[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Krsqk]

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED.

[Fyron]

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

The thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED.

Only to people that think that the dictionary definition is the absolute authority. Dictionary definitions often do not address complex terms very well, and also tend to use (sometimes wrong) connotations as denotations. They also often completely miss some uses of more complex terms (most often literary terms- such as mythology).

[Chronon]

This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.

Please bear in mind that any communication relies on both the sender and receiver to work. You may not have intented triviality when you used the term mythology, but we have seen here that it has those connotations for many readers.

So, I really don't think anyone is putting words in your mouth; they were simply interpreted differently than you intended. Please try not to take it personally; I think about 90% of all communication has this problem. In my pessimistic moments (like when I'm listening to the latest news on Iraq for example) I wonder if it is possible for us to truly communicate with one another, or if we're all just wasting our breath.

[Fyron]

The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.

My point was more specifically about our mythology discussion, where it was more about an interpretation than a misreading. But, I won't deny that sometimes Posts are misread as well.

I guess what I was trying to say (perhaps not directly enough) is that if you really want to convince someone of your point of view, taking the reader to task is usually counter-productive. Why not simply rephrase you argument, and try again?

[ March 14, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Chronon]

Back on the science versus the church theme...

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. I personally do not believe this is necessarily true, but I did at one time(mostly because of the creation/evolution/big bang controversy). So, what do you think?

[dogscoff]

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science.

Not at all. Given the amount of religiously devout scientists now and throughout history (many of whom have been listed in this thread) I don't think you can argue that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

IMHO the spiritual side of humans (including "God") is derived from human consciousness- it comes from within individuals. it is as individual as each person is, so I find the idea of an external institution (ie a church/ religion/ holy book) handing out "ready-made" spirituality to the masses laughable.
Despite this I think religion can still lead to spiritual awareness, but only as a tool for encouraging self-improvement, self-understanding and mental discipline. Maybe this is how religion was originally intended. However it's use through the ages as a tool for manipulating the masses has reduced its usefulness in this respect, and imo for most people religion actually blocks their spiritual development, because they believe they have nothing to contribute to it- they are told that someone else has already figured it all out and written it down in a book for them.

To wrap this up, I'm not really sure what I believe- it's easier to say what I don't believe (see footnote)- but I do believe this:
In time, scientists studying all those tiny sub-atomic thingummies and time/space and wierd forces and energies will eventually find themselves coming to conclusions about consciousness that have been known to spiritualists and so on for thousands of years.

Footnote. For the record, I do NOT believe in any of the following:
-Any god or pantheon.
-ghosts, angels or leprechauns.
-re-incarnation and remote viewing,
-Crystal healing & astrology
-Roswell aliens.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by: Krsqk
From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

Krsqk -
You are exactly right - a date of 1 million for a Mt. St. Helens rock historically known to have been formed two decades ago would still be "correct" if the listed marig of error was 1 million years or more, as that would include the proper age of a little over two decades - but they don't come back that way. Instead, the results often come back more along the lines of one milion years +/- one hundred thousand years, a decidedly false result.

Originally Posted by: Imperator FyronThe thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.

Fyron -
Krsqk was referring to correct, you were referring to accurate, which are two very different things. Correct would refer to the entire range of values - one million years +/- one million years is correct if the real age is 20 years, but it isn't very accurate. However, like I told Krsk, that isn't the returned result in the majority of cases. For objects of known age that get tested, the testing method is usually demonstrated false. Yet you seem to hold that the method holds for large ages? Fine - based on what evidence? If it doesn't work on objects of known age, clearly the method hasn't been properly calibrated. If it cannot work on objects of known age, clearly the method cannot be checked at all for accuracy. How then can you hold to it?

[CEO TROLL]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Back on the science versus the church theme...

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. I personally do not believe this is necessarily true, but I did at one time(mostly because of the creation/evolution/big bang controversy). So, what do you think?

The Scopes Monkey trial was a contrived controversial case. It was done to bring fame and fortune on the hosting community.

It shall be honored in the TROLL CAVE of FLAME.

[Fyron]

Jack:

Correct would refer to the entire range of values - one million years +/- one million years is correct if the real age is 20 years,

Krsqk -
You are exactly right - a date of 1 million for a Mt. St. Helens rock historically known to have been formed two decades ago would still be "correct" if the listed marig of error was 1 million years or more, as that would include the proper age of a little over two decades - but they don't come back that way. Instead, the results often come back more along the lines of one milion years +/- one hundred thousand years, a decidedly false result.

You can not use radio-isotope dating on objects that are only 20 years old. It was never designed to be used on such "young" objects, so stating that is completely irrelevant to the testing system. The eruption of Mount Saint Helens is not a valid test.

If it doesn't work on objects of known age, clearly the method hasn't been properly calibrated.

Radio-isotope dating is not meant to work on "young" objects. There are always inaccuracies in the levels of isotopes in any object. When there has been a very long time since the object was buried, these inaccuracies tend to average out, so you get relatively more accurate results. But, you can not accurately use any radio-isotope dating on objects that are less than a few thousand years old (this threshhold changes depending on what the half-life of the particular element is). That is not how the testing is designed to work. An example of this is that if an object is exposed to fire, it gets a lot more Carbon-14 in it, so it throws off the calculated age based off of Carbon-14 dating. This is part of the reason why Carbon-14 is not a good isotope to use. Another reason would be that its half-life is only a few thousand years, so it can not be used to test the age of objects that are millions of years old. This is why elements like Uranium are used for older objects; Uranium isotopes ahve very long half-lives. But, Uranium can not be used for dating of objects that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, because of the inherent inaccuracies of radio-isotope dating. This is why legitimate scientists do not use it to date "young" objects. There are some other elements that can be used for objects of different possible ages, but I do not remember what they are at the moment.

Keep in mind, I do not know the exact half-lives and such, so don't bother pointing out that I am off on the values a bit. Take my post in relative terms, and there will not be a problem.

Chronon:

My point was more specifically about our mythology discussion, where it was more about an interpretation than a misreading. But, I won't deny that sometimes Posts are misread as well.

Yes, there can be misinterpretations. But in this case, it was a misreading, not a misinterpretation.

I guess what I was trying to say (perhaps not directly enough) is that if you really want to convince someone of your point of view, taking the reader to task is usually counter-productive. Why not simply rephrase you argument, and try again?

I tried that, actually. Whenever I tried it, the same people misconstrued my words again to make them mean what they wanted me to say, instead of what I had actually said.