third option, so you came up with this exquisitely lame attack on the reasoning.

One of the options, as it happens, appears logically absurd, so I prefer the one that is not logically absurd.  There is absolutely no way this reasoning is a vicious circle.  That would occur if I simply assumed A was true without a probabilistic reductio ad absurdum of the other option.

So let me know any time when you've got that third option that escapes the dilemma.  This accusation of circular reasoning just makes you look even more like an idiot.

76542[/snapback]

A and ~A. See "Schrodinger's cat."

Put it another way, to test your assumption. What if A exists, but not in time and space? Put the question another way: What if A exists, but not in the universe? What useful statement can you now make about a first cause? Very simply, none?

Put it another way.

Define A.

Define "exists."

Those would be ridiculous demands within the known universe, but we're not talking just about the known universe. We're talking about how the known universe "came to be," and even in that, we have no idea whether our conception of "came to be" makes sense. What we do know is that things that seemingly shouldn't be, are.

Put it another way.

What's just outside the edge of the universe? What's 100,000,000 light years beyond the universe? Do the questions make sense? Can we conceptualize their not making sense? We have no frame of reference either way. All we know is that we don't know and have no present means to find out. We don't even have a frame of reference that would allow us to know whether we're even asking meaningful questions.

__________________

In other words, Bryan, you're pontificating on something you know nothing about.

[Strife767]

Here's a boy that needs a girlfriend.  Strife, you available ?

76603[/snapback]

Oh, am I no longer Paul's gay lover in your fantasy? Why don't you keep this stuff buried in your sick mind where it belongs?

[Guest Guest]

Oh, am I no longer Paul's gay lover in your fantasy? Why don't you keep this stuff buried in your sick mind where it belongs?

76653[/snapback]

Hey, didn't you know that the new stereotype for a gay man is a neocon? His fantasies aren't exactly surprising anymore-every time a new gay Republican scandal hits I just roll my eyes-"well, there's another one."

[Bryan]

A and ~A. See "Schrodinger's cat."

If I see Schrodinger's cat then I've got either A or ~A.

Did you mean don't see Schrodinger's cat?

Seriously, it's nice to see you finally try to come up with the third option instead of playing your tired little games.

Put it another way, to test your assumption. What if A exists, but not in time and space? Put the question another way: What if A exists, but not in the universe? What useful statement can you now make about a first cause? Very simply, none?

How is it not useful to describe the first cause as "not in time and space"?

Or "not in the universe"?

Either you've supplied the meaning you deny or you're talking nonsense.

Put it another way.

Define A.

Define "exists."

I already defined A as well as ~A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

You're not doing so well with your third option so far.

Those would be ridiculous demands within the known universe, but we're not talking just about the known universe. We're talking about how the known universe "came to be," and even in that, we have no idea whether our conception of "came to be" makes sense. What we do know is that things that seemingly shouldn't be, are.

Oh. So the moon may have originally been made out of green cheese.

Put it another way.

What's just outside the edge of the universe? What's 100,000,000 light years beyond the universe? Do the questions make sense? Can we conceptualize their not making sense? We have no frame of reference either way. All we know is that we don't know and have no present means to find out. We don't even have a frame of reference that would allow us to know whether we're even asking meaningful questions.

__________________

In other words, Bryan, you're pontificating on something you know nothing about.

76616[/snapback]

So what you're really saying is there could be a third option but you don't know what it is.

That's useful.

[Strife767]

Hey, didn't you know that the new stereotype for a gay man is a neocon? His fantasies aren't exactly surprising anymore-every time a new gay Republican scandal hits I just roll my eyes-"well, there's another one."

76773[/snapback]

lol, you may have something there.

[Guest Guest]

If I see Schrodinger's cat then I've got either A or ~A.

Did you mean don't see Schrodinger's cat?

Seriously, it's nice to see you finally try to come up with the third option instead of playing your tired little games.

How is it not useful to describe the first cause as "not in time and space"?

Or "not in the universe"?

Either you've supplied the meaning you deny or you're talking nonsense.

I already defined A as well as ~A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

You're not doing so well with your third option so far.

Oh.  So the moon may have originally been made out of green cheese.

So what you're really saying is there could be a third option but you don't know what it is.

That's useful.

76791[/snapback]

Face it, chump-you got PWNed. Why keep trying the same lame tactics you ALWAYS use?

[Guest Guest]

How is it not useful to describe the first cause as "not in time and space"?

Or "not in the universe"?

76791[/snapback]

The writer didn't describe "the first cause as 'not in time and space,'" but on the contrary made it clear that a first cause may not exist. For all we know, the universe may wrap around itself, so that the idea of "a first cause" may be sheer nonsense. This isn't just philosophical musing, but is supported by quantum physics and cosmology. Because you don't have a frame of reference, you can't know. You can't even make an educated guess, but only an uneducated guess, which is what theology has been doing for millennia.

Pointing out this possibility, which is buttressed by modern cosmology, is useful because it shows that nature may not be limited by time and space, and therefore may not be bound by what we call cause and effect. That would explain why Newtonian physics leads us into a dilemma whenever we try to use it to contemplate eternity or infinity. That in turn proves that you don't have a frame of reference. Instead of making up the answer you want, based on your will to believe just-so stories invented by pre-scientific men thousands of years ago, why not just admit that there are things about reality that we still don't know?

In other words, scientists far more knowledgeable than you can't figure this out. You're being supremely arrogant suggesting that you have even a hint of an answer. Do have any idea what scientists do day in and day out? Have you no sense of humility for their tremendous accomplishments, or any sense of proportion in comparing science (which has advanced tremendously) to theology (which remains the same collection of unsubstantiated guesses it has always been)? And aren't you tired of embarrassing yourself yet?

[Guest Guest]

So what you're really saying is there could be a third option but you don't know what it is.

That's useful.

76791[/snapback]

Bryan, do you have any idea how ignorant that statement is? Obviously you don't. You intended to be sarcastic, but what you actually did was display your ignorance about science and for that matter religion and theology. Not just science as in E=mc2, but science as a method. You've just illustrated a central difference between science and theology without intending to.

Yes, it is useful to know that there are unanswered questions; and when else would we do that except when we don't know the answers. It's useful to identify those questions, to hypothesize about their means of resolution and (where possible) to seek and obtain answers. In fact, science and religion have a common origin: the desire to know.

The main difference between them is in how they deal with not knowing. Science does the hard work of finding real answers, while theology contents itself with comforting, and sometimes not so comforting, guesses. Because of this difference in method, science has advanced, while theology has not. Time after time, science has disproved the fanciful guesses of theologians, and yet the theologians keep guessing, as though none of it ever happened.

Science is not afraid to admit the truth: there are plenty of things we still don't know. In the past century especially, science has also shown us that some things that seem obvious aren't so. Your lame debating points are without merit or value.

[Guest Guest]

If I see Schrodinger's cat then I've got either A or ~A.

Did you mean don't see Schrodinger's cat?

76791[/snapback]

Bryan, we already know you're intellectually dishonest. When you try to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument, you make it obvious that you're pervasively dishonest, meaning that your dishonesty is intentional.

Obviously, "See Schrodinger's cat" doesn't invite you to go looking for the critter. The obvious meaning is that you consider the argument Schrodinger made, which of course you chose not to do.

Seriously, it's nice to see you finally try to come up with the third option instead of playing your tired little games.

How is it not useful to describe the first cause as "not in time and space"?

Or "not in the universe"?

Either you've supplied the meaning you deny or you're talking nonsense.

I already defined A as well as ~A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

You're not doing so well with your third option so far.

Oh.  So the moon may have originally been made out of green cheese.

76791[/snapback]

Bryan, the only thing you're being serious about is how certain you are that you're never wrong --- problem with that is, you're usually wrong, certainly when it comes to science and theology. It has been explained to you repeatedly that your assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe, a linear concept of time and space; and that we know that conception, limited as it is, to be incorrect. We're in the Einsteinian age of physics now, perhaps even beyond that. You can't just ignore the last hundred years of physics and expect to be taken seriously --- but then why should that bother someone like you, right?

It's not a matter of moons made out of green cheese. A scientist would not make a remark like that, because a scientist would know that cheese comes from mammalian milk, and that there is no evidence that mammals existed when the moon was formed. We know that they did not exist on Earth. Furthermore, a scientist would know that there is no plausible explanation for the existence of a large enough female mammal to produce enough milk to form our moon, nor any other plausible scenario by which enough cheese could be glumped together to that end. Technically, a moon made out of green cheese isn't absurd, but it is ridiculous, which of course doesn't bother you in the least.

When we say that there may be other dimensions of reality that render your assumptions about causation invalid, we're not just speculating. We're looking at the results of physics, including quantum physics and astrophysics, and recognizing that there are things going on at the extremes of large (cosmology) and small (sub-atomic particles) that seem to defy logic under Newtonian assumptions. Does logic not operate within those parameters, or are things going on that we haven't accounted for yet, including things that nullify cause and effect as we understand it? Something along those lines is happening, we just don't know what it is yet.

I'm reluctant to cite a fictional movie here, but the film "Contact" illustrates this point very well. The astronomer Carl Sagan consulted on the film, and had the film-maker illustrate how everything changes if we expand a two-dimensional model into a three-dimensional model. Suddenly, when we see the additional parameter, everything makes sense. It may be that at the extremes of large and small, time becomes irrelevant; or ceases to exist; or ceases to be the force it is in the observable (Newtonian) world. We don't know precisely what the answer is, but we do know that at these two extremes the physical world does not behave as we would predict through our usual models.

That's why your argument isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

So what you're really saying is there could be a third option but you don't know what it is.

That's useful.

76791[/snapback]

Yes, it is useful, in the same way that an alcoholic first has to recognize that he has a problem before he can go about trying to solve it. Science usually advances as a response to a crisis of theory, but before there is an advance, there is a crisis, when scientists recognize they have a problem before they know what its solution is. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Don't bother looking for Kuhn, who is now deceased.)

The fact that you make a comment like that shows how little you understand. Coupled with everything else you write, it shows how little you want to understand.

[Guest Guest]

If I see Schrodinger's cat then I've got either A or ~A.

Did you mean don't see Schrodinger's cat?

76791[/snapback]

When you take statements like "see Schrodinger's cat" literally, it can easily lead to confusion, to such an extent that you may have to turn to the god of the sky for help. (See Uranus.)

[Bryan]

The writer didn't describe "the first cause as 'not in time and space,'" but on the contrary made it clear that a first cause may not exist.

"What if A exists, but not in time and space?"

That's what he said. That's not making it "clear that a first cause may not exist."

But thanks for playing.

For all we know, the universe may wrap around itself, so that the idea of "a first cause" may be sheer nonsense.

Supposing the universe wrapped around itself, how would that make the notion of a first cause sheer nonsense?

This isn't just philosophical musing, but is supported by quantum physics and cosmology.

That means you can either explain how or you cannot explain how. In my experience, quantum physics is used as a dodge.

Because you don't have a frame of reference, you can't know. You can't even make an educated guess, but only an uneducated guess, which is what theology has been doing for millennia.

On what basis do you rule out logic as a frame of reference? Via the appeal to quantum physics (a dodge?)?

Pointing out this possibility, which is buttressed by modern cosmology, is useful because it shows that nature may not be limited by time and space, and therefore may not be bound by what we call cause and effect.

So you're saying that a miracle could happen.

[Bryan]

Bryan, do you have any idea how ignorant that statement is? Obviously you don't. You intended to be sarcastic, but what you actually did was display your ignorance about science and for that matter religion and theology. Not just science as in E=mc2, but science as a method. You've just illustrated a central difference between science and theology without intending to.

Yes, it is useful to know that there are unanswered questions; and when else would we do that except when we don't know the answers. It's useful to identify those questions, to hypothesize about their means of resolution and (where possible) to seek and obtain answers. In fact, science and religion have a common origin: the desire to know.

The main difference between them is in how they deal with not knowing. Science does the hard work of finding real answers, while theology contents itself with comforting, and sometimes not so comforting, guesses. Because of this difference in method, science has advanced, while theology has not. Time after time, science has disproved the fanciful guesses of theologians, and yet the theologians keep guessing, as though none of it ever happened.

Science is not afraid to admit the truth: there are plenty of things we still don't know. In the past century especially, science has also shown us that some things that seem obvious aren't so. Your lame debating points are without merit or value.

76863[/snapback]

Boy, did you miss the point. It was the other guy (you?) that tried to hide cosomology behind a veil of ignorance while I was the one willing to use reason to explore cosmology.

"We don't even have a frame of reference that would allow us to know whether we're even asking meaningful questions."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=76616

In other words, you're an idiot.

[Bryan]

Bryan, we already know you're intellectually dishonest. When you try to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument, you make it obvious that you're pervasively dishonest, meaning that your dishonesty is intentional.

Would I be dishonest if I portrayed a comment followed by "Seriously ..." as an attempt to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument like you just did?

Thank the heavens for the anonymity of posting as a "Guest," right?

Obviously, "See Schrodinger's cat" doesn't invite you to go looking for the critter. The obvious meaning is that you consider the argument Schrodinger made, which of course you chose not to do.

What exactly was I supposed to take from the Schrodinger's cat example, given that the "Guest" who posted it later summed up his point and I addressed that?

Put it another way, to test your assumption. What if A exists, but not in time and space? Put the question another way: What if A exists, but not in the universe? What useful statement can you now make about a first cause? Very simply, none?

Put it another way.

Define A.

Define "exists."

Those would be ridiculous demands within the known universe, but we're not talking just about the known universe. We're talking about how the known universe "came to be," and even in that, we have no idea whether our conception of "came to be" makes sense. What we do know is that things that seemingly shouldn't be, are.

Put it another way.

What's just outside the edge of the universe? What's 100,000,000 light years beyond the universe? Do the questions make sense? Can we conceptualize their not making sense? We have no frame of reference either way. All we know is that we don't know and have no present means to find out. We don't even have a frame of reference that would allow us to know whether we're even asking meaningful questions.

Bryan, the only thing you're being serious about is how certain you are that you're never wrong

And you base that claim on what?

--- problem with that is, you're usually wrong,

And you base that claim on what?

certainly when it comes to science and theology. It has been explained to you repeatedly that your assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe, a linear concept of time and space; and that we know that conception, limited as it is, to be incorrect.

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence. Thankfully you're here to clear that up, now.

We're in the Einsteinian age of physics now, perhaps even beyond that. You can't just ignore the last hundred years of physics and expect to be taken seriously --- but then why should that bother someone like you, right?

Correct. I don't let the unsupported assertion that Einsteinian physics undermines the notion of causation bother me.

I'd certainly consider it if somebody offered more than an unsupported assertion.

It's not a matter of moons made out of green cheese.

Why not? Now that we've undermined causation why shouldn't the moon be made of green cheese one moment and moon rocks the next? Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese until it is observed, somewhat in the vein of Schrodinger's cat.

A scientist would not make a remark like that, because a scientist would know that cheese comes from mammalian milk, and that there is no evidence that mammals existed when the moon was formed.

Wouldn't that foolish scientist be working within a Newtonian understanding of science? Suppose the universe folds over itself? Surely that would allow the heavenly bodies to be made of green cheese just as easily as it escapes the dichotomy between a first cause and an infinite regress of causes.

We know that they did not exist on Earth. Furthermore, a scientist would know that there is no plausible explanation for the existence of a large enough female mammal to produce enough milk to form our moon, nor any other plausible scenario by which enough cheese could be glumped together to that end. Technically, a moon made out of green cheese isn't absurd, but it is ridiculous, which of course doesn't bother you in the least.

Indeed it doesn't, because it is "Guest" who needs to deal with the absurdity. It is "Guest" who seeks to undermine the notion of causation--but then "Guest" appeals to causation to rule out a moon made of green cheese. For some reason it can't just pop into existence uncaused.

Almost like post-Newtonian physics is invoked as a form of ad hoc argument, wouldn't you say?

When we say that there may be other dimensions of reality that render your assumptions about causation invalid, we're not just speculating. We're looking at the results of physics, including quantum physics and astrophysics, and recognizing that there are things going on at the extremes of large (cosmology) and small (sub-atomic particles) that seem to defy logic under Newtonian assumptions.

What are "Newtonian assumptions" as you use the term?

You abandon causation and you abandon modern science, not Newton.

Does logic not operate within those parameters, or are things going on that we haven't accounted for yet, including things that nullify cause and effect as we understand it? Something along those lines is happening, we just don't know what it is yet.

Now you're just repeating the earlier dodge.

I'm reluctant to cite a fictional movie here, but the film "Contact" illustrates this point very well. The astronomer Carl Sagan consulted on the film, and had the film-maker illustrate how everything changes if we expand a two-dimensional model into a three-dimensional model. Suddenly, when we see the additional parameter, everything makes sense. It may be that at the extremes of large and small, time becomes irrelevant; or ceases to exist; or ceases to be the force it is in the observable (Newtonian) world. We don't know precisely what the answer is, but we do know that at these two extremes the physical world does not behave as we would predict through our usual models.

The rise of the mystical scientists.

That's why your argument isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

Indeed, for once you throw over logic in favor of free-form mysticism what else is left to talk about? You've shut yourself off from reason. If you've argued against the idea of god might realize that added dimensions of reality make god entirely plausible or even inevitably likely.

Some how I don't think you'd treat that argument from me the way you expect your argument to be treated.

Yes, it is useful, in the same way that an alcoholic first has to recognize that he has a problem before he can go about trying to solve it.

But wait. Shouldn't the alcoholic actually be realizing that he can't really know that his supposed problem is a problem? Perhaps he only thinks it is a problem because he's thinking in terms of a Newtonian universe?

Science usually advances as a response to a crisis of theory, but before there is an advance, there is a crisis, when scientists recognize they have a problem before they know what its solution is. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Don't bother looking for Kuhn, who is now deceased.)

Paul LaClair also references Kuhn.

The fact that you make a comment like that shows how little you understand. Coupled with everything else you write, it shows how little you want to understand.

76897[/snapback]

That was rather LaClairesque, also.

Just sayin'.

[Guest Guest]

Would I be dishonest if I portrayed a comment followed by "Seriously ..." as an attempt to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument like you just did?

Thank the heavens for the anonymity of posting as a "Guest," right?

What exactly was I supposed to take from the Schrodinger's cat example, given that the "Guest" who posted it later summed up his point and I addressed that?

Put it another way, to test your assumption. What if A exists, but not in time and space? Put the question another way: What if A exists, but not in the universe? What useful statement can you now make about a first cause? Very simply, none?

Put it another way.

Define A.

Define "exists."

Those would be ridiculous demands within the known universe, but we're not talking just about the known universe. We're talking about how the known universe "came to be," and even in that, we have no idea whether our conception of "came to be" makes sense. What we do know is that things that seemingly shouldn't be, are.

Put it another way.

What's just outside the edge of the universe? What's 100,000,000 light years beyond the universe? Do the questions make sense? Can we conceptualize their not making sense? We have no frame of reference either way. All we know is that we don't know and have no present means to find out. We don't even have a frame of reference that would allow us to know whether we're even asking meaningful questions.

And you base that claim on what?

And you base that claim on what?

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.  Thankfully you're here to clear that up, now.

Correct.  I don't let the unsupported assertion that Einsteinian physics undermines the notion of causation bother me. 

I'd certainly consider it if somebody offered more than an unsupported assertion.

Why not?  Now that we've undermined causation why shouldn't the moon be made of green cheese one moment and moon rocks the next?  Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese until it is observed, somewhat in the vein of Schrodinger's cat.

Wouldn't that foolish scientist be working within a Newtonian understanding of science?  Suppose the universe folds over itself?  Surely that would allow the heavenly bodies to be made of green cheese just as easily as it escapes the dichotomy between a first cause and an infinite regress of causes.

Indeed it doesn't, because it is "Guest" who needs to deal with the absurdity.  It is "Guest" who seeks to undermine the notion of causation--but then "Guest" appeals to causation to rule out a moon made of green cheese.  For some reason it can't just pop into existence uncaused.

Almost like post-Newtonian physics is invoked as a form of ad hoc argument, wouldn't you say?

When we say that there may be other dimensions of reality that render your assumptions about causation invalid, we're not just speculating. We're looking at the results of physics, including quantum physics and astrophysics, and recognizing that there are things going on at the extremes of large (cosmology) and small (sub-atomic particles) that seem to defy logic under Newtonian assumptions.

What are "Newtonian assumptions" as you use the term?

You abandon causation and you abandon modern science, not Newton.

Does logic not operate within those parameters, or are things going on that we haven't accounted for yet, including things that nullify cause and effect as we understand it? Something along those lines is happening, we just don't know what it is yet.

Now you're just repeating the earlier dodge.

I'm reluctant to cite a fictional movie here, but the film "Contact" illustrates this point very well. The astronomer Carl Sagan consulted on the film, and had the film-maker illustrate how everything changes if we expand a two-dimensional model into a three-dimensional model. Suddenly, when we see the additional parameter, everything makes sense. It may be that at the extremes of large and small, time becomes irrelevant; or ceases to exist; or ceases to be the force it is in the observable (Newtonian) world. We don't know precisely what the answer is, but we do know that at these two extremes the physical world does not behave as we would predict through our usual models.

The rise of the mystical scientists. 

That's why your argument isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

Indeed, for once you throw over logic in favor of free-form mysticism what else is left to talk about?  You've shut yourself off from reason.  If you've argued against the idea of god might realize that added dimensions of reality make god entirely plausible or even inevitably likely.

Some how I don't think you'd treat that argument from me the way you expect your argument to be treated.

Yes, it is useful, in the same way that an alcoholic first has to recognize that he has a problem before he can go about trying to solve it.

But wait.  Shouldn't the alcoholic actually be realizing that he can't really know that his supposed problem is a problem?  Perhaps he only thinks it is a problem because he's thinking in terms of a Newtonian universe?

Science usually advances as a response to a crisis of theory, but before there is an advance, there is a crisis, when scientists recognize they have a problem before they know what its solution is. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Don't bother looking for Kuhn, who is now deceased.)

Paul LaClair also references Kuhn.

That was rather LaClairesque, also.

Just sayin'.

76920[/snapback]

"Now that we've undermined causation why shouldn't the moon be made of green cheese one moment and moon rocks the next?"

76920[/snapback]

Because we know how cheese is made, and we also know that stars, planets, moons, asteroids and comets are not made of it. We know the biology of milk production and the chemistry of cheese-making. It's all standard science. None of it is cosmology or astrophysics on the one hand, or quantum physics on the other. And nothing about it holds any hope of leading us to answers about the origins, shape or nature of the universe or reality.

Scientists are asking meaningful questions about the origins of things and the nature and shape of reality. Moons made out of cheese is not among those questions. The fact that you're asking "why not" tells us that you don't understand these issues. But frankly, anyone who knows even a little about science already knows that just from reading what you write. I'm not going to try to educate you on the last hundred years of physics, large and small, but instead suggest that you begin a course of study if you really want to understand these issues.

Furthermore, 20th and 21st century science is not mysticism. It is based on observation. For example, in order to observe the behavior of light as it traveled around the moon during a total solar eclipse, Einstein had a to travel to a location where the eclipse would be complete. When he did, he saw that his conjecture about the nature of light was confirmed. In turn, that led to the theorizing that proved that gravity was not as Newton had conceptualized it.

Or, let's talk about causation. The fact is that the behavior of sub-atomic particles has been observed, and it calls into questions our assumptions about causation. You yourself have argued about the meaning and significance of the Big Bang. Some scientists hypothesize that time cannot exist in a black hole. The Newtonian assumption is that everything is contained within the framework of space-time as we understand space and time. The last hundred years of physics has demonstrated that the assumption is questionable at best. Again, read the science. Then you'll have some basis for discussing these things.

On the other hand, this began as a discussion about a hypothetical first cause, itself uncaused, which you postulated to be most likely conscious. You've now raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese. If you want to place those two possibilities on the same order of likelihood, which is the implication of your argument, it's actually a pretty good comparison, and I'm not meaning to be a smark-aleck with that remark. You have to understand how to think about science, which at present you do not.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, and this, in case you didn't understand the point about science and cheese:

QUOTE

A scientist would not make a remark like that, because a scientist would know that cheese comes from mammalian milk, and that there is no evidence that mammals existed when the moon was formed.

Wouldn't that foolish scientist be working within a Newtonian understanding of science?

76920[/snapback]

He would be working within that understanding, because cheese production is well-explained by standard science, and therefore he would not be foolish. We don't need Einstein to understand cheese production. No one is saying to throw out Newton's formulas. They still work, but not necessarily for the reasons he thought. If you understood modern science, Bryan, you wouldn't have tried to make a point out of this.

[Guest Guest]

Boy, did you miss the point.  It was the other guy (you?) that tried to hide cosomology behind a veil of ignorance while I was the one willing to use reason to explore cosmology.

"We don't even have a frame of reference that would allow us to know whether we're even asking meaningful questions."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=76616

In other words, you're an idiot.

76918[/snapback]

Again, Bryan, you don't understand science. You're trying to step too far ahead of the game, and in doing so you're not making the kinds of reasoned conjectures that drive science and human understanding forward. You're just making the conjectures that would support the answers you want to promote. In other words, you're thinking like a my-mind-is-made-up theist, not like a scientist or even a good philosopher.

It is useful to know that nature contains things we don't yet understand. It is also useful to have an understanding of science's methods and the content of current science, so that we can narrow our conjectures to things that might be useful (not including, for example, sentient rocks or moons made of green cheese). What is not useful is to posit a "most probable" answer (a conscious first cause of all things) to questions we don't even know how to ask properly, based on absolutely nothing.

[Bryan]

Because we know how cheese is made, and we also know that stars, planets, moons, asteroids and comets are not made of it. We know the biology of milk production and the chemistry of cheese-making. It's all standard science. None of it is cosmology or astrophysics on the one hand, or quantum physics on the other.

Oh? And how do you know that, minus reliance on causation?

Here's one of the many questions you dodged. I'll remind you of more of them as we go.

Why not? Now that we've undermined causation why shouldn't the moon be made of green cheese one moment and moon rocks the next? Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese until it is observed, somewhat in the vein of Schrodinger's cat.

And nothing about it holds any hope of leading us to answers about the origins, shape or nature of the universe or reality.

Why not? Because you say so?

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.

Scientists are asking meaningful questions about the origins of things and the nature and shape of reality. Moons made out of cheese is not among those questions.

Why not? Because you say so?

If you accept contradictions such as that offered by Schrodinger's cat, why not a moon that is made of green cheese and not made of green cheese? Why do you deny the application of quantum indeterminacy in one area while insisting on it in another area, other than via the fallacy of special pleading?

The fact that you're asking "why not" tells us that you don't understand these issues.

The fact that you can't answer tells us that you don't understand these issues.

But frankly, anyone who knows even a little about science already knows that just from reading what you write.

It would be those who only know a little about science who think that. Such as yourself.

I'm not going to try to educate you on the last hundred years of physics, large and small, but instead suggest that you begin a course of study if you really want to understand these issues.

The appeal to authority minus the authority. Brilliant!

Furthermore, 20th and 21st century science is not mysticism.

It is the way "Guest" has described it.

It is based on observation.

OK, then tell me how Schrodinger's cat is known to be neither dead nor alive until observed, particularly given that nobody has done the experiment.

For example, in order to observe the behavior of light as it traveled around the moon during a total solar eclipse, Einstein had a to travel to a location where the eclipse would be complete. When he did, he saw that his conjecture about the nature of light was confirmed. In turn, that led to the theorizing that proved that gravity was not as Newton had conceptualized it.

I love that story. Notice how it depended on causation?

Or, let's talk about causation.

You already did.

The fact is that the behavior of sub-atomic particles has been observed, and it calls into questions our assumptions about causation.

Not yours. You do not allow your assumptions about the causation of cheese to come into question:

"we know how cheese is made"

You yourself have argued about the meaning and significance of the Big Bang. Some scientists hypothesize that time cannot exist in a black hole. The Newtonian assumption is that everything is contained within the framework of space-time as we understand space and time.

Speaking of the Newtonian assumption ...

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.

You could even address that one without teaching me the last 100 years of science.

Or you could evade again.

The last hundred years of physics has demonstrated that the assumption is questionable at best. Again, read the science. Then you'll have some basis for discussing these things.

What assumption? The type of assumption you use to declare that the moon was never ever made of green cheese?

On the other hand, this began as a discussion about a hypothetical first cause, itself uncaused, which you postulated to be most likely conscious. You've now raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese.

I raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese based on your framework of science, minus the special pleading. If you don't like it, then modify your scientific framework appropriately.

If you want to place those two possibilities on the same order of likelihood, which is the implication of your argument, it's actually a pretty good comparison, and I'm not meaning to be a smark-aleck with that remark. You have to understand how to think about science, which at present you do not.

77023[/snapback]

And like a true scientist, you've kept the evidence of my failure to think properly about science completely hidden.

Here's another reminder:

Would I be dishonest if I portrayed a comment followed by "Seriously ..." as an attempt to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument like you just did?

Now watch "Guest" engage in another round of evasion.

[Guest Guest]

Oh?  And how do you know that, minus reliance on causation?

Here's one of the many questions you dodged.  I'll remind you of more of them as we go.

Why not?  Now that we've undermined causation why shouldn't the moon be made of green cheese one moment and moon rocks the next?  Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese until it is observed, somewhat in the vein of Schrodinger's cat.

Why not?  Because you say so?

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.

Why not?  Because you say so?

If you accept contradictions such as that offered by Schrodinger's cat, why not a moon that is made of green cheese and not made of green cheese?  Why do you deny the application of quantum indeterminacy in one area while insisting on it in another area, other than via the fallacy of special pleading?

The fact that you can't answer tells us that you don't understand these issues. 

It would be those who only know a little about science who think that.  Such as yourself.

The appeal to authority minus the authority. Brilliant!

It is the way "Guest" has described it.

OK, then tell me how Schrodinger's cat is known to be neither dead nor alive until observed, particularly given that nobody has done the experiment.

I love that story.  Notice how it depended on causation?

You already did. 

The fact is that the behavior of sub-atomic particles has been observed, and it calls into questions our assumptions about causation.

Not yours. You do not allow your assumptions about the causation of cheese to come into question:

"we know how cheese is made"

You yourself have argued about the meaning and significance of the Big Bang. Some scientists hypothesize that time cannot exist in a black hole. The Newtonian assumption is that everything is contained within the framework of space-time as we understand space and time.

Speaking of the Newtonian assumption ...

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.

You could even address that one without teaching me the last 100 years of science.

Or you could evade again.

The last hundred years of physics has demonstrated that the assumption is questionable at best. Again, read the science. Then you'll have some basis for discussing these things.

What assumption?  The type of assumption you use to declare that the moon was never ever made of green cheese?

On the other hand, this began as a discussion about a hypothetical first cause, itself uncaused, which you postulated to be most likely conscious. You've now raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese.

I raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese based on your framework of science, minus the special pleading.  If you don't like it, then modify your scientific framework appropriately.

If you want to place those two possibilities on the same order of likelihood, which is the implication of your argument, it's actually a pretty good comparison, and I'm not meaning to be a smark-aleck with that remark. You have to understand how to think about science, which at present you do not.

77023[/snapback]

And like a true scientist, you've kept the evidence of my failure to think properly about science completely hidden.

Here's another reminder:

Would I be dishonest if I portrayed a comment followed by "Seriously ..." as an attempt to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument like you just did?

Now watch "Guest" engage in another round of evasion.

77060[/snapback]

Bryan,

Is the world round? Yes or no please.

[Guest Guest]

Oh?  And how do you know that, minus reliance on causation?

Here's one of the many questions you dodged.  I'll remind you of more of them as we go.

Why not?  Now that we've undermined causation why shouldn't the moon be made of green cheese one moment and moon rocks the next?  Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese until it is observed, somewhat in the vein of Schrodinger's cat.

Why not?  Because you say so?

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.

Why not?  Because you say so?

If you accept contradictions such as that offered by Schrodinger's cat, why not a moon that is made of green cheese and not made of green cheese?  Why do you deny the application of quantum indeterminacy in one area while insisting on it in another area, other than via the fallacy of special pleading?

The fact that you can't answer tells us that you don't understand these issues. 

It would be those who only know a little about science who think that.  Such as yourself.

The appeal to authority minus the authority. Brilliant!

It is the way "Guest" has described it.

OK, then tell me how Schrodinger's cat is known to be neither dead nor alive until observed, particularly given that nobody has done the experiment.

I love that story.  Notice how it depended on causation?

You already did. 

The fact is that the behavior of sub-atomic particles has been observed, and it calls into questions our assumptions about causation.

Not yours. You do not allow your assumptions about the causation of cheese to come into question:

"we know how cheese is made"

You yourself have argued about the meaning and significance of the Big Bang. Some scientists hypothesize that time cannot exist in a black hole. The Newtonian assumption is that everything is contained within the framework of space-time as we understand space and time.

Speaking of the Newtonian assumption ...

I asked for some substantiation of the assertion that my "assumptions are limited according to a Newtonian understanding of the universe" and I got stony silence.

You could even address that one without teaching me the last 100 years of science.

Or you could evade again.

The last hundred years of physics has demonstrated that the assumption is questionable at best. Again, read the science. Then you'll have some basis for discussing these things.

What assumption?  The type of assumption you use to declare that the moon was never ever made of green cheese?

On the other hand, this began as a discussion about a hypothetical first cause, itself uncaused, which you postulated to be most likely conscious. You've now raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese.

I raised the possibility of moons made out of green cheese based on your framework of science, minus the special pleading.  If you don't like it, then modify your scientific framework appropriately.

If you want to place those two possibilities on the same order of likelihood, which is the implication of your argument, it's actually a pretty good comparison, and I'm not meaning to be a smark-aleck with that remark. You have to understand how to think about science, which at present you do not.

77023[/snapback]

And like a true scientist, you've kept the evidence of my failure to think properly about science completely hidden.

Here's another reminder:

Would I be dishonest if I portrayed a comment followed by "Seriously ..." as an attempt to pass off a play on words as a substantive argument like you just did?

Now watch "Guest" engage in another round of evasion.

77060[/snapback]

Bryan, you’re not listening. Statements about how cheese is made are based on causation. Statements about hypothetical first causes cannot be, for obvious reasons.

You want to know why a study of whether moons are made of green cheese is not likely to lead to any useful information. If I have to explain it to you, then you don’t understand the difference between science and philosophy, which indeed you don’t.

Then you ask: “If you accept contradictions such as that offered by Schrodinger's cat, why not a moon that is made of green cheese and not made of green cheese? Why do you deny the application of quantum indeterminacy in one area while insisting on it in another area, other than via the fallacy of special pleading?” Because we have to think about sub-atomic particles differently than we think about moons. We have solid theories for how moons are formed. They are not made of cheese, green or otherwise. It has nothing to do with quantum indeterminacy, which is why it makes no sense to apply it to this field of study. By contrast, Schrodinger’s hypothetical cat is killed by radiation, so we should apply it. Really, Bryan, if you’re going to try to discuss things you know nothing about, you should at least read a little about them first. Besides, no one is “accepting” the apparent contradiction. I doubt that Schrodinger himself would have argued this was anything more than a useful conjecture.

Schrodinger was proposing a thought experiment. It’s a useful exercise because of what we already know about the behavior of sub-atomic particles, a field in which we have very little knowledge and a great number of unanswered questions. That's why it drew attention and serious scientists even wrote serious papers and books about it. The same cannot be said for whether moons are made of cheese.

Science asks a great many questions in fields that are unsettled, fewer in fields that are settled. It isn’t until science identifies problem areas that fields of science tend to advance. You can propose anything you like, but until you have some basis for it, you’re just playing games or, at best, shooting in the dark. There’s no purpose and no point.

There are excellent reasons why science works that way: until scientists identify a problem, they can hardly know what they’re trying to resolve. So in the field of quantum physics, there’s still a lot of guessing going on. We have no choice, except to abandon the field and leave the seemingly impossible behavior of sub-atomic particles as a series of unanswered questions. But then we wouldn’t be doing what scientists do. We’d be giving up in the face of apparent contradictions, even though we have evidence that something is going on that we don’t understand. You cannot intelligently make exactly the same statements about moons of cheese.

Now, if you want to hypothesize parallel universes, go ahead, but I’m at a loss why you should think there would be moons of cheese in any of them. I can understand dead cats and live cats, but not moons made of cheese. But if you don’t agree with that, go ahead and make your argument to the scientific community. They seem to think there’s some reason to think about Schrodinger’s cat, and that there’s no reason to think about moons made of cheese. Maybe there’s a reason for that, and maybe that reason has something to do with what science is and how it works. Ever think of that?

Finally, regarding Schrodinger’s cat: You seem to have forgotten that this thought experiment has to do with the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Unless you have some reason to think that such things can somehow cause moons to be made of cheese . . . You can't just take the form of an argument and graft it onto everything. You must consider the subject matter.

Come on, Bryan. Surely even you have better things to do.

[Guest Guest]

I realize that this issue is old, and, as a result of the legal settlement, supposedly resolved.

However, I am shocked that this man is still teaching in any public school setting.  I am stunned that the town where I grew up and the high school where I was educated would allow this to happen.

The logistics of the recording and the popularity of Mr. Paszkiewicz are irrelevant.  Divorce yourself from the personal passions inherent to the case and consider that the teacher in question:

- Abused a position of authority to advance his personal beliefs;

- displayed incompetence for his position as evidenced by his teaching on science and ignorance of the U.S. Constitution; and

- by virtue of his personal beliefs, made his students uncomfortable in their own ethics and mortality.

This is grounds for immediate dismissal of Mr. Paszkiewicz.  Further, the Board of Education's mishandling of the matter should call their own positions into question.

I am not some liberal outsider swooping in to offer a tongue-lashing to the residents of Kearny.  I am a concerned alumnus of Kearny High School that realizes, had the events taken place 12 years earlier, I could have been caught in this crossfire.

Sincerely,

Michael O'Donnell

KHS '95

69368[/snapback]

ok, so he made some BAD choices....is he equivalent to all that is evil? No. He is a human being who has learned from his mistakes and hasn't had a problem since (but that's probably because some sneaky "know-it-all" 16 year old hasn't tape recorded him yet.)

"made his students uncomfortable in their own ethics and mortality."

correction: made ONE student uncomfortable. Has any other student's face been in the observer? I think not! You know, I find the ones who don't believe in god the one's who feel so strongly about Paszkiewicz being fired. Let me ask you this, do YOU believe in god, Michael?

and IF you do, cheerio. You should have a little more compassion in the first place...i mean, who are you even getting defensive about...I should be the one getting defensive... I AM a student there and I think Mr. Paszkiewicz has made a big mistake but has learned from it and should NOT be deprived of his working as a teacher at Kearny High.

We all have our flaws. Get over it.

[Guest Guest]

ok, so he made some BAD choices....is he equivalent to all that is evil? No. He is a human being who has learned from his mistakes and hasn't had a problem since (but that's probably because some sneaky "know-it-all" 16 year old hasn't tape recorded him yet.)

"made his students uncomfortable in their own ethics and mortality."

correction: made ONE student uncomfortable. Has any other student's face been in the observer? I think not! You know, I find the ones who don't believe in god the one's who feel so strongly about Paszkiewicz being fired. Let me ask you this, do YOU believe in god, Michael?

and IF you do, cheerio. You should have a little more compassion in the first place...i mean, who are you even getting defensive about...I should be the one getting defensive... I AM a student there and I think Mr. Paszkiewicz has made a big mistake but has learned from it and should NOT be deprived of his working as a teacher at Kearny High.

We all have our flaws. Get over it. 

77103[/snapback]

There's no evidence that he has learned from his mistakes. Just the opposite, he has never apologized to the community he divided, never admitted he was wrong (on the contrary, the only public statements he made were to defend his behavior), and after the assemblies this fall he tried to convince his students that the speakers were wrong. He didn't just make a few mistakes in class. He deliberately tried to push his religion, which he knows he's not allowed to do, then he repeatedly lied about it to the detriment of the student he had to know was telling the truth. There are probably a dozen reasons why he should have been fired. What he said in class is only the tip of the iceberg.

In addition, if his attitude is anything like yours (trying to blame what he did on the person who caught him doing it), then he should be fired. Eventually, unless he changes his attitude, he probably will be.

How do you know how many students he made uncomfortable? There are probably quite a few students who are uncomfortable with what he said, but are afraid to say anything because look how the one kid who spoke up was treated. There were actually quite a few kids who had their names and faces in the newspapers, and most of them were saying Paszkiewicz never said what he said even though it was recorded. He knew kids like you would defend him. That's why he thought he could get away with lying about it.

So I might agree with you if Paszkiewicz had apologized, showed some contrition and some humility, but he hasn't. That shows that he hasn't learned a thing. But by all means, if you know something about it that we don't, feel free to share --- then go tell your idol to share it with the town he turned inside out so we can have some reason to think we can trust him.

And if you want to talk about compassion, what about his comments saying that people who don't believe what he believes "belong in hell"? Compassion is a wonderful thing. So why are you pushing a belief system that is hypocritical about it?

[Bryan]

Bryan, you’re not listening. Statements about how cheese is made are based on causation.

That's exactly what I said. So how am I not listening?

Statements about hypothetical first causes cannot be, for obvious reasons.

Then why do we use the word "cause" in statements about hypothetical first causes?

It seems that you're the one not listening. The only aspect here where causation is ruled out is with respect to a cause for the first cause--and that is a logical restriction of which I already took note.

You want to know why a study of whether moons are made of green cheese is not likely to lead to any useful information.

No, I don't. Stop making things up.

If I have to explain it to you, then you don’t understand the difference between science and philosophy, which indeed you don’t.

... and you can prove it by lying? Seriously, give a reason for claiming that I don't understand the difference between science and philosophy other than your made-up supposition that I propose a scientific study of the cheesy origins of the moon.

My explicit point was that science depends on causation for its explanations. You're apparently deliberately ignoring that point.

Then you ask: “If you accept contradictions such as that offered by Schrodinger's cat, why not a moon that is made of green cheese and not made of green cheese? Why do you deny the application of quantum indeterminacy in one area while insisting on it in another area, other than via the fallacy of special pleading?” Because we have to think about sub-atomic particles differently than we think about moons.

I hate to break it to you, buddy, but a cat is not a sub-atomic particle. Unless you radically changed the definition for purposes of your argument?

We have solid theories for how moons are formed. They are not made of cheese, green or otherwise. It has nothing to do with quantum indeterminacy, which is why it makes no sense to apply it to this field of study.

OK, so you admit my point about relying on causation, then. Or do you?

By contrast, Schrodinger’s hypothetical cat is killed by radiation, so we should apply it. Really, Bryan, if you’re going to try to discuss things you know nothing about, you should at least read a little about them first. Besides, no one is “accepting” the apparent contradiction. I doubt that Schrodinger himself would have argued this was anything more than a useful conjecture.

Good grief, you apparently aren't familiar with your own illustration.

Isn't the point of the illustration not the fact that the cat is killed but that the cat is neither alive nor dead prior to observation (thus instantiating a macro state of contradiction)?

Schrodinger was proposing a thought experiment.

Oh, thanks! And here I thought it was a real experiment!

It’s a useful exercise because of what we already know about the behavior of sub-atomic particles, a field in which we have very little knowledge and a great number of unanswered questions. That's why it drew attention and serious scientists even wrote serious papers and books about it. The same cannot be said for whether moons are made of cheese.

So finally you admit that the cat thing is really just a representation of what supposedly happens at the sub-atomic level.

So, can you explain how it affects our notions of causation in general? Because without that, it becomes obvious that (intentionally or not) you were just offering up a red herring.

Science asks a great many questions in fields that are unsettled, fewer in fields that are settled. It isn’t until science identifies problem areas that fields of science tend to advance. You can propose anything you like, but until you have some basis for it, you’re just playing games or, at best, shooting in the dark. There’s no purpose and no point.

Kind of like the use of Schrodinger's cat to upset notions of causation that way?

There are excellent reasons why science works that way: until scientists identify a problem, they can hardly know what they’re trying to resolve. So in the field of quantum physics, there’s still a lot of guessing going on. We have no choice, except to abandon the field and leave the seemingly impossible behavior of sub-atomic particles as a series of unanswered questions. But then we wouldn’t be doing what scientists do. We’d be giving up in the face of apparent contradictions, even though we have evidence that something is going on that we don’t understand. You cannot intelligently make exactly the same statements about moons of cheese.

You've affirmed the reliance of science on the notion of causation, which was the point of my invocation of cheesy moons. Now you can try to explain how Schrodinger's cat upsets the philosophical notions of causation that underlie science.

Good luck with that.

Now, if you want to hypothesize parallel universes, go ahead, but I’m at a loss why you should think there would be moons of cheese in any of them. I can understand dead cats and live cats, but not moons made of cheese. But if you don’t agree with that, go ahead and make your argument to the scientific community.

They already understand their reliance on causation, for the most part.

They seem to think there’s some reason to think about Schrodinger’s cat, and that there’s no reason to think about moons made of cheese. Maybe there’s a reason for that, and maybe that reason has something to do with what science is and how it works. Ever think of that?

Yep, and I might even be able to communicate the implications to you.

Finally, regarding Schrodinger’s cat: You seem to have forgotten that this thought experiment has to do with the behavior of sub-atomic particles.

Yes, I did "forget"--but only to specifically get you to affirm science's reliance on the notion of causation.

Unless you have some reason to think that such things can somehow cause moons to be made of cheese . . . You can't just take the form of an argument and graft it onto everything. You must consider the subject matter.

Come on, Bryan. Surely even you have better things to do.

77092[/snapback]

What can I say? I just enjoy showing up the ignorance of LaClair and his clones.

[Strife767]

ok, so he made some BAD choices....is he equivalent to all that is evil? No. He is a human being who has learned from his mistakes

1. He has yet to apologize for any of his misconduct or lies.

2. Last I heard, he was still making the same kind of comments in class.

and hasn't had a problem since (but that's probably because some sneaky "know-it-all" 16 year old hasn't tape recorded him yet.)

You don't have to "know it all" to know that teachers aren't supposed to preach in public school.

"made his students uncomfortable in their own ethics and mortality."

correction: made ONE student uncomfortable.

Only because he talked about that Muslim girl behind her back.

Has any other student's face been in the observer? I think not! You know, I find the ones who don't believe in god the one's who feel so strongly about Paszkiewicz being fired. Let me ask you this, do YOU believe in god, Michael?

What difference does it make? Paszkiewicz's dishonest, unethical, and incompetent. Plenty of reason not to keep one's job.

and IF you do, cheerio. You should have a little more compassion in the first place...i mean, who are you even getting defensive about...I should be the one getting defensive... I AM a student there and I think Mr. Paszkiewicz has made a big mistake but has learned from it and should NOT be deprived of his working as a teacher at Kearny High.

We all have our flaws. Get over it. 

77103[/snapback]

I'd agree with you IF I saw the slightest bit of remorse from Paszkiewicz as a result of all of this, but no. How can you say you think he learned from his mistakes if he won't even acknowledge that he made a mistake to begin with?! Not to mention his underhanded attempts to cover up said mistakes through blatant lying. If you're okay with a teacher like that, then that says a lot, all negative. I'd like KHS to have a higher standard than that for its teachers.

[Guest Guest]

ok, so he made some BAD choices....is he equivalent to all that is evil? No. He is a human being who has learned from his mistakes and hasn't had a problem since (but that's probably because some sneaky "know-it-all" 16 year old hasn't tape recorded him yet.)

"made his students uncomfortable in their own ethics and mortality."

correction: made ONE student uncomfortable. Has any other student's face been in the observer? I think not! You know, I find the ones who don't believe in god the one's who feel so strongly about Paszkiewicz being fired. Let me ask you this, do YOU believe in god, Michael?

and IF you do, cheerio. You should have a little more compassion in the first place...i mean, who are you even getting defensive about...I should be the one getting defensive... I AM a student there and I think Mr. Paszkiewicz has made a big mistake but has learned from it and should NOT be deprived of his working as a teacher at Kearny High.

We all have our flaws. Get over it. 

77103[/snapback]

Ah yes, it's all the kids fault. Talk about needing to get over it!

[Guest Guest]

That's exactly what I said.  So how am I not listening?

77155[/snapback]

And blah, blah, blah.

The point is that 99% of science does rely on causation. That's because science mainly deals with the everyday world, and also because our science is mainly in the areas we understand well. That's why Newton's physics predate Einstein's physics.

However, that leaves the question what we do with the parts of reality we don't know much about. We know (as I'm writing this for at least the third time) that the very large and very small won't fit into Newtonian assumptions about time and space. Therefore, if we wish to understand them, we must identify the apparent holes in the usual assumptions, and try to discover what these still very poorly understood layers of reality are about. There's a grounding for it because of our observations about sub-atomic particles, the behavior of light and the sheer fact that the very notion of the universe as all, and yet of measurable dimensions, is a contradiction. We have no way of calculating infinities. We know things are going on, but we don't understand them yet. Yes, string theory may turn out to be dead wrong, but at least we have brilliant people working very hard to try to use it to learn something about the nature of things. That's how Einstein came up with E=mc2. He didn't do it by reading Aquinas' Summa.

So we have a choice. We can play word games, arguing that because someone adopts the term "first cause" for sake of argument, that's somehow an admission that ah-hah! we're in the realm of linear causation after all. Or we can continue on the slow but steady path of science and actually learn something. It's not as easy, it's never complete, there's never a claim that all questions are answered once and for all; but science has the virtue, which theology lacks, of being demonstrably real.

In short, between science and theology as a means of learning about the universe, I choose science. Bryan is free to make a different choice, but the comparative track records of the two are clear.