The Scholar's Evening Live No. 2 is underway, this time on 18/2/2008 at Beit Abba Khushi in Haifa
The event will take place on February 18, 2008, at 19:30 at Abba Khushi's house in Haifa.
Participants:
- Ohad Zohar - a doctoral student who is one of the developers of the nanometric Bible, who will talk about the challenges that accompanied the development of the system for which an application was submitted for inclusion in the Guinness Book of Records.
- Roi Cezana - a researcher for a higher degree at the Technion, specializing in nanotechnology and a writer on the scientist website, will explain what the noise is about and the potential inherent in nanotechnology.
Paid entry - for users of the science website who will print this page and for Club 50 members, the entry fee is NIS 20. For the general public - 30 NIS.
For details and registration please call Club 50, tel. 03-6939303
86 תגובות
Wednesday, 27.2.08, 19:30 in the evening. But you should arrive as early as possible before, because currently 330 places out of the two hundred have been booked.
Roy,
Question - when does that lecture take place at Hamada?
As of now there are still places available, and we would love to see you in the evening as well.
Write to coordinate arrival, register...
That's why I ask,
Don't be told that I should have registered in advance..
Maybe there are no places… you know how it is.
Moti -
You are welcome to come. What exactly do you need to know?
Roy.
I want to come to the conference today, and they don't answer the phone...
How can you arrange arrival??
Thanks in advance,
Moti.
Uncle,
If you read the entire chain of discussion, you will see the many explanations I gave for the connection between religion and opposition to science.
It's difficult to conduct endless simultaneous debates and I understand that with the connection between opposition to science and backwardness you (as opposed to "what's new") understand (meaning - understand what comes from what).
I will summarize in the most laconic way what I have already said on the subject:
Religion, as I said, is based on faith without criticism. God exists (even though there is no evidence of his existence) and he told us so and so about the world (like, for example, that the rabbit ruminates) and what he said is true and that the laws of nature will jump.
The same God also said how one should behave (for example, Alan Turing - the great mathematician and the one who saved the Allies in World War II by cracking the enigma - should have been killed and not just ordered to take drugs to suppress urges (which eventually led to his suicide) because he was homosexual) .
You can argue that there is nothing wrong with drugs and the problem is only their effect on humans and that would be equally true.
The problem is that we cannot replace human beings and religion - by its very definition - prevents changes throughout the generations and that is why so many of us are still living in the Middle Ages.
I have to move now so hopefully this will do
Michael
There is a connection between backwardness and religion.
But not from the side of religion but from the side of the person who perceives religion (in a superficial way) as something that is against science.
On the contrary, religion sees science as a tool.
There is no religion today (as far as I know) that does not use scientific tools.
Even in Iran they are trying to raise scientists. And the same will happen if the ultra-Orthodox take over the government of the state, they will simply find that they must work and learn other things besides the Torah (of course, everything will be with the permission of the rabbis).
When the world advances by itself, the religious advance with it.
Interesting discussion.
There is a brave link between religion and backwardness and every look at the world map confirms this.
A look at the socio-economic map of Israel also confirms this.
Israel Omen is an exception and not the rule.
In general, this whole debate seems ridiculous to me.
After all, it is clear that all progress in the standard of living is the result of science and this includes, as Roy said, the ability to exploit oil.
During the last hundreds of years, the world is gradually freeing itself from religion, advancing at the same time and largely as a result of this in science and improving its situation.
So far all the material problems that humanity has been able to solve have been solved with the help of science and it is simply ridiculous to claim that here we have found a material problem on which science actually depends.
I just find it hard to believe that I'm even taking part in this debate.
The reason I still try is because many people find it difficult to understand how much they owe to science and therefore they start to turn their backs on it. Your responses are one of the characteristics of this phenomenon.
Since I fear such moods much more than a lack of oil, I find it appropriate to make an effort nevertheless and say what is so obvious.
Michael,
I disagree with you on the connection between religion and backwardness
Belief in God has existed for thousands of years and perhaps more, modern science has only existed for about three hundred years, therefore religion is deeply rooted in the consciousness of most of humanity.
Religion gives people security, belonging, hope...
It is not the religion that causes backwardness, it is the way used by the leaders of the believers.
Among the scientists there are religious people who have reached considerable achievements
One of them is Prof. Israel Oman who received the 2005 Nobel Prize for Economics.
Therefore the connection between religion and failure is not always true, but there are cases where it is.
Roy,
In fact, you know that this is the elite of those countries, India, China, except for Japan, which may be a technological country
Modern.
I could add countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, most of whose populations are religious and live in a basic state (yes, North Korea is also very religious, the god is called "Il Sung"), these are countries with high military technology.
In fact, in those countries most of the inhabitants are religious and some are fanatical about religion.
Places that have undergone a religious transformation Gaza, Lebanon, Turkey and more..
Why new:
The relationship between religion and backwardness is exactly the opposite.
It is not the backwardness that brings the religion but the religion that brings the ignorance and in its wake the backwardness.
That is why the countries of the countries controlled by religion are backward even when the natural treasures (including oil) at their disposal are enormous (of course, without the natural treasures they would be even more backward - perhaps to the point of being unable to exist - which would have forced them to turn to science).
The State of Israel succeeds without natural treasures only because the secularization has not yet managed to exterminate science. If the conspiracy of the religious parties succeeds and Israel becomes a halachic state, the economic success will disappear immediately.
What's new,
Actually I see a very different picture. Countries like China and India, where backward technology exists in most parts of the country, raise citizens who are well aware of the importance of science and are eager to learn it. If you visit the science faculties - physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, etc. - in the USA, you will find that a large part of the students there come from India, China and Japan. Belief in one god is not strong in these three countries, so I see no reason to accept the connection between a backward technological state and belief in some god.
Roy,
Even if you look at the world map today, you will see that in countries where the inhabitants do not have modern technology (meaning not only cars, television and radio), then the belief in God is stronger.
People in extreme situations have a tendency to get strong in God
Oil is a thin thread that holds all modern technology together.
If that thin thread snaps then humans will go back to fighting the basic war of existence.
Most people may "use" technology but do not "know" technology so the transition from secularism to religion is not that extreme.
What's new,
These are dumb guesses. If I had to guess, I would say that precisely in such extreme conditions humanity will turn to science to find solutions. After all, oil is not the only source of energy that can be exploited.
In any case, I do not believe that technology is related to belief in God. Belief in God focuses on the 'unknown', and the need to find a reason for every event. As science progressed in the last few centuries, God played a less and less important role in events, simply because humans began to understand the real reasons for things.
In other words, it is the knowledge that leads to the cancellation of belief in God, and in the meantime the knowledge is preserved. I tend to believe that even if the sources of oil run out, scientific knowledge will still be preserved and lead to finding alternative sources of energy. Humanity will have no reason to return to religion.
Without the supply of oil humanity accustomed to the luxuries of technology would return to a basic state of existence.
It seems to me that under such extreme conditions humanity has a tendency to return or strengthen its belief in God.
Until the last centuries before technology made life easier most of humanity believed in God compared to today.
What drives modern life today are the sources of oil.
If the oil stops suddenly, humanity will return to religion in order to strengthen itself in the war of existence.
What's new,
The scientific method existed before the widespread use of oil. In fact, the first refinery came into operation only in 1861, in Russia. He refined the oil according to scientific principles, not with the help of prayers.
I would love to understand why you think those who believe in God would have survived more than the scientists, under the harsh conditions you described.
As someone who sees religion as truth, it's no wonder you also believe that scientists work on oil.
Do you think too… oh, I messed up, I said “think”… what entertainment
Fix!
Imagine that suddenly there are no sources of energy (oil and gas)
Then
1. There is no electricity
2. Factories do not work.
3. No transportation.
4. Computers don't work.
5. The food is going to run out.
I wonder who would have survived more?
Those without religious faith who believe in the scientific method
or those who have faith in God.
It seems to me a question that only believes in the scientific method
It is only thanks to the oil supply.
Imagine that suddenly there are no sources of energy (oil and gas)
Then
1. There is no electricity
2. Factories do not work.
3. No transportation.
4. Computers don't work.
5. The food is going to run out.
I wonder who would have survived more?
Those without faith who believe in the scientific method
It seems to me a question that only believes in the scientific method
It is only thanks to the oil supply.
or those who have faith in God.
Roy:
I know of parrots that know arithmetic and simple arithmetic abilities among animals.
This is not what I was referring to when I wrote "mathematics".
The truth is that to me it really isn't math (although I know many people don't know more than that).
The thing I meant when I wrote "mathematics" is the ability to formulate mathematical theorems and prove them.
Michael,
I want to put my finger on a bit of a philosophical point in your words. You believe the first Homo sapiens didn't need math. I, on the other hand, believe that the ability to do mathematics exists in most creatures with a developed brain (starting at the level of birds, at least). This is the ability to differentiate between the unit 'one' and the unit 'another', and to make comparisons between them. That is, basic mathematics exists in most developed animals.
Peter,
I agree with Michael, but I understand what you are saying. Science is a method and nothing else, the basis of which is the idea that what we see and measure does exist. As the cool commenter points out, we may be living in the Matrix. I do not rule out this possibility, nor does science rule it out - simply because there is no real way to rule out or confirm this possibility, similar to God's assumption.
By the same token, it's possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (its majesty) does exist and is perverting scientific tests wherever scientists exist.
And again, science is unable to rule out this possibility.
What science can do is rely on past experience. As long as humanity believed in gods and chimeras capable of biasing the results of experiments, there was practically no progress in the level of life or morality (as you mentioned). From the moment the scientific revolution began in the 16th century, the quality of life increased significantly, unequivocally thanks to the scientific and mathematical advances received from then until today.
It is true that we have no way of saying with absolute certainty that, "what was is what will be, and what will be is what is". We can say with absolute certainty that, "What we know today is true enough to benefit us."
For me it is enough.
Peter,
As I mentioned, beyond traits that are "residues" of old traits, animals in general and humans in particular have traits that are a byproduct of traits determined by evolution.
There is no doubt that the first homo sapiens did not need mathematics but for some reason he had a brain capable of it.
This may have happened because the simplest and most available (genetically) way to give him abilities that were necessary was a way that also gave him mathematical abilities.
There are many more examples of this.
Personally, I would not use examples of the escalation of mate selection to disprove the claim that everything in nature is necessary because these are actually cases that meet the usual definition of natural selection. The environment of the male includes the female and vice versa. There is a situation of positive feedback here that may have even started from the fact that at a certain point there was indeed an advantage to those with longer than average tails.
Evolution therefore preferred males with longer tails and also females who chose a longer tail, but apparently it did not instill in females a specific goal length, but only the feeling that the longer the better.
From the moment this situation was created, there was no escaping the result that was obtained.
The males with the long beaks really had an advantage over their mates because the females preferred them and females who chose such males also gained an advantage because their male offspring gained a long tail and therefore a reproductive advantage.
The vicious circle could only be stopped when the difficulty caused by the long tail overshadowed the advantage that tail gave because of sexual selection.
In other words - if you look at the complete environment of each individual - including its potential mates, then the ones with the long tail are really the most suitable, so it's simple Darwinism.
The ostrich's wings, the tailbone, perhaps part of what is called junk DNA, perhaps the cecum, the degenerated eyes of the bat and some of the deep-sea fish - these are all evolutionary remnants from the past that may or may not disappear.
On the other hand, certain mental abilities (such as the mathematics I described) and certain mental traits (such as altruism that goes beyond the boundaries of the family and even beyond the boundaries of the species as well as beyond the group of "the accountants of reward and punishment") are indeed traits that evolution did not choose and are nothing but, as I said, byproduct.
Some of these traits do end up giving a normal survival advantage, another part gives an advantage of mate choice, some may disappear and some will remain just because evolution will not find a way to eliminate it in a way that would give the individual a survival advantage (again, considering his full environment including potential mates ).
So far I have responded to what you wrote to Roy and to some of Roy's words.
In relation to your response to your words, I can only repeat what I have already said many times: science is a method. He does not collect the claims about reality but the way in which their truth is checked.
You are simply confusing scientific theories with science.
When you compare science to religion - this is exactly the difference. Religion has no method for discovering the truth because it makes claims about the truth.
The scientific activity is built on a constant change of the claims and replacing theories that failed in the experiment with more complete theories. The religion is built on the preservation of the old theories and their defense (even at the cost of the lives of believers and non-believers).
I know I already said it but for some reason it didn't catch on.
Peter's quote: "Already in the year 1600 or so, Descartes claimed through his cogito that we cannot really reach an exact truth about the world outside of us, we are bound and only receive pieces of information and also sometimes our brain deceives us about the reality we experience."
Reminds me of "The Matrix", at least it's true...
If you see a ball hitting a ball, then there was not necessarily a ball hitting the ball, what was necessarily the fact that you received information to the brain that you were seeing a ball hitting the ball. Maybe you saw TV, maybe you dreamed and even maybe you really and truly saw a ball hitting a ball..
Measuring machines, in particular, can be misleading, especially with small quantities such as quanta, photons, electrons, etc.
Michael,
This is indeed a big problem among followers of determinism. If a person doesn't really have free choice and is just a machine, then what is he guilty of committing theft/murder/rape? He is just applying the product of the long equation that is in his brain and made him act this way.
Example: From the age of zero, person X receives beatings from his parents and receives many humiliations. He grew up with a certain norm, he doesn't know anything else, he grew up thinking that this is the way to behave. It may be that due to his childhood traumas at the age of 25 he will already join the mafia and will not feel any guilt when he kills or steals.
The judicial system is aware of this problem, and provides criminals, among other things, with psychological treatments. Today the legal system is aware that a person who commits a crime, in many cases it can be due to an imbalance in the brain, or from traumatic experiences that the criminal went through in childhood. The criminal will indeed go to prison, but he will be able to receive psychological treatment, which may in the future help him live like a normal person.
Michael, you talk about the followers of science versus the followers of "irrational thought", but science itself contradicts itself. There really isn't any truth that comes directly from all the theories together. Today they discovered that fluorescent causes cancer, tomorrow they will find that on the contrary fluorescent contributes to health and a happy life. Each person chooses what to believe. You believe that quanta make jumps without crossing the distance in between, I believe in determinism, and there are other people who believe that God will save them from perpetual decay in the earth after they die.
It is impossible to really prove what is right and what is the unshakable truth.
Already in the year 1600 or so, Descartes claimed through his cogito that we cannot really reach an exact truth regarding the world outside us, we are bound and receive only pieces of information and also sometimes our brain deceives us regarding the reality we experience. Don't be jealous of science. Science is not the ultimate and indisputable answer.
Yael Peter,
I know the theory you cite about the peacock's tail. But you also agree with me that the peacock has a heavy burden due to its colorful tail. That is, the trait is not useful to him except in the females of the species. In my opinion, this is a case where evolution has 'gone mad' and overkill due to excessive mate selection. There is no necessity that the same excessive mating choice actually produced a creature that is better adapted to its environment.
Another point to think about -
For all the shortening of the ostrich's wings and the shortening of the tailbone, they still exist, as do the unfortunate female hyenas. These are traits that natural selection simply hasn't applied strong enough. And if so, why don't you think that some of man's psychological traits are nothing more than 'ostrich wings', preserved not because of their effectiveness but because of a lack of natural selection of the right kind?
Roy Cezana,
All the examples you mentioned are examples of organs or features in animals that were once used by that animal for survival. These are remnants of a feature that was once used by the animal. Since the same feature or the same organ is no longer used by the animal, then according to the theory of evolution this feature slowly disappears. This is how the ostrich's wings slowly degenerate, the human tailbone shortened, etc.
An anecdote about the peacock's tail-
There is a relatively new theory that holds that the female peacock is attracted to large and colorful peacock tails, even though this grandiose tail apparently makes it difficult for the peacock to survive, because this way she knows that despite the heavy burden of the tail, the peacock manages to survive. After all, the more colorful and larger the tail, the more apparently predators can locate the peacock and catch it, but on the other hand, the very fact that it managed to survive, despite its tail, indicates a higher survival rate. The same goes for the stag's antlers, despite the heavy burden, if that stag with large antlers manages to survive, it is a sign that it is more adapted than the others and this is proof of that, therefore the females are attracted to these rams.
There is nothing in nature that is found for nothing. A trait that survives and develops is an effective trait. A feature that was effective at a certain time in history and is no longer effective slowly degenerates as you showed in the examples.
Today, evolutionary scientists have thrown the theory of evolution from psychology to human psychology as well - psychology is part of evolution and it affects the direction in which man develops.
The theory I talked about in my previous message and which you also quoted is called the "functionalist theory" (in the department of sociology) as its name is, every institution that exists serves a certain function, and as soon as it ceases to serve a function, it drops out of the world.
The discussion is interesting, but I would like to put one point in its place.
I quote Peter:
"Even what seems to you to be clearly irrational (like religion) has justifications firmly anchored in our strongest genetic instinct - the survival instinct.
As I said in previous posts, things don't just develop. Traits in an organism do not simply survive thousands of years of evolution. If it developed, then it is a sign that it answered deep and important needs."
I'm afraid evolution doesn't work that way. Many animals retain traits that are not useful, or even harmful.
a few examples :
1. The wings of the ostrich - it has wings, but it cannot fly. Definitely not a useful feature.
2. The human coccyx.
3. The peacock's tail - helpful in finding a mate, but makes it harder for him to avoid crazy people.
4. The stag's antlers - the bigger and more impressive they are, the easier it is for him to find a mate... but at a certain point they weigh him down too much.
5. Spotted hyena females, all of whose vaginas are too narrow. Mating causes them terrible pain, and the birth of the baby is accompanied by approximately 50% mortality. A clear case of very problematic evolution.
In short, evolution does not necessarily benefit the individual or the species as a whole. Natural selection works very slowly, sometimes, and it is clear that this is also the case with humans.
Peter:
What kind of answer is this?
I hope it is clear to you that you have just dropped the foundation under the entire legal system, e.g.
According to your set of arguments, it is forbidden to judge a human being at all (and by the way, your attempt to judge my words, even slow is not justified under this world view).
There is and is rational thought and the fact that our deep motives are the result of evolution is not relevant at all.
You know exactly what it is and your words are unnecessarily demeaning.
When someone believes in a system of claims that includes those that contradict all scientific findings, he is acting irrationally.
When someone believes in a system of claims with internal contradictions, he is acting irrationally.
When someone is ready to kill and be killed for the sanctification of that system, he is dangerous.
What is not clear here?!
Man may not need religion to shed blood but religion uses man to do so. You don't address anything about the motives behind the wars.
I really have a lot to say about the evolutionary reasons that led to people's tendency to believe in or use drugs. Much more than you imagine.
I also have a lot to say about the evolutionary reasons for scientific research (much higher resolution reasons than just behaviorism).
Maybe one day we can have a serious discussion and then I will present these reasons to you. Right now I'm busy with what I clearly think is important for my survival (and yours).
Michael,
As far as human thinking is concerned, there is no such concept as "irrational thinking". A scientist like you will surely agree that the brain is actually a machine that receives input and outputs. The input is all the information received from the outside, after that a processing process is done and at the end of the process the brain emits an output that is the product of precise calculation. Everything works according to an equation and pattern, there is no room for randomness, no room for irrationality. Even what seems to you to be clearly irrational (like religion) has justifications firmly anchored in our strongest genetic instinct - the survival instinct.
As I said in previous posts, things don't just develop. Traits in an organism do not simply survive thousands of years of evolution. If it developed, then it is a sign that it met deep and important needs.
When you make a distinction as you did, you may mean the distinction that neurobiologists usually make between the primitive brain, which is responsible, among other things, for emotions and other "irrational" elements, and the neocortex, which is commonly called the "thinking brain" that draws conclusions and is responsible for complex thinking and memory. But we forget one thing, emotions are more important than the thinking brain.
A person invents theories not for the sake of inventing theories but because it makes him feel good. A person goes to study the particles in the laboratory because it makes him feel good. Humanity invented science, philosophy, technology and religion because it makes us feel good. In the end, and according to Freud, all human actions can be summed up in 2 categories: pleasure and pain. Just as you enjoy thinking about scientific issues, some people enjoy thinking about God and heaven.
Regarding the issue of bloodshed, one does not need religion to shed blood.
And when I quoted that quote, I wasn't talking about you specifically.
I'm trying to make a point here. The truly thinking person is not impervious to everything around him. The person who really thinks examines the world objectively, without prejudice, without ego, out of curiosity and a desire to understand why it is so. And I know it's very tempting to blame all the ills of the world on the different, but it's "irrational" and simply doesn't get you anywhere.
The rational person will always try not to insult and even respect the irrational person.
If from the point of view of expediency which includes prudence and utility and more.
And if, on the other hand, as a rational person, there is room for the irrational as well. (a topic for discussion in itself)
But the irrational will never accept what is not like him.
I enjoyed reading (also between the lines).
One of the main "debates" here seems to be the definition of the word and it's interesting to see how flexible it is.
Peter,
As I already explained in the previous response I wrote to you, you simply put words in my mouth (although correct words, but I did everything necessary to avoid this debate).
By definition no (no! no! no! ) I said that religion (in its narrow and accepted definition) caused all the wars. In my interpretation I am guilty (and you are invited to go back and check my first reference to your words) of the "irrational thought that religion is one of its prominent representatives".
Admittedly, when you ignored my exact phrasing and tried to put things in my mouth for the first time, I explained that as I perceive Nazism it is indeed more like a religion than anything else, but this was not said to justify a claim I did not make but to clarify what the dangerous things I mean are.
So I may be doing something interesting here, but there is nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is putting things in a person's mouth and then attacking them for them.
At first I really thought you weren't trying to get to the bottom of my mind but now I'm starting to think you're trying not to get to the end of my mind.
I will not continue to dwell on the question of whether Nazism is a religion because for me, as mentioned, the enemy is irrational thinking (of which, as mentioned, religion is one of its leading representatives).
If we focus for a moment on the bloodshed organized by religion (and I repeat - until this moment I have not done so) then what percentage is it, in your opinion, of the organized bloodshed in general? fifty? twenty? ten?
Let's settle for five, okay?
Do you have a problem with me trying to prevent five percent of the organized bloodshed?
As mentioned - I try to prevent it all and for that I am precise in what I say, but you insist on talking only about religion and therefore my question refers only to a part of my effort.
So how will I prevent the bloodshed whose causes are religious? Doesn't this goal sanctify the terrible and menacing means of saying things as they are?
What is happening here is part of a very interesting phenomenon (but really - not in the sense that you tried to say that what I do is interesting).
I am talking about the phenomenon of appropriating the insult by religion.
It is allowed to argue with anyone on any subject, but as soon as it concerns religious matters - suddenly it becomes illegitimate.
As you demonstrate - even secular people buy this crap.
But you are not alone, of course. All those who condemned the Muhammad cartoons are also with you.
I can talk about religion (which is not a person but a doctrine of thought) and be accused of insulting people, while you and others can personally call me a fanatic and not be accused of it.
Logic and fairness in their embodiment!
By the way - also in relation to this topic, you were not accurate in your citation of me when you put the words "you and your faith" in my mouth when I was only talking about faith.
Michael,
Regarding what you wrote to me above (and I only saw it now) - the semantics is an elusive thing.
You did something interesting, at first you explained why religion causes wars, then you started naming other institutions and regimes that you generalize (arbitrarily, it must be said) under the category of "religion" such as Nazism (?). And finally you made another statement that I am the one who is wrong because I am not Trying to get to the bottom of your mind?
I'm not religious, but I have respect for people. I will not come to a religious person and tell him "You and your faith are to blame for all the bloodshed that has ever been done in the world, you are to blame for all the bad things that have ever existed", this is a childish and inconsiderate sentence and it is a shame that it is said here in many correspondences with exactly those words.
Beyond that, and regardless, I hope to see you all at the conference.
I wanted to say something small that I noticed that no one approached. Religion was born as a result of necessity and not in the style of who came first. prefers to look at the interrelationship between religion and science as the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament"
Good weekend everyone
borrowed,
If by 'miracle drugs' you mean liposomes directed against cancer, for example, then there is no problem. The blood-brain barrier prevents them from passing, and they direct themselves to the tumor site anyway.
If we are talking about very small drugs, which are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, then here they will simply have to conduct experiments to understand what is the right dose that will not have a negative effect on the brain.
Hope I answered your question,
Roy.
to roy,
As I already said, I will not be at your conference.
Perhaps, after all, as a service to the responders, you will reveal to me what is the way - if any - with the help of which they are preparing to overcome the problem, mine, at least, seems to be a very important threshold problem: how to prevent the nanotechnological wonder drugs from penetrating the barriers that prevent ordinary drugs from penetrating the brain and damaging it.
Thanks,
Bye
Dear Marina,
I share your feelings on the subject. The field of nanotechnology can greatly advance medicine on any issue.
In recent years there has been a great enthusiasm of scientists for nanotechnology, therefore many funds are invested in the subject and every day there are new breakthroughs. See for example the huge sum of almost 200 million dollars invested in opening a new center for nanotechnology at the Technion three years ago.
In the lecture in the evening I will talk about the innovations that nanotechnology can bring to medicine, and is already bringing these days.
Hope to see you there,
Roy.
To Roy, if there is any development, please write down where the article can be found in the blessing of Yom Tov
Dear Roy, can anyone tell about a sop sop?
Progress on the subject of cancer and the development of technology, apart from moving the Bible to the head of a pin, soon there will be some kind of breakthrough from our book and the dear scientists who work day and night in their laboratories. the subject of cancer in mind, and first and foremost, and if all scientists unite on the topic of the nano precisely on this topic of finding a balm and a cure, the progress will be faster and more, I hope my words will reach your hearts
Cool, people here express themselves in such a sharp way, but still manage to say pointless things. I wish I could be such a demagogue (:
to ask. I have been reading the site for a long time and until recently I rarely responded but your words require a response. In all the time I read on the site I did not learn as much as I am learning recently from Michael's learned and brilliant responses and this is especially true regarding philosophy and the philosophy of science. Your goals must have driven you out of your mind
to ask:
I am not at all surprised that you try (as usual, without any basis) to attack my education.
I throughout take a matter-of-fact approach and you throughout most of it and certainly in your last comments (probably because you have nothing matter-of-fact worth saying) are reduced to personal attacks (as mentioned, without any basis and without any connection to reality).
When in the same response where you make claims about my disqualification of Yimmer's words about Einstein, you also disqualify Einstein at all, it is not difficult to wonder about your jar and understand that the truth is not exactly what you are looking for.
Therefore, I am also happy to end the discussion because it is clear to me that I will not hear anything interesting from you just as it is clear to me that you will continue to ignore the things you read (or write).
For those who like to brag about their ignorance, I find it appropriate to add: the question of faith is a question that is related to one field (or several fields) in philosophy (the theory of consciousness, the theory of the Lord), while the question of observing the mitzvot (and these mitzvot) is a question that falls into the field called 'moral teachings' . Certainly the areas touch but these are different areas.
Unlike other people, I don't have time to check and respond consistently every day. If someone interprets this as pausing to look for grains under the ground, he does so at his own risk.
Again I emphasize: there are two questions: faith in general (that's why I brought the same scientists I brought), and the fact that man is moral in light of a certain religious worldview (observance of the Torah and mitzvot in the case of Judaism), which is why I brought the result test, and certainly Einstein is not relevant to this discussion from her point of view Judaism.
Time and time again I have stated that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, certainly Einstein did not believe in an intervening God, since he was an extreme determinist (therefore he did not believe in the value of mitzvot in general and in reward and punishment).
If I had been Rothschild, I might not have been a rich man, but I would certainly have been more restrained before I fell apart on the keyboard and certainly in attributing claims that were not made at all or in criticizing a book that many people were influenced by and the honorable commenter had not yet read it at all (all his days Professor Yamer - a Jew towards His eighties - publishes studies that are no less important to him; are these studies also biased? Were any of the many readers of the early editions of this book less intelligent than certain commenters, to the point that they could not discern the writer's biases? Is the lack of education in philosophy in general and in the philosophy of The sciences in particular compared to the enormous wealth of quotations in the book does not require a little humility before dismissing it outright??).
For me this discussion ends.
Bye
I don't know if stubbornness is a positive trait or not, but Shaul undoubtedly has it.
I guess he wants this discussion to continue until it is difficult to find what he said in the past, so it will probably be my job to remind and prevent the facts from being confused.
Saul said, and I quote:
"We can easily measure the value of Judaism when we ask members of any religion - and every religion comes into consideration here, even the atheist 'religion' - to send us to the 'competition' its elite: those who are not the failures but the successes. If each religion chooses its candidate, the competition will be fair, and then we will easily see which religion has grown more upstanding people and how upstanding people they really were. As great as the great ones of Israel, whom we strive to direct our ways to their light, cannot be found in any nation or language (and pardon the poetics.)
I asked him to pay the bill and I placed Einstein, Feynman and Weinberg, who despite their Jewish origins were not Jews in their religion (he is trying to debate the very question of whether there was anything religious about them but beyond that his claims on the subject are wrong, they are irrelevant to proving his claim). I asked him to present Jewish people of their religion in their caliber.
I called the challenge he presented "Lifting for lowering" and this was probably my demand from him - the lowering.
Saul looked for the ball for several days and in the end, when he didn't find it, he returned with a piece of....(well)...stone.
He started preaching to me about tennis.
Then began a delusional debate about Einstein.
In this illusory debate, Saul repeats himself and uses the phrase "god" especially so that we forget that Einstein made it clear again and again that he does not believe in a God who intervenes in what is going on in the world. The phrase "personal god" sounds so personal and it is possible to make a mistake and understand from it, as Shaul indeed hopes you will, that it is a personal god who intervenes at the level of the individual, but I repeat - Einstein repeated many times his opinion that there is no god who intervenes in the world in any way.
Beyond that, in the first quote I gave, there is the following passage:
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it
What it means?
What does the expression "If there is something in me that can be called religious, is it so and so?"
This means that in general I am not religious and I only have such and such a quality that someone might call "religious".
Be that as it may, Einstein, as stated (by him many times) did not believe in God intervening in the world.
Shaul and Moshe Yimer - both believing Jews - also believe that it is permissible to change history.
Shaul goes even further and believes that the history of this debate can be changed.
Last addition: Einstein was definitely a man of faith (doesn't matter in what way; he was not an atheist). But it would not be correct to necessarily conclude from this that he was a moral person: we all know about his virtues; About his shortcomings - anyone who wants to can read the updated biographies (initially the tendency was to throw the figure of the thoughtful and gloomy old man at the beginning of his history; nowadays the writing is more sober).
Bye
Stubbornness is not a positive trait.
At first I was taken aback; Now Professor Yamer's book has also been disqualified (the citations Michael brought are also cited there. Who does not know these citations? Michael apparently forgets that research never ends - nor does it begin - by quoting one quote; instead of looking through the book and examining the multitude of citations cited there, It is better to claim that the author is biased. It is definitely a response pattern that adds respect to the 'Yaden' website and the other commenters).
I remind you that in the past there was someone on this site who suggested disqualifying Desmons Morris as well. In short: only those who write what you want, write things of taste. And then you claim that religion is dark and science is open...
Regardless of the claim that the 'religiousness' that believes in God is shared by many great scientists, I also claimed that among the religions - and the religion of atheism among them - Judaism met the test of the result in the best way. what's so complicated
Bye
It is true that Moshe Yamer's book is severely biased and ignores things that Einstein himself said, as you saw in the quotes from his mouth, but it is really not important.
Shaul talked about how Judaism made people greater than any other religion including the "religion" of atheism.
He simply hoped you had already forgotten it when he wrote his last comments, so I mention.
I also mention that I identify with all of Einstein's statements on the subject of religion and the subject of God, as I have already said, and I am far from believing in Judaism or God.
Even if Shaul continues to mislead and attribute to Einstein some kind of religiosity, it will certainly not be Jewish religiosity and therefore this will not constitute proof of his ridiculous claim.
This, by the way, without referring to the illogicality of the demand to judge a religion only by its successes and not to refer to its failures.
Another small addition that I do not hold back from adding: the easiest thing is to attribute ridiculous claims to a certain person, and then attack him for those claims and then present him to the world as an idiot (I don't want to get into the historical discussion and mention which propaganda method was champion in using this form of confrontation). It is more difficult to read what the person writes, to understand his words, to assume to his credit that he at least knows what he is talking about, and only then to respond to the matter.
As one sage said: it is easier to learn to speak seven languages than to learn to be silent...
Bye
I never mentioned that Einstein or Feynman, for example, put on tefillin or kept Shabbat. The debate woven throughout this website is whether chance rules the world (see the entry 'Evolution') or whether there is a higher power that directs the world to any purpose, and although we have difficulties in perceiving this power we believe in its existence - and the believer is a 'religious' person . For our purposes, it doesn't matter at all what kind of religion this or that scientist believed in, the principle is important (when I mentioned that Georges LeHameter was a priest, did I mean that he put on a tefillin???).
I hereby copy note 132 to chapter 2 in the book 'Einstein and Religion' by the Israel Prize laureate Professor Moshe Yamer (page 182, Bar Ilan University Press and Yedioth Ahronoth Books Hamad. 2007) because I see that there are commenters who know that commenting is easier than reading the original...:
"Not only was Einstein not an atheist, his writings even influenced many people to withdraw from their atheistic beliefs, although there is no doubt that he never intended to convert anyone to his beliefs. .. and yet, after the short edition of this book in the German language was published, the author received various letters - mainly from scientists, including an internationally renowned biophysicist - who admitted that they were atheists until they read Einstein's words about his religious concept, and these motivated them to become religious in the sense the deep of the word. The author was very surprised by these letters, because the book, as stated in the introduction, was intended to provide a purely historical overview of Einstein's religious thinking, without any intention of instilling Einstein's worldview in his readers or interfering in any way with their religious beliefs."
For further reference, I refer again to the book 'Einstein in Love' by Dennis Overby (especially the advanced parts); And also 'The Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos' by the same author, as well as chapter 30 in Prof. Yoram Kirsch's book 'The Universe According to Modern Physics' (with Oved 2006), also to 'Wrinkles in Time' by George Samut, and many more.
If apostasy is more common today, it is not because people today are smarter, or know more, but because today the infidels are raising their heads in a very loud manner, to the point that anyone who speaks words of faith has to look to the sides to look for him who will respond loudly and dismiss him (in his fault...) and scatter hints On his credibility or his intellectual ability...
Another reason for today's apostasy is, in my opinion, what I already alluded to in the discussion surrounding the knowledge that individual people tend to believe in a higher power, and is the multitude of external stimuli that today prevent a person from being alone with himself and pondering at all the purpose of his existence or the purpose of the world. There is no astronomer who does not long for the days when a man would leave his house at night and in the blink of an eye watch the milky way in front of his eyes. What percentage of the world's population is exposed to this amazing sight today???
Bye everyone
Just for the record:
I remind you that I did not "lift up anything to put down" as Shaul tries to imply, but I described Shaul's claim about the great men of the world who were religious Jews as lifting up to put down.
Since I knew it was an obvious and easy to prove lie I called it a "lift to put down" and exposed the lie by asking him to point out those people.
I have never seen his reference to any book listing these people and I don't know at all if anyone was trying to make a bad name for himself by writing such a book.
Therefore, the cover-up attempt through a story about books to which we were supposedly referred, is probably not true (I do not intend to conduct a historical study of all of Saul's writings and I will have to be content with what I remember. If he wants to point out something he said in the past and perhaps I forgot, I will gladly address it).
borrowed:
Just like religion - your words cannot be seen as meaningful unless they are interpreted contrary to the author's intention
Just for the record: when I recognize a situation where communication is pointless I stop responding. If someone, as he put it, 'raises to the ground', and I don't respond, it may be because I don't have an answer, but it may also be because I feel there is no point in repeating the same things over and over again.
There are excellent books that I referred to.
Any addition is unnecessary.
Michael,
I did not answer to argue or disagree with your opinion, but to clarify my position according to your questions. I believe we see many issues eye to eye.
I do not dispute that the books that were signed long ago are now holy books. However, I repeat and emphasize that it was the religious establishment that made the scriptures such.
An interesting example of religion's ability to abandon the scriptures is found in the Zen Buddhist teacher Joshu, who tried to explain to people that in order to reach true enlightenment they should simply live their everyday lives and accept what they sense and feel as the only reality. According to Joshua, the moment you try to rely on the scriptures of Buddhism, you fail to attain enlightenment in the first place.
Regarding the way in which religion searches for the ideal person, we again reach the point where all this is dictated in the scriptures. And the scriptures and their interpretations, of course, came from within the religious establishment. So once again, the religious establishment is to blame. The religious establishment also chose the particular scriptures it wanted to choose. We cannot even know which scriptures have disappeared because the religious establishment has decided not to preserve them.
All this boils down to the fact that religion is man's abstract desire and ability to believe in something. The religious establishment takes the will and the ability and uses them to establish a faith that depends on people and scriptures and relies on authoritative people.
Roy:
Things don't quite work out.
The subject of Einstein did not come up here in the usual way - Shaul raised a challenge for me to submit it and I accepted it only that Shaul was unable to meet it. Read the sequence of events carefully.
No one claimed that the Bible was written in a split second.
Nor did anyone claim that it wasn't the religious establishment of a certain period that created the religion - just the opposite - not only did I say that it did but also that it did it for its own needs.
By the way - I don't know if prophets and scriptures should even be defined as holy books. The laws are found in the Torah that was written long before (in my estimation by Josiah but what does it matter). The Torah (its relevant part) was the book of religious laws of the Jews throughout its entire existence and did not wait for the signing of the Bible.
In any case - the books were signed and they are the ones that define the religion - they cannot be changed, their important parts were given, so it is claimed, by God, and no man can change them.
People interpret them because they are obviously nonsense. Whoever wrote them had no intention of having them interpreted because he had no reason to write other things than what he intended - that is, to write the interpretation directly.
The abstract faith you speak of is not faith and is not abstract. This is indeed a dizzying experience and I share it.
The question I asked about how religion searches for the ideal person was a failing question. I wanted you to start talking about those laws that religion states that do not at all enter into your definition of religion as an abstract belief in a creator. That's exactly what you did. It forces people to act and think in certain ways that the relationship between good and bad is accidental. That is why she enacts laws that discriminate against women and orders the killing of Shabbat violators, homosexuals, and the like. Abraham's faith is proven by nothing less than his willingness to banish one of his wives and her son and then murder the son he had left. What's good about it?
The interpretations that the religious establishment can give to each verse and commandment are admittedly quite free, because once you decide that what is written is not what was intended, you can even interpret the Bible as an allegory for Harry Potter. The point is that in every generation, people rise up with great logic and claim that what is written in the holy books is what was intended to be. In them and in this truth they stand up for morality and justice in their entirety.
Friends,
I would first like to address the question of whether scientists tend to believe in God, a creator or any other entity. Like any good Israeli, I want to answer the question: What do you care?
In many talkbacks I see a reference to the faith of Einstein, Newton, Feynman and others. But what does it matter? Einstein is Einstein - a very smart man, who was right about many things and wrong about others. Same with Newton and Feynman, and every person throughout history.
In my opinion, any argument of the type "even Einstein believed that..." does not add anything to the discussion. Not only because both sides interpret every statement of Einstein's in their own way, but also because it doesn't matter at all what Einstein believed.
Michael,
You ask many questions that are difficult for me to answer at once. I will try to answer as many as I can in the next few minutes.
"Don't you think that the basis of monotheistic religions is their holy books and that their holy books are also what differentiates them?"
I -=know=- that the basis of monotheistic religions is not their holy books. The Bible was not finally signed until the third century AD. Until then, any writing found in the hands of various priests could be considered a holy book. It is the religious establishment that finally determined what is a holy book and what is not, at the time of signing.
A similar thing happened with Christianity, in a period of four hundred years since the death of Jesus. Many apostles wrote their Mishnah - and in many cases there were also forgeries of the apostles' writings. There were many sects of Christianity, and in the end the Catholic sect located in Rome won and signed the New Covenant, with the scriptures it chose to put into it. Again, this is about the choice of the religious establishment to preserve certain scriptures and ignore others. In the end, the conclusion is that there are no real scriptures but only 'forced' ones.
"You say that faith is abstract and I - based on my conclusion that the holy books are fundamental in the definition of religion - ask why they are explicit and not abstract and in general what is an abstract thing and how can we talk about it?"
The holy books are there because of people's desire to believe in something tangible, and their fear of believing in something unproven. When things are written in a book, they become 'proven' to anyone who wants to believe in the book. For this reason, for example, Christianity chose to claim that the Bible is part of it, even though it completely ignores it in determining religious laws. The antiquity of the Bible added to the reputation of early Christianity (because who wants to believe in a new and unproven religion?).
What is an abstract thing and how can we talk about it?
Abstract faith in my opinion is a form of admiration for an element of the universe or of thought. When I first read the great book 'Biology - The Unity and Diversity of Life' describing the mechanisms of cells and multicellular organisms, I felt like I was getting a glimpse into the beauty of the universe. Beauty in my eyes is order, and I admire order and the mechanisms that lead to it - the laws of gravity, the laws of evolution, biochemistry... This is a form of faith, and I believe that all religions originally began from such admiration - with admiration for the sun, the lightning, the mind's ability to explore itself.
"You say that religion looks for the ideal in a person and I ask how it does this and for what purpose and also how it defines that ideal and on what basis."
Religion seeks the ideal in man. You should read Freud on the subject. He describes the super-ego as severely influenced by religion, which requires man to always be moral - not only in his actions but also in his thoughts (you shall not covet your neighbor's wife and so on). Such an idyll is impossible. Religion does this from being inevitably linked to the system of laws of the ancient countries. I can understand why she forces people not to do bad things (a justified and correct thing), but it is hard for me to understand why she tries to force people to also prevent them from thinking about doing bad things.
In the end, I believe that the religious institution can interpret every verse and commandment as it wishes.
I feel like I'm a little out of order with this post, and I hope you'll forgive me. I finally returned from Eilat to Nahariya, and it was time to sleep. In any case, I recommend reading a news article I wrote about a very fascinating lecture on evolution that I heard at a conference in Eilat and that will be published at midnight tonight.
Good night,
Roy.
Michael, it's a waste of your time..
What you are doing is hopeless.
(It's like trying to explain to a religious that he is wrong)
Or is it just that?
Anyway, no chance
borrowed:
You are indeed trying to convince us that Einstein was religious and this is in clear contradiction to his words.
Here is a quote for example:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
And to clarify further he adds for example:
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
I must tell you that I completely share Einstein's sentiments.
So maybe I am also, in your opinion, religious.
I must remind you, however, that our religion (Einstein's and mine) is not Judaism, so classifying us as religious does not help you at all in proving your claim about the great people that Judaism has made.
The situation with Feynman is similar.
I have already claimed before and I repeat and make it clear - my personal war is not with such "religions" (perhaps I would argue with you about the incorrect use you make of the word "religion", but as I have already mentioned, this argument is not worth the effort for me).
I suggest you go to the link I provided in a previous comment and I make it clear that in your definitions of "religion" you can really define all humans as religious and most scientists as holding Einstein's "religion" because what other reason does a person have to make such an effort and explore the secrets of nature Therefore the division shown in the table does not use the definition of your religion but the one accepted among the nations.
A small addition: there were, of course, also avowed atheists (Fred Hoyle, Yuval Na'eman, and Hawking Yablaha), but to claim that the majority were atheists is an argument suitable for seminarian work in demagoguery, not for the natural sciences. It is also recommended to read the book "Wrinkles in Time" by Georg Smoot.
Bye
I just don't feel like naming Abdul Salam (the leader of Yuval Ne'am in England) either, and that's only because he was a Muslim.
Dear Michael,
Einstein was not an atheist, as he himself tried to explain all his life (unsuccessfully, apparently); He did not believe in a personal God, but he did believe in cosmic religion (that's what he called it, as it is an elaborate variation of Spinoza's religion). I'm already tired of mentioning the multitude of his biography books and especially the book that came out not long ago and is dedicated only to this issue: "Einstein and Religion" by Professor Moshe Yamer.
Feynman was not an avowed atheist either; He claimed that we may never know the answer to the question of whether human life has meaning and what it is.
Newton was a man of deep faith (just not in the Christian Trinity), and the list goes on (did you know that 'Mater' was even a priest?
As a general rule, it can be argued - and this is confirmed in the research - that physicists tend to feel feelings of faith and majesty towards a supreme being, because physics in its essence (at least classical) deciphers unified rules that apply to the entire universe known to us. Understanding these rules and especially becoming familiar with each new rule has been defined by quite a few physicists as a religious experience (in the monotheistic sense of the word).
Biologists, on the other hand, are constantly engaged in finding differences, so they are less inclined to believe in a supreme unitary entity.
Bye
To Roy:
Although I did not expand on the question in the previous round due to the shortness of time, but tell me, don't you think that the basis of monotheistic religions is their holy books and that their holy books are also what differentiates them?
If not - then what is the essential difference between them and if so - how can it be claimed that the scientific establishment is the one that forces the believers to write in the holy books?
You say that faith is abstract and I - based on my conclusion that the holy books are essential in the definition of religion - ask why they are explicit and not abstract and in general what is an abstract thing and how can we talk about it?
According to me, the need for the "abstract claim" of the Holy Scriptures stems from the fact that their simplicity is not consistent with the facts known to us and with the morality inherent in us. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that they are abstract. There is indeed one thing in them whose description can be defined as abstract (in this context - abstract is the same as indefinite) and that is the description of God, but apart from that everything is explained.
You say that religion looks for the ideal in a person and I ask how it does this and for what purpose and also how it defines that ideal and on what basis.
As a complement to the above, it can be thatThe following table Will someone be interested?
borrowed:
Einstein, Feynman, and Weinberg were/are all (Jewish) atheists.
Let's start paying off the obligations here. Please place one religious Jew of the caliber of any of them.
By the way, do you accept Roy's claim that science is better than religion?
to roy,
Your words are very instructive.
A small addition: I always maintain that the value of a religion - and of any religion - cannot be measured by its failures, because every religion presupposes that human beings have passions and that sometimes their passions will overcome the strength of the will ("weakness of the will" in the language of the philosophers). We can easily measure the value of Judaism when we ask members of any religion - and every religion comes into consideration here, even the atheist 'religion' - to send us to the 'competition' its elite: those who are not the failures but the successes. If each religion chooses its candidate, the competition will be fair, and then we will easily see which religion has grown more upstanding people and how upstanding people they really were. We are not found in any nation or language as great as the great ones of Israel that we strive to direct our ways to their light (and pardon the poetics).
For dessert, Harini quotes from 'The Little Man' by Erich Kastner (chapter two), and this is to illustrate that the idea of miniaturized writing as part of the idea of nanotechnology was probably skin and sinew cream already before Richard Feynman's famous speech ('There is a lot of room at the bottom'):
"A moment later, he sank into thought and said: "Actually, you are absolutely right, and if there are no more such books available, we will try to print them especially for your use." "What, there's no one in the whole world who can do that?" The boy asked... "Actually, I don't know if he knows. But he is able to know; All this because he himself sometimes deals with such matters. Ten years ago he wrote the poem 'The Bell' by the poet Schiller on the back of a postage stamp, 425 lines." "This is my world!" Maksi exclaimed enthusiastically. "Books bigger than postage stamps are the best thing for me!" (Translated by Ela Amitan, Achiasaf Publishing House).
Bye.
Roy:
I do have to move, but I will answer briefly.
The concept of religion you are talking about is not the accepted concept in our language. We don't just talk about Jewish religion, Christian religion, etc.
The religious component of religion was created (by humans) as a platform to carry the moral component (among other things to establish a mechanism of reward and punishment by God) and the whole complex was created to achieve the personal goals (power, influence, etc.) of several people.
The scientific establishment, like any establishment, is made up of people and suffers from all the failings that every body made up of people suffers from but unlike the religious method which is based on the preservation of religion and does not allow it to change, the scientific method not only does not inhibit change but actually encourages it because only through change can scientists To win the fame they seek as individuals. In this sense, the scientific method creates a constant competition between ideas and in this competition the judge is the experiment. This judge is not driven by personal ambitions like humans and therefore, even if this or that person may delay humanity's rejection of a failed theory, over time it is guaranteed that justice will be served.
Regarding religiosity as a belief in a creator and nothing else, the matter is not defined enough and does not allow for a brief reference - one that does not list all the possible beliefs under this umbrella. In my opinion, none of them is justified, but if no meaning is derived from it about morals and ways of acting, there is no justification for me to pay attention to it because it is not seen as threatening to me.
I want to make things clear: I did not write the nanotechnological Bible (although it seems that some people here think so). The man who thought of the idea and put it into practice is Mr. Ohad Zohar, a PhD student in physics at the Technion. Ohad will speak first, and then I I will go up on stage and give a little bit from my point of view about nanotechnology.
Dear Saul,
If people's obsession with fighting a certain idea was proof of its correctness, then you would not find a single idea, in all of human history, that is not true.
Regarding the serial responders, we proceed from the assumption that those serial responders will feel obligated to come at the very least, and will not shy away from 20 NIS.
I'm sorry you won't come, but in any case I will follow your wise advice and try not to swallow the head of the pin with the Bible.
Michael,
I believe that we must distinguish a thousand differences between 'religion' itself and the 'religious establishment', just as we must distinguish between 'science' (or the scientific method) and the 'scientific establishment'.
The 'religion' in itself is the abstract belief in God or a creator. There is nothing wrong with it. The religious institution imposes mental fixation, by subjecting the believers to a very rigid set of laws or scriptures that can be interpreted in several directions.
In other words, the human beings are the ones who create the religious institution around the abstract belief and they are the ones who choose to oppress one another.
The 'science' (or the scientific method) as you explained very well, is just a method. This is a good method, although I would be happy if we could find a better method. At the moment this method is based on the desire of private individuals (scientists) to make a name and money for themselves - and in the way to publish scientific publications and promote human knowledge.
The 'scientific establishment' is in many cases where good ideas stop. The scientific establishment is also largely based on politics (inter-human relations), on persuading the masses and on fixing existing opinions.
Again, humans ruin a good idea here. Nevertheless, in my opinion, science is better than religion because religion seeks the ideal in man, while the scientific method relies on the desires of all scientists to succeed and impress.
Before we continue the discussion, I would ask you to wait a few more days. In the next four days, the next chapter will be published in several parts, about Louis Pasteur and the way in which he proved that the theory of spontaneous formation is incorrect. I believe that the chapter may shed a little more light on the problem of the scientific establishment always making informed decisions. In the following chapter, which deals with Joseph Lister and Ignatius Semmelweis, I will provide more examples of the way in which the scientific establishment can sometimes stop progress - even when all the necessary proofs are brought before its eyes.
Greetings friends,
Roy.
To Michael,
It's always good to discover that in a gullible and innocent world like ours there are still some sober ones.
In any case, I find in Judaism a real and natural tool for bringing people together while taking into account every fact and every logical consideration. Admittedly, there are individuals with passions and lusts who use religion, but from that it is impossible to deduce what religion is. There are also crooked scientists, so the practice of science is crookedness?
In any case, for the Tidai balance, you will ask Maroi that next time they engrave on the head of the pin Duknis's 'The Blind Watchmaker', or Spinoza's Introduction to the Metaphysics of Measures (maybe something by Nietzsche?).
Bye
borrowed:
If there was nothing in religion I really wouldn't fight it.
Indeed there is something in religion and this something is very harmful.
It is an artificial device for separating people and comparing them to each other while ignoring every fact and every logical consideration.
I only do what I can and I am a single person. That's why you shouldn't expect my reactions to be in proportion to the enormous damage done by religion.
Is this an obsession? See my response to Peter regarding fanaticism.
Dear Roy (if you allow me),
I don't know why, but for some reason, every time some kind of statement related to religion and science or evolution comes to this site, precisely then I have the feeling that things lose their true connection and always go out of proportion. The obsession of certain people to fight religion shows that there might be something in it after all...
By the way, I was really offended. Do serial responders have any kind of discount on entry to the event? What kind of site would it be without its commenters (those who identify themselves by name and don't just ramble).
I, in any case, will not be able to participate; And good luck in the next project as well (just don't accidentally swallow the head of the pin with the Bible, because then even a capitalist like me won't be able to agree to you ordering your body to be cremated - at the kind service of 'Ali Shlekht' - after one hundred and twenty...).
Bye
Solomon really?
Let's put your scientific theory to the experimental test.
Here I am talking about peace with the Palestinians.
The very fact that you talk about religion makes it exist
It doesn't matter which side you are on, positive or negative
Note that everything that a person has thought about also comes to pass
Man actually creates what he thinks
And this is regardless of what is real and what is not
To Roy:
Peter's words were written in a certain context and in this context they are not true at all.
She wrote about the changes in the scientific method as "proof" that it is not the best method we have for understanding the world and as I explained in my words - this is simply a wrong conclusion.
When you write that she is right, you may make people think that you think she is right in her claim and not in marginal details that no one has ever argued about.
Scientific theories are fundamentally different from religion since (again, according to our current definitions) they do not claim absolute truth. Fixation, in this context is not a feature of the theory but of people who refuse to give it up.
The scientific method places clear restrictions on the possibility of "establishing" a theory because as soon as the theory is disproved in an experiment, no one can claim its correctness.
This is not the case in religion.
Religions claim absolute truth, on the one hand, and that it originates from God, on the other hand.
This makes her completely unchangeable.
People can invent interpretations and other people can invent other interpretations but the text remains the same text and God did not come to adapt it to the spirit of the times.
That's why the demand for jihad can be interpreted as a call for mental confrontation just as the six days of Genesis can be interpreted as a description of evolution and although these are useful interpretations (despite their falsehoods) others can come and return to the original interpretation and indeed, as we experience continuously - this is exactly what is happening.
Religions, therefore, will forever be an inexhaustible source of justification for bloodshed, discrimination, ignorance and other troubles.
Dear Friends,
Petar is right in her words that the scientific method and scientific axioms have changed over the years. However, the most important thing in science in my opinion is the ability to abandon axioms that have been proven to fail. Sometimes it takes ten years, sometimes it takes a hundred years. But the fact is that these time frames are much better than those of religion, which hardly changes.
The same problem we find in religion - fixation - we also find in many theories in science throughout history. If I were to speculate, I suspect that science's ability to change is based in part on the fact that scientists are not usually in positions of control over the public, unlike religious people.
In the end, religions can also change (see Protestants vs. Catholics, Orthodox Jews vs. Reformers and even the first four hundred years of Christianity, when Jesus was considered a man or a god or an alien depending on the sect of Christianity you believed in). The problem is that once a person reaches a position of control, he is not ready to give up his base so easily.
Regarding the wars that originate from religion... First of all, Islam does not advocate war on anyone who is not Muslim. There are different interpretations of different verses in the Koran, and there are pacifist verses that conflict with the more militant verses. If I wasn't working now on a network for ten shekels for half an hour from a hotel, I would expand more.
It is also worth noting that the war is the secondary jihad - the least considered - while the primary jihad is the persuasion of Noam's words. Here too one has to differentiate between Shiites and Sunnis, as each of the factions has its own point of view. The Christian crusades also came from a government order, when religion was used only as an excuse.
I would like to summarize and say that when looking for results - a higher quality of life, for example - science is infinitely better than religion. But as Peter pointed out, he cannot give an adequate answer to questions beyond what we see and experience.
According to science, it is possible that there is nothing beyond that reality, and precisely because of this it has a much greater value than in the eyes of different religions.
I would love to see you all at the planned event,
Roy.
I agree with Michael in every word, science is something that is renewed and accurate (exact is not necessarily true), but what I mean by the word accurate is that scientific theories are not ambiguous, theories cannot be made flexible, and all assumptions, hypotheses and deviations are formulated precisely.
On the other hand, religion is something soft, every generation can rise up some Rambam or something that will interpret the religion differently. And yet the religion itself does not change, only its translation into precise language.
And if we can point out, Islam advocates war on all non-Muslims (as Muhammad commanded them).
And the Christians in their distant past also made crusades to conquer all the holy places where Jesus was.
Peter:
I do not use the word science in a bad way. I use the current meaning of the word (which, by the way, I don't even know if it existed in ancient times, and even if it did, it's really not important).
There have never been "scientific truths" in the sense that we understand the words today and those who ever believed in "scientific truth" did not use the word as we use it today.
Now, I don't mind if you choose to use the word science to describe something other than what I'm describing with it. Although by doing so, in my opinion, you will cause people to misunderstand you because overall this word has an accepted meaning, but this, as mentioned, is not important to me. What is important to me is that people understand me when I use the word, and therefore I clarify a second time: today there are no "scientific truths" and there is no scientist today who claims that there are "scientific truths" (because all scientists use the word science the same "bad use" that I do with it.
Nor did I say that science consists of theories that give predictions, etc.
I said that the scientific theories are like that. I haven't restated what comes up here many times and that is Ockham's Razor. I did not mention many more things that we expect from a scientific theory - things the most important of which is that it will explain complex things using simpler things and not the other way around (I didn't mention this because it is so obvious from the very essence of the word "explanation"). The "theory" you proposed does not meet these criteria, but what is really important - you only described it without even trying to say what you expect us to conclude from this description.
When I say that science is a method that no one has ever found better than it, you cannot bring what was in the past as a claim that contradicts it because the fact is that today we do not do what was in the past and the reason for this is that we think what we do today is better.
This is also true in relation to the future - even if the scientific method changes (which I don't expect to happen, but again - it's not important at all) then the sentence I said will remain true regarding the new scientific method.
In the description you gave to scientific theories with all the "assuming that" you weren't precise in the assumptions, but (see it's a miracle!) that's not important either.
In contrast to the religious approach, science indeed qualifies itself and clarifies its assumptions especially so that if these or other assumptions are ever disproved it will be possible to identify which theories need to be re-examined.
You say that you do not agree with the claim that religions have caused most of the bloodshed in the world, but I - who watched your answer - did not make such a claim at all. It is true that religions are responsible for the most bloodshed, but in order not to get dragged into a debate about exactly what religion is, I mentioned the irrational thought (of which religion is a senior representative) as the cause of bloodshed. In light of your words, I will still clarify that in my opinion, for example, Nazism can also be seen as a kind of religion because, just like all religions, it is based on baseless beliefs in "absolute truth" (but again, since I didn't want you to start arguing with me about Nazism being a religion or not, I simply included The same in the expression "irrational thought" and for the sake of removing a book, I clarify another thing that is self-evident here, and that is that my very definition of the term "rational thought" includes within it the requirement for criticality, which by its very essence requires the casting of doubt, and I ask that you do not start arguing with me about whether my use of the expression is spoiled or No, just use it to understand what I'm trying to say.)
Michael,
You use the term "science" badly. The science of 2008 is nothing like the science of antiquity or the 17th century. In each period there were different "scientific truths", different methods, different scientific logic. For example, in ancient times the following sentence - "The sun rises in the morning and sets at night because God forces it to do so" was considered completely legitimate among the scientific community and was used as a scientific justification.
You come and claim that science is built from "theories that give prophecies and yet have not been disproved experimentally" the argument "the sun rises because God forces it" also proves itself experimentally, after all the sun rises every morning and sets every evening, we expected it to do so because God forced it , and indeed she proves to us every day that this "scientific theory" is right and proven.
Your sentence "a method that no one has ever found better than it" is incorrect - the scientific method, as mentioned, changes from time to time, it is not a Sinaitic Torah, it is not a fixed thing. The scientific method refers to a very limited field. The scientist says - on the assumption that we do not live in the matrix but in a realistic and physical world and we can sense and see everything in it + on the assumption that the photon detector/microscope/telescope does not affect the experiment itself + on the assumption that there is no information hidden from us + on the assumption that it is possible to deduce inductively from what we see in reality + …. After all these assumptions, only then do you come and assert some kind of claim that it really fits nicely within this equation with all the assumptions (axioms) you created. But it is not proof in itself.
Science is not a linear line to which humanity always adds theories. The infrastructure of science itself is destroyed every time there is a scientific revolution, because both the method itself changes and the tools themselves change and then start from scratch.
The theories of science are not related to each other, they are not a direct continuation of each other, and each of them predicts good predictions, but only in a limited area.
Regarding religion. I categorically disagree with the claim that most of the bloodshed and wars in the world stem from religion.
Peter,
I don't know what you were trying to say.
After all, no scientist claims that scientific theories are a proven truth. All he claims is that there are theories that give predictions and yet have not been disproved experimentally.
Science, as I have often said (is it fanaticism to say something many times when people show that they did not understand it?), does not claim anything, it only provides a method for studying reality - a method that no one has ever found better than it.
An irrational thought that religion is one of its prominent representatives is a dangerous phenomenon and is behind most acts of repression and organized bloodshed.
Science is not a religion.
Someone who is interested in science and engages in it, on the one hand, and fights religion on the other - does not fight religion for scientific reasons.
Why does he do this? Is he a fanatic? It depends on how you define fanatic. If someone who wants to live without religious coercion and without bloodshed is a fanatic then yes - this person is a fanatic. On the other hand, the desire to live such a life is a natural desire of every person whose mind has not been washed by any religion and defining a name for a feature that all humans are endowed with is unnecessary. It just wastes the word "fanatic" without giving it any meaning. It is better to use this word to describe behavior that is not in the public domain.
By the way, I hope it is clear to you that your hope for the future is in conflict with all the religions that exist today because these - by definition - cannot be changed by humans and most of them (and especially all monotheistic religions) include in their content laws that prohibit tolerance towards the other.
Absolute heresy also turns into fanaticism when that heretic decides to fixate on a certain object (eg religion) and enumerate its faults over and over again. Thomas Kuhn describes in his book "Scientific Revolutions", how the scientists act with complete fanaticism towards the technology, paradigms and scientific tools, something reminiscent of religious fanaticism.
The tools of science are limited. The logic of science - induction - is a bit problematic as David Yom proved. Science works like this: first you conduct experiments and then inductively conclude from the particular (experiment) to the general. If, for example, I dropped a stone from the top of a building and saw it fall down, after that I performed the same experiment 100,000 times and saw that every time the stone fell, then the inductive conclusion from this is that stones always fall down (of course this is not true, in space with zero gravity a stone will not fall).
The theories of science are not perfect and are not even close to giving a complete answer regarding the nature of the world we live in. Neither micro nor macro.
None of this means that the science is false or true. It just means that you should take everything with a limited guarantee and not think that "here is the invincible truth in my hand and that makes me the only righteous one in the whole world" - this is a childish thought.
I hope that a day will come and everyone will be able to get rid of the stereotypes and be confident enough to open up and accept people who are a little different from them.
Yuval and Eyal:
come on!?
And in relation to why are you fanatics?
The fact that you are looking for meaning does not mean that you have to become religious or a fanatic and I know a lot of people who are looking for meaning and even find quite a bit of it and are not religious in any religion (no - not even in any metaphorical religion and don't try to sell me the nonsense that science is also a religion)
I am with Yuval one hundred percent. So true.
And as the years go by, the person becomes fixed in his thoughts and you will not change him. He seems to have stuck to certain thought patterns. These are repeated in his mind over and over and are actually enacted. And so really everyone becomes a fanatic about something else without noticing. accepts a certain truth and believes in it. No one will convince him to get off her.
To the cool commenter:
I used to think so too.
Today I understand that religion is a "necessary evil" given the human nature of the human race.
Almost every person (also "educated") eventually adopts some religion; Whether it's free software, saving the planet or Israel's teachings.
The human being, at the end of the day, is mainly looking for meaning. even you
Religion is the root of all evil. Look at these fanatic Muslims.
these conservative Christians (the Vatican is the lowest place in the world).
And the religious people in the country are constantly trying to delegitimize the secular world. They don't even want to think.
All day long poor uneducated people are being converted.
This is an important addition to the "Bible on a Pin" project that was developed thousands of years ago.
In the previous project they took a head with normal dimensions, taught it the Bible and it turned into a pin head.
God - the developer of the previous project could not (from then until writing this comment) be reached in order to receive a response