The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

while this has been a fun exercise it's really a bit mundane for me at this point.

Origin of Life

science isn't there yet. but it's a lot better than mumbo-jumbo about some mystical being...because if everyone accepted that as fact there'd be no new development simply because no one would question the "why".

argue on, bros

Yep real solid science you go by. Another "may have" article. It's as if you're incapable of understanding how science actually works since you think "could be" "maybe" "possibly" are signs of strong science.

Spoilers alert: Science will NEVER be there because it's already been proven to be false/impossible based on ACTUAL scientific facts. We've got cell theory which states ALL cells come from pre-existing cells and we've also got the laws of thermodynamics which state that matter/energy break down over time, not become increasingly complex.

Also, science was invented by religious creationists and the greatest scientists of all time were ALL creationists. Sir Isaac Newton is considered the greatest scientist of all time. Guess what? He's also one of the most devout Christian creationists of all time but that never stopped him from developing science further. You see, to the truly enlightened mind, science is actually the study of God since by better understanding the universe that God created the better we can understand God.

[paulgiamatti]

Very true, but as cosmologist Lawrence Krauss often points out, "why" generally implies a purpose where there probably isn't one. When intellectually honest people ask "why" something is, or "why" something isn't, Krauss asserts that what they're really asking is "how". I tend to agree with him.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Very true, but as cosmologist Lawrence Krauss often points out, "why" generally implies a purpose where there probably isn't one. When intellectually honest people ask "why" something is, or "why" something isn't, Krauss asserts that what they're really asking is "how". I tend to agree with him.

No. When you ask why the something is beautiful that's not even close to a how question. You can't boil life down to questions of how. You have to include legitimate questions of why certain things are the way they are.
The assertion Krauss makes actually brings the scientific process to a halt. If you are left merely explaining how things work without allowing the question of why they work, then that takes an essential element of discovery out of the equation and makes science more of a perfunctory exercise than anything. Every major discovery man has made ever made through science has started with the question of why something happens.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't boil life down to questions of how.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Steven Pinker often points out that it's entirely possible to distill our appreciation of aesthetics down to mechanical functions of the brain. Music, for example, has only become appealing to us because certain combinations of notes and chords have been socially accepted throughout our history, and our brains have evolved and adapted accordingly.

Reducing the question of "why" to "how" is the true mark of intellectual honesty, because it doesn't carry along with it the unnecessary baggage of purpose or intent. It remains agnostic, as all good science should.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Steven Pinker often points out that it's entirely possible to distill our appreciation of aesthetics down to mechanical functions of the brain. Music, for example, has only become appealing to us because certain combinations of notes and chords have been socially accepted throughout our history, and our brains have evolved and adapted accordingly.

Reducing the question of "why" to "how" is the true mark of intellectual honesty, because it doesn't carry along with it the unnecessary baggage of purpose or intent. It remains agnostic, as all good science should.

Not all questions are within the pervue of science.

[paulgiamatti]

And therein lies our disagreement.

Speaking of Krauss, though, I just stumbled on this video of him talking to The Weekly about some semi-related topics, which I think is a great precursor to a fantastic article by Tim Urban about the impending rise of artificial superintelligence.

[Tradesonred]

Snog - The human germ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=27&v=5hhsrGlt_u8

[Tradesonred]

Im agnostic in the sense that i keep a small pocket of possibility for things like the universe being one of those snowflake toys some unimaginably complex creature created for the amusement of his offsprings.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Pringles]

Originally Posted by Tradesonred [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im agnostic in the sense that i keep a small pocket of possibility for things like the universe being one of those snowflake toys some unimaginably complex creature created for the amusement of his offsprings.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tradesonred]

Thats part of why i view religion with apprehension and fear, its often putting in us the notion that humanity can never fail because were at the center of things. The universe will keep put-put-ing it on long after the human race is gone.

With eco-collapse on the horizon, i dont get pleasant thoughts thinking about what kind of ploy some venture apocalypticalists will come up with. You see what happens when you dont listen to god? YOU SEE? NOW GET TO WORK.