This week, Simon Day, co-author of The TV Delusion, returns to expose the relatively new 'Religion of Science'. He explains that we *could* turn this belief system into an actual science and tells us how it could be done. Not for the faint of heart!
This episode was frustrating on a number of levels.
I recognise and appreciate that this podcast is conversational and agreeable. I've not heard a podcast where there is a significant disagreement. It allows the guest to speak freely, I guess. But the amount of stuff that this guy says that just goes unchallenged. Wow!
There was some useful info. The three studies in compliance and authority and group-think. The issues with germ theory and the confounding of language, so it wasn't all frustrating.
But,... I'm not even a christian, but to act as if the claims of virology and Jesus walking on water are similar enough to treat the same, that was oversimplistic. I don't have to agree with a thing to see the errors in the argument of opponents.
I don't know where are you in terms of your faith. I understand you aren't a devout christian. But "the bible is a book of fairytales," just left unchallenged?
As a flat-earther, it frustrates me no end this cultic thinking, no different to the religions this guy rails against, where you're both saying "well it's obvious the earth isn't flat and it's just a psy-op to bait 'truthers'," yet neither one of you states clearly or proves what is obviously wrong with it or why the spinning ball, having air pressure next to a vacuum without containment, flying at over a million miles an hour, why that is true. It's like a secret joke where you talk around a thing but don't just give the clear evidence of what is truth and what is BS. Even if you can't devote your time to the subject due to busy-ness, all these statements without evidence ... it's a bitter taste.
Both globers and flat earthers can parrot. When I was questioning things and asking those around me how they knew the earth was a ball or spinning, I only got parrots. Individuals from any group can mindlessly follow and repeat subjects not thought through.
But at least I can see that, as much as this guy thinks he knows real science, he also has a bent against something he calls "belief" and "religion." And it was useful to see how that bent, that bias, colours his interpretations of things. So that was educational. I think it was this guy who was on before who thinks that truth comes from within you. So again, it's educational to see problematic notions held and stated.
I like the gas pressure without a container example as that is one which anybody with sense can think about and know there's a problem for the Globe theory which the anti-flat Earthers can only try to explain away by using double think, another theory or logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, it's not just about sense. You said "anyone with sense." It's also about prior biases and commitments that throw sense under the bus. Of course, you and I know from experience that gas has no inherent shape and would NOT conform to a shape, like a sphere without solid containment. Gas without containment spreads in all directions. You and I know that air and water vapour and steam don't give two hoots about falling to the ground because of some unproven "force." You may even know that Newton's "mass attracting mass" force was replaced and kicked out by Einstein's pseudoscientific "relativity" ideas where "gravity" is NOT a force. It's irrelevant to gas anyway which isn't affected by unproven gravity but behaves according the second law of thermodynamics which says that gas will fill the available space. In their religious space-vacuum belief, there's a lot of space out there. We should be dead under that religious belief.
But sense is trampled down due to prior commitments. The guest on Sarah's show seems to be so bent against religion yet cannot see his own religious views. That's typical for those who reject God.
Thanks for interview..
This episode was frustrating on a number of levels.
I recognise and appreciate that this podcast is conversational and agreeable. I've not heard a podcast where there is a significant disagreement. It allows the guest to speak freely, I guess. But the amount of stuff that this guy says that just goes unchallenged. Wow!
There was some useful info. The three studies in compliance and authority and group-think. The issues with germ theory and the confounding of language, so it wasn't all frustrating.
But,... I'm not even a christian, but to act as if the claims of virology and Jesus walking on water are similar enough to treat the same, that was oversimplistic. I don't have to agree with a thing to see the errors in the argument of opponents.
I don't know where are you in terms of your faith. I understand you aren't a devout christian. But "the bible is a book of fairytales," just left unchallenged?
As a flat-earther, it frustrates me no end this cultic thinking, no different to the religions this guy rails against, where you're both saying "well it's obvious the earth isn't flat and it's just a psy-op to bait 'truthers'," yet neither one of you states clearly or proves what is obviously wrong with it or why the spinning ball, having air pressure next to a vacuum without containment, flying at over a million miles an hour, why that is true. It's like a secret joke where you talk around a thing but don't just give the clear evidence of what is truth and what is BS. Even if you can't devote your time to the subject due to busy-ness, all these statements without evidence ... it's a bitter taste.
Both globers and flat earthers can parrot. When I was questioning things and asking those around me how they knew the earth was a ball or spinning, I only got parrots. Individuals from any group can mindlessly follow and repeat subjects not thought through.
But at least I can see that, as much as this guy thinks he knows real science, he also has a bent against something he calls "belief" and "religion." And it was useful to see how that bent, that bias, colours his interpretations of things. So that was educational. I think it was this guy who was on before who thinks that truth comes from within you. So again, it's educational to see problematic notions held and stated.
So, despite my frustrations, thank you.
I like the gas pressure without a container example as that is one which anybody with sense can think about and know there's a problem for the Globe theory which the anti-flat Earthers can only try to explain away by using double think, another theory or logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, it's not just about sense. You said "anyone with sense." It's also about prior biases and commitments that throw sense under the bus. Of course, you and I know from experience that gas has no inherent shape and would NOT conform to a shape, like a sphere without solid containment. Gas without containment spreads in all directions. You and I know that air and water vapour and steam don't give two hoots about falling to the ground because of some unproven "force." You may even know that Newton's "mass attracting mass" force was replaced and kicked out by Einstein's pseudoscientific "relativity" ideas where "gravity" is NOT a force. It's irrelevant to gas anyway which isn't affected by unproven gravity but behaves according the second law of thermodynamics which says that gas will fill the available space. In their religious space-vacuum belief, there's a lot of space out there. We should be dead under that religious belief.
But sense is trampled down due to prior commitments. The guest on Sarah's show seems to be so bent against religion yet cannot see his own religious views. That's typical for those who reject God.
But it's going to be great when it does dawn on them.
Here's a simple question for those who cling onto their ball. What is your best proof that we live on a ball? I'll wait...