32 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  2. As one can hear in this clip, Feynman, who is truly a great scientist, is no philosopher. When it comes to answering questions about the meaning or purpose of life, he not only does not have any answers, he doesn’t even know the questions.

  3. A simpler explanation is that all normal brains contain a dollop of some
    sort of shorthand “religion/morality seeking firmware” programmable at
    various times or by various events in our lives. By our parents, first and
    foremost. Then by the church going relatives, etc, and other people we
    will interact with later and so on.
    The morally “hollow people” have, for whatever reason, missed this stage
    of development so they are drifting and very susceptible to any nonsense
    fed to them by those in constant contact. Perhaps affable leftist school
    teachers, professors, and imams to cite the obvious in the present day.
    Or the communist and fascist higher education mentors in 1930s Europe
    and elsewhere who found so many of the children of the elites in the post
    WW1 generation such easy pickings.

  4. But… But Obama says 99.5% of the worlds scientists “know” that AGW is real!
    What scientist fails to state the Pros Vs Cons of “EVERY” theory? The correct take on those Obama Scientist’s is that 99.5% of them are “not” valid Scientists.
    “he doesn’t even know the questions” blackfox… Please provide those questions you know he does not know…otherwise your blather is pretentious nonsense. I think he kinda said “The truth is a never ending quest that delusional idiots find easy”

  5. “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
    ― Richard Feynman

  6. It’s when we have doubt that it can lead to faith.
    I have come to the conclusion in my life that I am lost without a Saviour and that when I put my faith in Him then the concerns about doubt greatly diminish.
    I now can trust in the One that does understand the things I cannot understand.
    For this reason, I agree with Feynman in this point, that I therefore do not need to know and have an answer to all things.

  7. Yes, Frank Q. the most helpful thing ever said to me by a religious thinker about faith was that true faith accepts and encompasses doubt. Knowledge is what you know, believing it without doubt (you may in fact be wrong, as Ronald Reagan said about liberals and their knowledge, but you don’t doubt what you know.) Faith is what you believe despite knowing that you don’t have the certainty about it that comes with knowledge. I know I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by scientific observation or logical analysis. But it is by faith that I believe there is God, and trust in Him.

  8. Follow al gore’s, Elizabeth May, Suzuki very own plan ” do what they do: conserving energy is not in their plan… therefore you need not either.
    Why must we conserve energy, so they can use up the rest.
    Al Gore said that the water is rising yet he has a mansion right smack dam by the beach, as well Elizabeth May and Suzuki live on the coast where water can rise but…no movement from any of them to move up ground.

  9. Compared to God, Jesus, the universe, space/time or belief itself, our intellect and reason, and thus doubt, are of little consequence. Thought is but an approximation based on our narrow perception of what we think we observe, a sophisticated feedback loop – compared to the wondrous realities and discoveries that await the human mind and spirit. Nobody records that, or plays it back – or do they?
    Anyway, I hope we never tire of peeling back the onion, even if it means tears. Moving from science to faith while tuning your mind for both isn’t so difficult when you really “think” about it while accepting and analyzing human limitations.
    As for science today, it has lost its “reason” because it has lost its humility, and thus its doubt, with climatology the most glaring example with their certain hypothesis arrogance, when compared to more certain sciences, even cosmology, it presents the most doubt, given chaotic climate and human interaction, but instead is infected with “consensus,” manipulation and willful omission.
    Science is becoming a slave of its own failed uncertainty. Belief belongs to faith and philosophy, not science, especially social or political “science.”

  10. Thanks Kate for the Feynman clip. He is right.
    Thanks also to Frank, Tooner, and Shamrock.

  11. What does he mean, he does not know?
    Why does not he ask the “experts” or “journalists”.
    “Journalists” know, when you read the paper, they always ask the “experts”.
    You gotta trust the experts, they know things.
    Physicist? He questions. He wants to know.
    Experts. They don’t have any questions. They know stuff.

  13. ask a philosophical question and …thump thump thump thump…you religious people sure are shakey in your “faith”, aren’t cha?
    Phillip, your take on Blackfoxes statement was about what I was going to ask him/her/it!!!!
    Science is more so about questions then it is about answers, and every answer should be questioned. Faith on the other hand does not lend it’s self to being questioned, there fore it presents it’s self as an absolute, and absolutes are for fools!!

  14. “…absolutes are for fools!!”
    I never see anyone here appearing more absolute in their faith in what they know than you.

  16. Agreed….he is right in his ‘analysis’ of the blurred lines between philosophy and science.
    Neither of which can explain God. And religion does not explain God.
    God explains God…very clearly.

  17. “he doesn’t even know the questions” blackfox… Please provide those questions you know he does not know…otherwise your blather is pretentious nonsense. I think he kinda said “The truth is a never ending quest that delusional idiots find easy”
    Feynman is a physicist and not a philosopher. He seeks answers to “what” but not to “why”. I used to race cars and, because of that, I made the acquaintance of a few mechanical engineers. The engineers knew everything that was needed to know about how to build the car I wanted but were at a loss as to why I would spend so much money to have them do so. They thought the purpose of the car was to go down the track as fast as possible. But they were mistaken. The purpose of the car was to satisfy my need to do so. This need was beyond mathematical calculation. And so, there are truths beyond Feynman’s calculations.
    If you come over to my blog (by clicking on my name) you will find a three part essay titled: Evolution: Game Of Chance. You will find some of the questions and some the answers I allude to.
    Thank you for your kind comments.

  18. Tooney, trying to turn the tables is so lefty of you. I’v always considered that bible bangers and lefties have a lot in common. They both want to welcome the “refugees”, whether here in kanada or down there in texass. You’s differ in that lefties hate Joos, and bible bangers believe all Joos are good and get your pinko panties in a bunch when some one points out that the leftard you are denigrating happens to be Jewish. You bible bangers are as entertaining as the leftards:-)))

  19. Feynman is a physicist and not a philosopher.
    His body isn’t anything now. Except worm food. Maybe the worms will ‘evolve’ into a new physicist. heh
    That seems to be what many people believe. Evolution, the new reincarnation. A scientific face put on a pagan belief.

  23. I would like to believe that yes, an Aspect of God did in fact come to this little planet. To believe that, then I would have to believe that Earth, with all of its flora and fauna, plus the one BIG fauna, Homo sapiens, is unique. If I believe that, I think I am pretty safe, because I really doubt that we are ever going to know for sure. The default is then that we will never have our non-uniqueness demonstrated for us. This is due to the size of our galaxy, and the immense span of time that it may have been possible for intelligent, communicative life to come to exist, and to pass on into dust. But like Dr. Feynman said. “Nature will reveal herself how she is”. In simplified terms, “it is what it is”.

  24. There appears to be another of your absolutes, a faith in your knowledge that I am a bible banger. But what you know isn’t so.
    And you have a lefty way about you, making do with insults where you fail at reason.

  25. “The proof is in the pudding” – God came to earth because it was His creation. What’s so hard to believe about that? If you’ve tasted and seen that God is real, how can someone who has not tasted and seen that God is real argue with you. The Easter hymn has the classic line “You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart”. You’ve got to check it out

  26. tell us where god came from
    Since something cannot come from nothing, either (a) the material of which the universe is made has always existed, or (b) the eternal Maker of the universe, God, has always existed.
    The first idea is preposterous (although that’s what I foolishly believed when I was an atheist like you.) Therefore the second is true. Lay aside your massive prejudice against Christianity for a while and investigate it honestly and objectively, if you can. The truth will amaze you.

  27. TheTooner >
    “I never see anyone here appearing more absolute in their faith in what they know than you.”
    LOL – Nailed it!
    What’s entertaining is watching the dyslexic retard preach his repetitive hate against Christians as if he has some ultimate all powerful, all knowing, insight every time a religiously orientated thread pops up.
    Hell, half the time he just injects it into any or most threads.

  28. And Bill Nye the Mad Scientist Guy going nuts slowly but surely on modern day enviromentalism

  29. NME666 said “so staddy boy, tell us were god came from”
    At this time I can not tell you where God came from. However, by believing in God I can tell you where the universe and mankind came from. Something you can’t do!
    BTW 666 is the sign of the devil. For there to be a devil, there has to be a God for even the devil knows God.

  30. Not be pedantic – but “The proof is in the pudding” is an all too common aberration of the original idiom.
    Truthfully the only proof of the pudding is in the eating. I blame lazy media types for despoiling the English language and its vernacular expressions.

  31. You can only say “the proof is in the pudding” if you’re actually eating in a courthouse cafeteria.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation