d***@shawcross.ca
2010-05-02 00:48:15 UTC
snip------------------
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived
authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing
the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual
making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the
claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or
to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements
in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a
claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of
the person promoting it.
Excuse me- but I was not arguing from authority and I agree with the above
statement.
What I did was look at the record of a number of physicists -all of them
outstanding in their fields. Among them are some atheists, some agnostics,
some Christians, some Jews, some Muslims and some of other faiths. Maybe
the agnostics are the most honest.
What is common is that their beliefs don't impact their ability to meet the
empirical but measurable criterion of doing good research and advancing
knowledge.
-------------------------
Salam, Pocklinthorpe were good scientists.
Your hypothesis. Prove it.Prove otherwise.
Dirac and Gell-Mann accepted them into their team at Cal-Tech and they could
choose among the best. While this is not proof, they were not invited to
serve tea.
Max Planck certainly contributed to the advancement of physics, Georges
LeMaitre was the originator of the "big bang theory" and Freeman Dyson has
made contributions in mathematics and quantum mechanics. These three
were/are Christians- does that make their scientific contributions useless?
Can you or I contribute as much?
Here is a quote from Dyson:
"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to
understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here.
The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same
universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out
essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal
jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be
infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally
dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and
religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance.
The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious
people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or
the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect
so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions."
That to me, seems a pretty good statement to end this thread.
--
-----
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
-----
Don Kelly
cross out to reply