That's really kind of interesting, Thal. One would think that a scientist wouldn't choose a side until there was either 100% scientific proof supporting intelligent design or 100% scientific proof supporting that no intelligence could possibly have designed the universe.
Trace ... that's not how science works, 95% confidence, or even 90% confidence in an outcome is usually considered adequate and investigations into things that have 0% indication of existing is considered a waste of time, this includes all explanations of phenomena that include the requirement of a miracle.
Am I incorrect in thinking that the definition of an agnostic is one who doesn't know if God exists or or does not exist?
Wouldn't a scientist believe in his theory about the existence or lack of existence of God, gods, intelligent design, etc., but keep an open mind that his theory might be wrong?
I don't think anyone has provided scientific proof of either.
There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Since it is not possible to ever prove a negative, IMHO, a thinking man will not waste his time trying to do so.
Good thing I minored in philosophy. I believe in God. I have faith that an intelligent designer that we call God has created us to seek Him out, and this process has lead to religions, and that the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim beliefs are on the right track more so than other religions. Of the three, I believe that the love of one's fellow man and the endless compassion and forgiveness and duty toward others asked (but, not practiced very well at all by anyone) by Christians is the closest to how a designer would wish a primate with our reasoning abilities to behave. With evidence for and against the mystery of Jesus, I choose to lean toward that fact that there is more to Jesus' existence and Jesus' understanding of God than our arrogance as modern beings over ancient ones can really assert. I believe the real answer to the purpose of our existence isn't found in mathematics, sciences, philosophies, or the poetry and artistry by which we live and record the histories and mysteries of our lives, but by the weaved tapestry of all. At the end of the day, I believe that the mystery of God, for me, is best answered by my Christian belief, but that there is more to that and more to God than is defined by the writings of the ancients and that there are many inconsistencies to what is scribed, but something divine is at work. I believe God does not want religion or the :inquisition: and that these are poor attempts of primates to relate to the divine. I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't have faith in my ability to be certain so I am open-minded enough to be proven wrong. Which is why I admire agnostics over atheists because the atheists believe their fairy tales written by men without proof of anything, and without proof, seem as silly as me believing that a first century Palestinian Jew is the Son of God. At least for agnostics, they haven't decided on a verdict - which you would think is what a scientist would be doing?
I could be wrong about that.
I could be wrong about believing in Jesus Christ.
But, I know that I could be wrong. So, does that make me an agnostic? Or, am I Christian with the wisdom to know that this world and universe is so complex that my puny primate brain cannot process it and God will forgive me for being human?
(PS - I realize there are many philosophic reasoning problems with the above, but this is ScubaBoard so unless I'm getting 3 credits for grad school, I'm not going to worry about it.)
More problems with it than I could begin to undertake to document. Start with the complete lack of any basis for any of your beliefs, save the fact that you believe. If that is sufficient basis for you, fine, it is sufficient for many, but to make the logical jump from "I believe" to a demand that someone else do the impossible (prove a negative) to make their case is absurd on the face of it. It is incumbent on the claimant (e.g., you) to provide some evidence that even opening the conversation is a worthwhile undertaking.
They only think they are atheist (or in one area claim to be) but professionally they act and have the minds of agnostics. How many scientists go into a field of study having their mind made up and knowing everything about that field before they begin? They don't know - that's why they explore. Again, to say one is atheist is to claim proof of the non existance of "god". Where's the proof? Most scientists want recognition for making discoveries so why doesn't the atheist show demonstrable and repeatable proof of the non existance of god so they can claim the prize.
Once again we the the last refuge of the believer, the demand that their interlocutors do the impossible; and when such an absurd request is refused they say, "see!"
Most scientists just can't focus the same openmindedness to "a higher state of being" that they do to say, "finding a cure for cancer" or "seeking a unifying theory" (both of which they hope is out there but no one can put their finger on it yet). Plus, it sounds more intelligent to say you are "something" than to say you aren't sure what you are. Most scientists have a lot invested in appearing intelligent.
What a load of foolishness that is. You clearly demonstrate that you are illogical and yet in the same breath have the gall to make pronouncements on both how scientists think and how they should think.
This thread has produced responses from the beginning that I didn't anticipate.
I assumed that most divers who might have an understanding of cave diving had probably taken diver rescue courses at some level along the way and that these courses would have produced more of a lifeguard mentality in the diving population.
Any, amateur or professional rescuer, whether an emergency medicine physician, a firefighter, a USCG rescue swimmer, or a lifeguard or a PADI Rescue Diver has been trained and knows that there comes a point in some situations when you can no longer continue due to physical exhaustion, external danger, or that you must abandon a victim to save yourself or another, more hopeful victim.
Thal stated that anyone who got themselves into the predicament that I mentioned, was strictly "bush league." Fair enough. While human error would account for the majority of double cave fatalities, there have been cases of collapse and other factors that were not the fault of the team.
Absolutely ... and there is a level of problem that can kill anyone, witness our tragic losses of Parker, Sheck and others. All I can say is that my personal ethical system demands that my buddy exit the water with me, period.
What surprises me the most in this thread is that the scenario was intended to place a diver in the moment that every professional rescuer is told that he or she may face - that moment when you realize that you cannot save the victim.
... a doctor giving CPR in a remote area who becomes too exhausted to continue.
... a firefighter trying to pull a victim from the flames who sees an explosive substance is about to become ignited.
... a lifeguard who is being driven into rocks by pounding surf and finds himself too exhausted and battered to maintain the rescue.
I expected more people to see the scenario as this moment and know that trying to save the victim would be futile and revert back to their rescue training. Throughout my career, I've had to reassess my abilities as a pro lifeguard and as a professional dive educator with a duty to act in an emergency to re-establish my limits. How far can I swim? How fast can I swim over various distances? Could I do it alone? Should I have help? As age and injury take their toll, despite running, lifting and swimming, I become more aware of my limitations. I have to be aware of these limitations because, as a professional, I have a responsibility to know - for those who may need my help, for my family and myself. For myself and my family, I have the responsibility to know when to quit a rescue.
This thread has enlightened me to the fact that the amateurs who learn diver rescue, may not be taught thoroughly enough to put their safety in the same regard as professionals. That may be worth exploring if the industry does some accident analysis of double drownings at the cave, technical and recreational levels. I happen to be in a position to look into it and encourage such analysis among training agencies. Rescuers who take lots of rescue classes have the emphasis on their safety repeated and reinforced over and over. But, sport divers may only have one opportunity to hear about it during a rescue course.
For me the commitment that I make to buddy with someone is very different than the somewhat more cold and calculating duty I take on in a lifeguarding or rescue situation.
Trace, I believe that acting as a member of a Buddy Team and acting in the capacity of a Lifeguard are dissimilar. As a buddy, you have made a personal commitment. You know your buddy, they may be a family member, or a good friend. In other words, you have a personal connection. As a Lifeguard, you have a professional responsibility, not usually a personal one. It is far easier to be detached when you don't know the individual.
In your scenario, the diver estimates that there is only enough gas for one diver (most likely based on normal circumstances). An emergency situation is hardly normal. Two divers properly disciplined may be able to get to the staged bottles. Estimating is not knowing.
As a lifeguard I would hope you would not give up on a rescue because you estimated that you couldn't do it. The Guard should try up until the time that they came to the point where they knew it wasn't going to work and had to save themselves. Seldom the conditions are such that they wouldn't even make an attempt.
Your initial question was one relatively short sentence followed by a "What would you do?" Much was left to personal interpretation and to me at least, it didn't convey the "times up, it's a no go and time to make a decision" time. Obviously I misread your intent.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Many of us believe in things that are not proven. In Science it may be the difference between a law and a theory.
Most non-scientists do not understand the difference between a law and a theory and fail to comprehend that "theory" has at least two, contradictory, definitions. In the first case, the one used by scientists, it is, "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another," while in the last case, the one used by the 40%ers it is, "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation or an unproved assumption." This juxtaposition is most unfortunate and creates far more smoke than heat.
When you add to that the statement, "evolution is both a theory and a fact," which is often seen in biological literature you can make quite a mess. The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time. This is kown to have occurred, is proven and thus should be elevated to a "law." The "theory" of evolution actually just refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific explanation of the forces behind these changes in the genetic material. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution. They are so much claptrap.
Most of us believe in gravity; yet it is not a scientific law, only theory. Perhaps the Scientists may wish to weigh in on this...
While there busy with trying to recall Einstein's mathematical tensors, they can explain why gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter doesn't, or why the theory of gravity contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
There are many things that we don't know and may never know as a species. Perhaps we should use more time understanding the word "humble." :mooner:
The distinction between fact and theory is not limited to the study of evolution. The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, while there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. I am unaware of anyway in which either evolution or gravity run counter to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
As to humility ... there is little more humbling than an awareness of one's place in the cosmos, and little more egotistical than a belief, with no evidence, that you were created by an all knowing, all powerful entity; in that entity's image; and that said entity takes time off from keeping the universe running to indulge a personal interest in each and every one of our views on gay marriage with an eye to providing individualized and appropriate eternal rewards and punishment. Talk about hubris!
