Hilarious attack on mathematical physics (i.e., regressive physics). Thanks to David de Hilster for the headsup on this.
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com
20100827
20100818
Interview on The Ten Assumptions of Science
Here is the link to the interview with Bill Alek at the Progressive Technology Hour:
http://www.vortexnetworknews.com/Progressive_Tech_2010.html
http://www.vortexnetworknews.com/Progressive_Tech_2010.html
20100811
Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
In this review of a book involving creationist apologetics, Fred Frees, shows how the glaring philosophical errors of the creationists are not that different from those of the conventional wisdom portrayed by systems philosophy:
http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/Frees_2010_Creationism%20and%20the%20SLT.pdf
Fred’s dramatic voice adds a bit of zap to the Progressive Scientific Institute website narrative:
http://scientificphilosophy.com/
http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/Frees_2010_Creationism%20and%20the%20SLT.pdf
Fred’s dramatic voice adds a bit of zap to the Progressive Scientific Institute website narrative:
http://scientificphilosophy.com/
Meet Fred Frees
Fred Frees is the newest member of the Progressive Science Institute. Fred is the son of Paul Frees, the famous voice actor. He will be doing voice work for PSI, with his current project being a “books on tape” version of “The Scientific Worldview.” Fred is ideally suited to this activity in that he admires and understands the book thoroughly and has a magnificent voice with which to portray it. Not only that, Fred has written an essay “Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” which applies some of “The Ten Assumptions of Science” to critique “The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution,” by evangelist Hank Hanegraaff.
Fred also tells of how his curiosity long ago led him to do a relatively futile side-by-side comparison of evolution and creationism. His essay on the comparison reached hundreds of pages before he finally discovered TSW. Upon reading the book, he realized that this was the answer to clearing up all the confusion: "There is an inexplicable sense of satisfaction that I feel when I am able to comprehend the Univironmental view of the world. If there was a fire in my home, the first book I'd grab would be TSW." PSI whole heartily welcomes Fred to the Univironmental community!
Fred also tells of how his curiosity long ago led him to do a relatively futile side-by-side comparison of evolution and creationism. His essay on the comparison reached hundreds of pages before he finally discovered TSW. Upon reading the book, he realized that this was the answer to clearing up all the confusion: "There is an inexplicable sense of satisfaction that I feel when I am able to comprehend the Univironmental view of the world. If there was a fire in my home, the first book I'd grab would be TSW." PSI whole heartily welcomes Fred to the Univironmental community!
For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
20100802
Contradiction
The question was asked:
I often notice that a lot of religious people use doublethink but have no realization of it?
Religion and science are based on opposing fundamental assumptions, neither of which is completely provable or falsifiable (Borchardt, 2004). The only way to hold opposing assumptions is to compartmentalize. Big Bang Theorists, for example, believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics, CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed). They also believe in creation (that something could be formed out of nothing, or a tiny "singularity"). They compartmentalize this by saying that the laws of physics were created at the same time as the Big Bang—problem solved, if you don’t think about it too much. This “rationalization” is similar to what religious folks do when confronted by inconvenient data from the real world. They are well trained in accepting such contradictions and the resulting confusion. Unlike strict logicians, they are not much concerned about it most of the time. It takes a crisis, generally developing as a gross contradiction between their imaginary world and the external world, to push them in either direction. For some, your question just might be the trigger.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
I often notice that a lot of religious people use doublethink but have no realization of it?
Religion and science are based on opposing fundamental assumptions, neither of which is completely provable or falsifiable (Borchardt, 2004). The only way to hold opposing assumptions is to compartmentalize. Big Bang Theorists, for example, believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics, CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed). They also believe in creation (that something could be formed out of nothing, or a tiny "singularity"). They compartmentalize this by saying that the laws of physics were created at the same time as the Big Bang—problem solved, if you don’t think about it too much. This “rationalization” is similar to what religious folks do when confronted by inconvenient data from the real world. They are well trained in accepting such contradictions and the resulting confusion. Unlike strict logicians, they are not much concerned about it most of the time. It takes a crisis, generally developing as a gross contradiction between their imaginary world and the external world, to push them in either direction. For some, your question just might be the trigger.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.