A question about theories

reply to post by rickymouse

I see people misapplying evidence to things a lot. You can tell these people but they sometimes don't listen. They are most often right but the other ten to twenty percent of the time they are wrong. I know I can be wrong, I don't state something as fact very much without trying to include a little about the parameters that apply.

One perfect example of this is in the area of quantum mechanics regarding various concepts in mysticism.

Anyone who truly begins to study quantum mechanics will run into a sort of conundrum. All evidence in quantum mechanics points to there not being an objective reality. The reason we perceive a -consistent- reality is because most systems are constantly interacting with each other and constantly causing other systems to decohere. Which is why we rarely observe the effects of quantum mechanics on the macroscopic scale (though we've been pushing the limits of that one, lately).

At some point, any thinking individual has to ask: "what does this mean?"

When you can show that a single photon absorbed by a sheet of film traveled through -both- available paths (or somehow obtained information about the other path available) ... and when we try to find out which path the photon took, precisely, we can no longer show it to have come through both available paths.... we either run into the idea that our choice of experiment (free will) altered the behavior of the system.... or that we live in a conspiratorial universe where there is no free will.

Neither idea is very settling.

It's the "quantum enigma" - no matter how you look at the facts of quantum mechanics, you slam into the question of what consciousness is and its interconnectedness with the physical universe (or the perception of it...).

Then some people want to try and use that as evidence that you can will illness away.

Personally - I like the idea that it means we could all become Jedi Knights or Super Saiyans ... but while I say that somewhat jestingly... others seem to take that to a degree that is perversely in conflict with our experience. While some studies show some interesting results regarding consciousness and sensitive instruments - it's hardly conclusive, and hardly reason to forgo medical treatment while attempting to will away your ills.

PS. I used to know quite a little about DOS, that's what I initially learned on. I haven't used that in such a long time now that I probably don't remember much. I remember listlib and dir and all that kind of stuff. I can still chase down a virus and kill it sometimes. I remember in seventh grade math punching cards for Michigan Techs big mainframes. The newest and greatest technology of the time. Still like windows 2000.

I grew up on DOS and Windows 3.1 for Workgroups (not that I knew what those were at the time).

Then I got into my avionics training for the Navy and was absolutely appalled by the trend away from training with real components and equipment. We had trainers where our circuits were built for us (my vocational training before hand had us breadboard all of our labs - nothing like having to troubleshoot your circuit before you could even begin to do the lab - talk about a trial by fire). And almost cried when the course and training on the 8080/86 was just a 'check in the box.'

The foundation of all modern computing.... and it was given the "you'll never use this" treatment.

Which, unfortunately, is somewhat true. When things go south on modern components - it's relatively rare that you can do much more than remove and replace the component... and in some cases - the rates of success in replacing faulty ICs is so low that you simply replace the entire board rather than try to solder through 6+ layers without destroying the component.

That said - I was still disappointed that basic concepts like memory mapping and hardware instructions were bypassed.

But, there again, every time I've advanced in pay grade in my rate; it's been one of one. Navy Reserve wide - of all the people competing for the -only- open space for promotion within my rate, I 'won' based almost solely on my electronics and aviation expertise. ... Sadly, I've only once ever touched an aircraft in my navy career. Haven't really done anything in the rate I'm supposedly # hot in.

Kind of wonder if my disappointment at the standards of training and my ability to advance in a 'locked' rate while having practically never worked in it are, at all, linked.

But, there again, I also walked into my digital electronics university course, took the exams (aced them) then spent the rest of the time doing anything but paying attention to the lectures (spare for a few interesting anecdotes).

Perhaps my expectations are a little unfair.

reply to post by Vandettas

That opinion doesn't narrow anything down. How's about being specific. What theories? Which schools?

where exactly are theories taught as fact?

The question was asking where exactly are theories taught as fact....I answered the question...

The public education system in America.

I thought it was pretty narrow...SCHOOL... Ok, I will try to get more narrow...The education system that most of us send our children for 12 years.

What theories? geesh...that would take a lot of time...since every teacher has been given the freedom to present history based on their own theories rather than historical fact to teach the objective of the lesson nugget.
Which schools? All schools that accept federal funds.

Most people are scientifically illiterate. Some people aren't aware of their own incompetance/ignorance. Is easier to reject something you don't understand and replace it with sone quaint facsimile than it is to educate yourself because education is hard. Oh yeah, and chuck religiously-driven motivated reasoning into the mix as well.

It's easier to narcistically cry "all science is a lie!" than it is to actually understand the science. People like the false sense of intellectual exclusivity they get from dismissing science in favour of their own... ideas. This isn't the case of everyone but it's certainly a common theme on this site.

Whoever on the previous page said "because it's good to question established theories" is flat out wrong: it's ignorant to substitute your own half baked ideas in favour of science you do not even bother to understand in the first place. THAT is the common theme here. I simply do not understand how sone people are more than happy to threshold their education by substituting their own simplistic (incorrect and flawed) ideas as soon as they struggle with the more difficult scientific concepts.

But largely its down to scientific illiteracy. People don't quite understand what a scientific hypothesis/theory is so the think a few MS Paint diagrams and some assertions unsupported by scientific data is equal to a scientific theory. I don't think there's any harm in this (after all, it's not like this site isn't already kooky) unless the OP refuses to accept any scientific explenations and instead only wants to hear what they want to hear.

reply to post by OldSchoolMom


You still haven't answered the question: what theories? Evolution, by any chance?

And do you understand that scientific theories do not become scientific facts and visa versa? A scientific theory is not some wild guess.

reply to post by Aim64C


So much true about what you said about reality, it seems like reality can truly never be comprehended or proven by man. There are many paths available for everything but something steers us down a certain one. The only free will we have is within the path we choose, to jump to another path we must go back and start over with an open find to see the other paths.

I used to like working with old computers. It was a challenge to use them. I suppose I have no interest in predefined paths in the new software, my interest lies in learning, not in using. The new Windows programs just get more complicated. They allow utilization of more software that is created by others but limit our accessibility to modify the software. This means we need to purchase software from businesses or hack the program. I like simplicity and versatility.

reply to post by john_bmth


A scientific theory is just an educated guess. You are right in saying it is not a wild guess. When enough scientists and people of influence put their approval on the Hypothesis using evidence and perceptions of the time it becomes a theory. Many theories have been disproved throughout history. That is a true fact. At the time these theories were also taught as facts. Occams razor cuts the truth many times to make things acceptable. This new theory that has formed often becomes flawed because it's truth can cause harm to the society that governs it, the government of the area, the economy of the area, or the perception of the public.

Another words Occams razor can make a lie out of the truth for many reasons. Occams razor is the main factor in the pork barrel spending of our government also and it's implementation is what causes major economic failures. I do not blindly believe something that someone of knowledge tells me. I research things to find if they are cut with lies and search for the truth in everything. I have an old college professor who comes for coffee here regularly and although his knowledge is great on somethings, he feels he knows more than he does and we get into some discussions of reality. I use these discussions to try to understand the perceptions of the teachers. I win the discussions a majority of the time, he gets all huffy when he loses. I also have learned a lot from him and I research everything that is discussed before he comes over again. My perception also changes as I find out what he sees. I find out that occams razor is the problem that causes most of the difference in opinion. You have to go back to the beginning and research the changes in perception to find the truth. You can't learn this from a textbook, you can't learn it from one persons perception of it, the net makes it possible to understand what many people think of something. Common sense and experience cannot be taught in school, life teaches us that. People who deceive others are most times not aware they are deceiving others.

To end this I agree that theories are taught as reality in school and thinking within parameters defined by the sciences are pushed as real. I do not drink H20 myself, I drink water.

Originally posted by Aim64C
One perfect example of this is in the area of quantum mechanics regarding various concepts in mysticism.

I believe you've actually given us an excellent example of what the OP meant.

Anyone who truly begins to study quantum mechanics will run into a sort of conundrum. All evidence in quantum mechanics points to there not being an objective reality.

Now, when I look up "Quantum mechanics" in Wikipedia and other dictionaries, I find

Quantum mechanics is the body of scientific principles that explains the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and atomic particles. en.wikipedia.org...

...and...

The equation, called the Schrödinger equation after its creator, is central to quantum mechanics, defines the permitted stationary states of a quantum system, and describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes in time.[22] In the paper that introduced Schrödinger's cat, he says that the psi-function featured in his equation provides the "means for predicting probability of measurement results," and that it therefore provides "future expectation[s] , somewhat as laid down in a catalog."[23]

...and so on through Copenhagen, eigenvalues, de Broglie, and so forth. The math says nothing about the nature of reality and the actions that go on at these subatomic scales doesn't translate to what we see in the big world.

I am guessing (but could be really wrong, so in the spirit of discussion I am also asking here) that you didn't get your information on Quantum Mechanics from papers like this about quantum mechanics.

What sources (when you were learning about QM) were the ones you found "most reliable" (and what made them reliable for you about this kind of information) -- and which ones did you look at and go "no, no way?" (I'm asking this as kind of a research question, if you don't mind. I'm curious about the processes people use that put this kind of thing into the mainstream while skipping eigenvalues and Planck's constants and all the scary hairy math.)

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by john_bmth

 

A scientific theory is just an educated guess. You are right in saying it is not a wild guess. When enough scientists and people of influence put their approval on the Hypothesis using evidence and perceptions of the time it becomes a theory. Many theories have been disproved throughout history. That is a true fact.

No, this is not how science works. A hypothesis is an educated guess, a scientific theory is a well developed explanation that is supported by objective evidence. It has been validated independently and has made useful, accurate predictions as well as explaining the known scientific facts. It's got nothing to do with "approval", reality does not care who approves.

At the time these theories were also taught as facts.

Again, you are confusing the scientific definition of the word "theory" with the layman definition. Scientific theories do not become "facts", the terms "fact" and "theory" have very specific definitions in science. I hate to say it but this is what I was talking about regarding scientifically-illiterate speculation: getting the basic terminology wrong is not exactly a good start to any informed discussion.

Occams razor cuts the truth many times to make things acceptable. This new theory that has formed often becomes flawed because it's truth can cause harm to the society that governs it, the government of the area, the economy of the area, or the perception of the public.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is not at all how science works.

Another words Occams razor can make a lie out of the truth for many reasons. Occams razor is the main factor in the pork barrel spending of our government also and it's implementation is what causes major economic failures. I do not blindly believe something that someone of knowledge tells me. I research things to find if they are cut with lies and search for the truth in everything.

It's all well and good not blindly believing what people are telling you but if through your self education you get the most basic concepts utterly wrong, who are you to pour scorn on legitimate science?

I have an old college professor who comes for coffee here regularly and although his knowledge is great on somethings, he feels he knows more than he does and we get into some discussions of reality.

I'm not being funny but based on what you've posted, he probably does. Self-education is meaningless if you cannot distinguish between science and pseudo-science, at least when it comes to interpretations based on scientific theories and data.


...and so on. I'm not trying to be rude or start an argument but your post pretty much sums up my point about speculation from scientific ignorance. It's like people arguing over what some people are saying in Mandarin when none of the people can actually speak or understand Mandarin. It may be entertaining for those arguing but ultimately it is utterly pointless and meaningless.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Indellkoffer


If you travel south 10 miles, east 10 miles and then north 10 miles, how can you arrive at the same place you started? Is it possible? If you believe in euclidean geometry only, you will be lost trying to figure out how. It is possible, you just need to start at a zero point. If you start at the pole of the earth, you will arrive back to your starting point and have a triangle with more than 180 degrees. In this case, a straight line is not possible.

No, actually on the surface of the Earth you would have a convex surface inscribed by a triangle, or "Euler Triangle, which will contain less than 180 degrees. On a concave surface, the triangle would have . 180 degrees. See mathworld.wolfram.com... On the other hand since a trianle is defined using Euclidean geometry, it is rather meaningless to talk about non-Euclidean triangles. It would ne a 3 sided concavve or convex polygon.

reply to post by john_bmth


So you are trying to tell me that the thousands of theories that were proven wrong or had to be adjusted through the years were never wrong. If something is adjusted than it is evident that the original theory was not right, it was wrong. If it was adjusted three times than it was wrong three times. Explain to me how the truth can be improved on. I have the funny hunch you never paid attention to the explanation of a theory when you were in school.

A Scientific law is different, it has so much evidence to back it along with an array pattern of testing to show it is relevant. Most of Einsteins theories have not been proven wrong but they haven't evolved to laws either. The fact that theories are stressed to be real is evident. You are the one assuming that theories are more than they are. They are hypothesis that have been proven under certain conditions to be true to the best of our knowledge. They are not facts, they are not laws. Many theories are right but many will be found to be wrong in the future. If this was not a fact, how come people are still trying to test the validity of Einsteins theories. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the beginning science classes and ask questions. Maybe you assume mankind is more advanced than they are. I have known a lot of intelligent people in my life and your statements aren't typical of theirs.

In the real world, credentials validate theories. Most times credentials are acquired by gaining knowledge. Intelligence includes as it's base the ability to reason and in conjunction with knowledge. Intelligence is not related to confidence but is related to reason. People with confidence get in positions that give them power in any field they are in. You don't see a mousy physicist at the upper levels of CERN. People with these type of positions are the ones that validate theories and decide which exclusions are pertinent. People with confidence often make the biggest mistakes because they can't see their flaws

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by john_bmth

 

So you are trying to tell me that the thousands of theories that were proven wrong or had to be adjusted through the years were never wrong. If something is adjusted than it is evident that the original theory was not right, it was wrong. If it was adjusted three times than it was wrong three times. Explain to me how the truth can be improved on. I have the funny hunch you never paid attention to the explanation of a theory when you were in school.

I'm saying that you have a misunderstanding of scientific method and scientific terminologies, as you have and continue to demonstrate in your responses. This was my point about scientific illiteracy.

A Scientific law is different, it has so much evidence to back it along with an array pattern of testing to show it is relevant. Most of Einsteins theories have not been proven wrong but they haven't evolved to laws
either.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A scientific theory does not become a scientific law once it has "so much evidence to back it", a scientific law is fundamentally different. A scientific theory can well encompass scientific laws but a scientific theory is not less credible than a law because "it doesn't have enough evidence", in fact scientific theories are of a higher standard of scientific understanding than laws.

The fact that theories are stressed to be real is evident. You are the one assuming that theories are more than they are. They are hypothesis that have been proven under certain conditions to be true to the best of our knowledge.

Again, you're using incorrectly defined terminology interchangeably, see my above comment.

They are not facts, they are not laws.

Correct, but not for the reasons you have stated they are.

Many theories are right but many will be found to be wrong in the future.

A theory may be found to be incomplete or will expand or become part of a greater understanding. My point is that people (such as yourself) who have such a poor grasp of science really are in no position to be dismissing science and pushing their own half-baked ideas born of ignorance. if you can't even get the basic terminology right after it's been pointed out to you, what hope is there for any meaningful and informed discussion?

If this was not a fact, how come people are still trying to test the validity of Einsteins theories.

Because that's how science works. Key word: validating. If they were unsubstantiated guesses (as you seem to believe) then they would not be withstanding a century or more of consistent validation.

Maybe you didn't pay attention to the beginning science classes and ask questions. Maybe you assume mankind is more advanced than they are. I have known a lot of intelligent people in my life and your statements aren't typical of theirs.

Maybe you should have listened to the answers to the questions you were given in the science class, then we would not be having this discussion.

So, back to my point: how is there to be any meaningful discussion about scientific "what ifs" and "pet theories" if the participants lack even the most rudimentary understanding of science? How is that a positive contribution to any online community that prides itself on intelligent discourse such as ATS?

reply to post by john_bmth


You are probably right, I probably wasn't taught this in college because I wasn't in the classes. I tested out of all the math and sciences but still had to take the highest level one to establish a grade. I wasn't allowed to test out of biology related classes though. College bored me. There was so much to learn on the outside.

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Indellkoffer


If you travel south 10 miles, east 10 miles and then north 10 miles, how can you arrive at the same place you started? Is it possible? If you believe in euclidean geometry only, you will be lost trying to figure out how. It is possible, you just need to start at a zero point. If you start at the pole of the earth, you will arrive back to your starting point and have a triangle with more than 180 degrees. In this case, a straight line is not possible.

No, actually on the surface of the Earth you would have a convex surface inscribed by a triangle, or "Euler Triangle, which will contain less than 180 degrees. On a concave surface, the triangle would have . 180 degrees. See mathworld.wolfram.com... On the other hand since a trianle is defined using Euclidean geometry, it is rather meaningless to talk about non-Euclidean triangles. It would ne a 3 sided concavve or convex polygon.

On a globe, the angles of a triangle are greater than 180. LINK

What I stated was correct all the way around so to speak.

reply to post by john_bmth

You still haven't answered the question: what theories? Evolution, by any chance? And do you understand that scientific theories do not become scientific facts and visa versa? A scientific theory is not some wild guess.

No, I wasn't thinking of evolution but we do train the children in the public education like animals using Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning (and operate conditioning/behavior modification) based on that theory. We teach theories as fact, deceive, manipulate and provoke (challenge); to break the child's values when they come into the system, then we use psychological techniques (again based on the theory the child is just an animal) to change the thoughts actions and feelings of students. There is too much information needed to prove what I am saying here and it would certainly stray from topic so......

After labor Day, I will get a thread started (Who controls the children) to better explain the education system and it will include some examples of theories that are presented to the students as fact in order to promote anti-american attitudes and foster the global community (one example), as well as some other examples to change views, attitudes and beliefs.

(I need to take a shower, I went fishing and well, I smell like shad). Goodnight.

Many good ideas and frank discussion is good to see in a thread. Haven't noticed any name calling either. Well done. This is in reply to those of you that responded to my post at the number 2 slot.

Taking a devil's advocate approach:

Science has degenerated to pontificated egocentric misfits more interested in their perceived standing in the science community. These are the leaders! They spend most of their time on the politics of science than they do on the subject themselves.

Science can be bought with money or the promise of power. Many of the modern arguments, be it climate change or whatever, are bought and paid for. Yes, I can look at science and see the flaws. Climate change equations that leave out the actions of the sun are flawed. Cigarette companies have their own pet science guys that they pay big money to to push the right barrow. There are lots of examples. I could be forgiven for saying that modern science is full of greedy little people who will sell their scientific souls for a few pieces of silver.

Oh, yes, scientific method is held high with pride. Of course if you propose something out of the ordinary, science just shrugs it's shoulders because, well, it can't apply scientific method and well there is no money in it anyhow. Just how do 1/4 million starlings do their formation dances in the sky without a single collision. Hello science! No, not interested.

Like every other endeavor, science has major flaws. But the clever sheep are still sheep!

P

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom
I thought it was pretty narrow...SCHOOL... Ok, I will try to get more narrow...The education system that most of us send our children for 12 years.

What theories? geesh...that would take a lot of time...since every teacher has been given the freedom to present history based on their own theories rather than historical fact to teach the objective of the lesson nugget.
Which schools? All schools that accept federal funds.

Err... would it be correct to say that you haven't taught public school for five or more years?

In my experience, teachers who deviate from the state-mandated standards are usually "outed" by their pupils. This leads to parents screaming at the principal (not pleasant), a call to "have a chat" in the office, a note being put in your personnel file and (if it's outrageous enough -- and these days it doesn't take much) rather quick termination.

I don't know of any teachers who have successfully taught their own theories in public schools.

Your mileage may vary.

Originally posted by pheonix358
Science has degenerated to pontificated egocentric misfits more interested in their perceived standing in the science community.

...and the public hasn't?

They spend most of their time on the politics of science than they do on the subject themselves.

Can you give us some examples? A lot of the public figures (the often cited Zahi Hawass) is not really much of an active research scientist as opposed to the people manning the digs themselves. So are you saying that even the grad students and professor on the dig spend more time on schmoozing than they do research?

Cigarette companies have their own pet science guys that they pay big money to to push the right barrow.

Okay... that one I'll agree with.

Of course if you propose something out of the ordinary, science just shrugs it's shoulders because, well, it can't apply scientific method and well there is no money in it anyhow.

So you're saying ordinary people without degrees can do better?

Just how do 1/4 million starlings do their formation dances in the sky without a single collision. Hello science! No, not interested.

I'm pretty sure I saw some stuff in New Scientist (newscientist.com) about that some time ago.

So what's your solution for fixing this? Science has a method of rules: (if A is true and B is true than A+B is also true. If you have an idea, you come up with a test that says 'if it doesn't do THIS then it's wrong' and test your idea.) What's your suggestion on how to "fix" science?

I admit I'm really bothered by "theories" that begin with "I don't understand this and if I don't understand it then it' must be wrong." But -- if someone's got an idea of how to "fix" things, I think we should look at that.

What's your ...err... theory ... about how we should fix it?

reply to post by Byrd

I believe you've actually given us an excellent example of what the OP meant.

While not an unanticipated comment - it carries with it a certain... disrespect.

and so on through Copenhagen, eigenvalues, de Broglie, and so forth. The math says nothing about the nature of reality and the actions that go on at these subatomic scales doesn't translate to what we see in the big world.

Except that it does.

The reason why many people don't quite grasp the implications of quantum mechanics is that it's always right. The math is never wrong. Everything falls into place according to its probability function.

Further - recent developments into quantum super positions have been able to place absolutely massive systems into quantum superpositions. news.bbc.co.uk...

Even more intriguing - evidence has surfaced that olfactory senses and photosynthesis both utilize quantum mechanical phenomena to function: www.bbc.co.uk... and physicsworld.com...

What the team was looking for were emission frequencies that did not match the excitation frequency, because these would indicate the existence of a superposition of different states. This they did by detecting the quantum-mechanical equivalent of beats, the cyclical peak in volume produced when two sound waves of different frequency interfere with one another. The fact that they did indeed detect such beats is evidence, they say, that the algae takes advantage of quantum coherence.

The researchers also found that the oscillations of this coherent superposition lasted for over 400 femtoseconds (4 × 10–13 s), which was much longer than expected. They had thought the oscillations would last for no more than 100 fs, because this was the timescale over which they thought interference from the surrounding protein and water molecules would swamp or "decohere" the delicate quantum superposition state. "[We] never anticipated such remarkable effects," says Collini's colleague, Gregory Scholes of the University of Toronto, also because bilin molecules interact more weakly with one another than do other photosynthetic pigments.

Quantum mechanics is not just some expensive science fair display.

I am guessing (but could be really wrong, so in the spirit of discussion I am also asking here) that you didn't get your information on Quantum Mechanics from papers like this about quantum mechanics.

The thing is, however, that none of these address the concept of "reality."

Quantum mechanics is never wrong. Its predictions are spot on.

But when you can demonstrate a single photon to have taken two mutually exclusive paths to arrive at its destination - then perform the same experiment requiring a photon to declare its path - and get two different results based on the experiment you chose to run... there's a bit of a question left hanging in the air.

Your choice of experiment affected the behavior of the system, no?

Or did the system know what you were going to "choose" ahead of time - a sort of conspiratorial universe that negates the concept of choice?

This is where quantum mechanics runs straight into the concept of consciousness. The math is always right. But there's an extra "why" that is given the "shut up and calculate" Copenhagen Interpretation - Copenhagen is, essentially, the idea that it's useless to speculate on the nature of quantum mechanics and to merely focus on the math. While practical - it essentially ignores the white elephant.

What sources (when you were learning about QM) were the ones you found "most reliable" (and what made them reliable for you about this kind of information) -- and which ones did you look at and go "no, no way?" (I'm asking this as kind of a research question, if you don't mind. I'm curious about the processes people use that put this kind of thing into the mainstream while skipping eigenvalues and Planck's constants and all the scary hairy math.)

With all due respect; you don't spend fifteen years studying semiconductor electronics and radio communications without becoming very familiar with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and simple things like Planck metrics.

But this isn't a battle about who knows more regarding or more adept at wielding the math. The math is always correct and always spot on.

quantumenigma.com...

The founders of quantum mechanics understood the implications of the field they pioneered very well. Which is why, personally, I find 'researching the researchers' as enlightening (if not more so) than the mechanics they established. They are often far more aware of their theory's strengths and weaknesses than the individuals spearheading its development, currently.

Keep in mind that approximately 80% of Americans worship imaginary beings in the sky. Now ask yourself why they could possibly lean toward accepting ignorance rather than seeking scientific understanding. Yep, it's a real mystery.

reply to post by allenidaho

Keep in mind that approximately 80% of Americans worship imaginary beings in the sky.

You know... I'm among the first to pick and poke at the devoutly religious, particularly the ultra-conservative bible-thumping variety. I find challenging their fixed perspective very, very, entertaining. Like putting a laser pointer on a wall and watching the cat slam into it repeatedly.

However, I also despise people who are delusionally arrogant.

Don't get me wrong - I'm an elitist, arrogant prick at times (or most of the time on the internet). But I've actually a little height to talk down from.

You say imaginary beings in the sky.

That's consistent with religious views in the 1400s.

Granted - I've met some ultra-literal religious types that only solidify my belief in God in that it is an absolute miracle these people even partially function - but I don't believe your perception of those who believe in God to be at all accurate.

The most common concept of God is as a sort of guiding force or presence defying human concepts of morphology. God is the "I am" - and that's about all the definition one has regarding the form and location of such an entity.

Now ask yourself why they could possibly lean toward accepting ignorance rather than seeking scientific understanding. Yep, it's a real mystery.

I think you're overlooking the obvious practicality.

Do I really need to ponder as to whether or not space is expanding volumetrically? No. It's God's universe - there will always be aspects of it that function well above and beyond my ability to comprehend it at this time. There are some questions that we simply don't have the ability to answer (but will foolishly attempt to do so, anyway).

I can survive and live a perfectly happy, functional life without having to delve into the mechanics of quantum tunneling, Black holes, and particle accelerators.

I find it fun and enjoyable as hell. My belief is that God gave me the capacity for learning and intelligence that I do and would be disappointed if I were to waste it by not attempting to unravel the mysteries of the universe. I see science, in effect, as a form of worship. Though my views on exactly how God manipulates the universe and to what extent 'it' gets involved in human affairs varies with the day's humidity and the price of rice in Egypt. .... When it's 125 with 95% humidity - well, I find it completely understandable why Abrahamic religions start off with a spiteful and vengeful view of God.

It is, in my observation, horribly ignorant and foolish to consider spiritualism and science to be mutually exclusive pursuits.

Most just don't have the cognitive fortitude to handle such dualities, however.