5 ms·

I couldn't find anything to take away from this article (and now this guy can claim to be publishing in Nature? What a load of BS). - Higgs was the goddamned p

I couldn't find anything to take away from this article (and now this guy can claim to be publishing in Nature? What a load of BS). - Higgs was the goddamned particle, which was censored to 'god'. In any case it was just a joke - In a sense scientists believe in science, because it has never failed them. As much as most would not admit it, i believe they see some metaphysical meaning in searching for nature's truths. Plus there is some (neuro-)science that deals with metaphysical/religious feelings itself. - Just because certain places, thoughts and readings create certain chemical reactions in our brains that we perceive as deep mystical emotions doesn't mean they matter in themselves. I used to have a fear of locusts. - a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience: Isn't it weakness to stop there and say "OMG"? What causes those feelings, what purpose do they serve, and why do they happen in that Temple? Why do we even have the word "unknowable"? I think that's why science is more fun This guy needs to come out to himself as a theist

think-large 14y ago
Science is constantly failing us. I remember when I was taught the basic structure of an atom and all I needed were protons, neutrons, and electrons. And while quarks can be chalked up as an expansion pack for an high school teacher so can many of the changes that religious people make. How many scientific theories are proven not to be accurate models for the data? Is that not a failure? No, because it is just a failure on that particular scientist right? There is a perception that science does not fail. It does, frequently. The problem is that science was BUILT to fail. It is BUILT to be expanded upon. Religion, according to many was not. That is the fundamental failure in Religion. They want to appear to be constant and unchanging while they are not. Religion does adapt, and grow, and find failures. Much like science does. It takes a certain amount of faith to wake up every day and say that this world is the real one. It makes logical sense yes, but that doesn't mean it's the whole picture. TLDR; To be staunchly of either belief and NOT have any doubt THAT is illogical.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  So the failure of science is...its inability to perfectly predict the future?
  - think-large 14y ago
    So the failure of religion is... its inability to perfectly predict the future (i.e. after death)? Yes, science is imperfect, there are no proofs. Only disproofs. Would you consider a model that does not perfectly predict the future to be considered a failure ? If I want to send a message across the galaxy and I'm only using Netwon's Laws will it get to where I want it go? Would that be considered a failure? In a word, yes. But it is also a learning experience. I think this model should apply to religion as well. It is not meant to be taken as a perfect prediction of Godhood, just a theory that we are currently wearing. Hopefully it isn't too far off, but so what if it is? I really just want people to accept that we hold certain truths to be infallible and they are not. Not even scientific theories. The Standard Model is under constant change.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Science is not a failure because of that, for the simple reason that it was never supposed to be infallible. Imperfection is at its core, it's not a failure. Sending a message across the galaxy with the assumption that science is perfect is a failure by the person sending the message, not science's.
      - think-large 14y ago
        Bah, I'm stopping this thread cuz I did a better job of explaining in this other conversation. Also, it is not a failure at all, it is a datum to be added to the experience that we base our observations on. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4417531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4417531
- zerostar07 14y ago
  The problem with a religion-oriented attitude (no matter how progressive the religion) is that it acts like a pacifier for the human inquirer.
geon 14y ago
> - Higgs was the goddamned particle, which was censored to 'god'. In any case it was just a joke The article is not about that at all, but how the physics and mathematics surrounding it is so abstract that no one but a theoretical physicist can at all have any meaningful understanding of it. For anyone else it's just a matter of faith. Personally, I think there is a big difference between a myth passed down as tradition for thousands of years, and a discovery peer reviewed in the scientific community.
- naich 14y ago
  Quite. It's not faith. It's not even close. It's the temporary granting of a small amount of trust that the theoretical physicist hasn't cocked up somewhere.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > For anyone else it's just a matter of faith. Not really. Faith is what you have on things that cannot be proved. Like someone else pointed out, it's like saying believing in the existence of Moscow is a matter of faith for everyone who was never there. And, even for those who think they've been to Moscow, how can they be sure it was not other city cleverly disguised as Moscow?
mattgreenrocks 14y ago
> This guy needs to come out to himself as a theist The guy has his doubts about science explaining everything, and he's now a 'them?' Is that how this works?
- zerostar07 14y ago
  the Angkor temples demonstrate how religion can offer an authentic personal encounter with the unknown I think "the unknown" is a euphemism for God in this article. In any case i would never discriminate against my deist brothers.
  - mattgreenrocks 14y ago
    True. The unknown need not be God, however.

think-large 14y ago

Science is constantly failing us. I remember when I was taught the basic structure of an atom and all I needed were protons, neutrons, and electrons. And while quarks can be chalked up as an expansion pack for an high school teacher so can many of the changes that religious people make. How many scientific theories are proven not to be accurate models for the data? Is that not a failure? No, because it is just a failure on that particular scientist right? There is a perception that science does not fail. It does, frequently. The problem is that science was BUILT to fail. It is BUILT to be expanded upon. Religion, according to many was not. That is the fundamental failure in Religion. They want to appear to be constant and unchanging while they are not. Religion does adapt, and grow, and find failures. Much like science does. It takes a certain amount of faith to wake up every day and say that this world is the real one. It makes logical sense yes, but that doesn't mean it's the whole picture. TLDR; To be staunchly of either belief and NOT have any doubt THAT is illogical.

stephengillie 14y ago
So the failure of science is...its inability to perfectly predict the future?
- think-large 14y ago
  So the failure of religion is... its inability to perfectly predict the future (i.e. after death)? Yes, science is imperfect, there are no proofs. Only disproofs. Would you consider a model that does not perfectly predict the future to be considered a failure ? If I want to send a message across the galaxy and I'm only using Netwon's Laws will it get to where I want it go? Would that be considered a failure? In a word, yes. But it is also a learning experience. I think this model should apply to religion as well. It is not meant to be taken as a perfect prediction of Godhood, just a theory that we are currently wearing. Hopefully it isn't too far off, but so what if it is? I really just want people to accept that we hold certain truths to be infallible and they are not. Not even scientific theories. The Standard Model is under constant change.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Science is not a failure because of that, for the simple reason that it was never supposed to be infallible. Imperfection is at its core, it's not a failure. Sending a message across the galaxy with the assumption that science is perfect is a failure by the person sending the message, not science's.
    - think-large 14y ago
      Bah, I'm stopping this thread cuz I did a better job of explaining in this other conversation. Also, it is not a failure at all, it is a datum to be added to the experience that we base our observations on. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4417531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4417531
zerostar07 14y ago
The problem with a religion-oriented attitude (no matter how progressive the religion) is that it acts like a pacifier for the human inquirer.

geon 14y ago

> - Higgs was the goddamned particle, which was censored to 'god'. In any case it was just a joke The article is not about that at all, but how the physics and mathematics surrounding it is so abstract that no one but a theoretical physicist can at all have any meaningful understanding of it. For anyone else it's just a matter of faith. Personally, I think there is a big difference between a myth passed down as tradition for thousands of years, and a discovery peer reviewed in the scientific community.

naich 14y ago
Quite. It's not faith. It's not even close. It's the temporary granting of a small amount of trust that the theoretical physicist hasn't cocked up somewhere.
rbanffy 14y ago
> For anyone else it's just a matter of faith. Not really. Faith is what you have on things that cannot be proved. Like someone else pointed out, it's like saying believing in the existence of Moscow is a matter of faith for everyone who was never there. And, even for those who think they've been to Moscow, how can they be sure it was not other city cleverly disguised as Moscow?

mattgreenrocks 14y ago

> This guy needs to come out to himself as a theist The guy has his doubts about science explaining everything, and he's now a 'them?' Is that how this works?

zerostar07 14y ago
the Angkor temples demonstrate how religion can offer an authentic personal encounter with the unknown I think "the unknown" is a euphemism for God in this article. In any case i would never discriminate against my deist brothers.
- mattgreenrocks 14y ago
  True. The unknown need not be God, however.