Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: "Atheism: A personal relationship with reality." [View all]tama
(9,137 posts)126. Flashes of light
The gamma rays were detected by placing a scintillator material in a tank of water. The scintillator material gives off flashes of light in response to the gamma rays and the light flashes are detected by photomultiplier tubes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment
So, you believe in neutrinos because of hearsay (visual reading or auditory listening, to be more exact) of scientists first predicting neutrinos based on some at that time anomalous sensual data and it's theory dependent interpretation (Pauli) and then other scientists (Reines) creating experiment to gather other sensual (visual) data of the phenomenon/observable, and because as far as you know, subsequent tests have not falsified the theory. Technological extensions of five external senses do not exclude the senses, they are just extensions giving data that is perceived with human senses.
Your belief in ontological, epistemic, informational or other sort of realism, anti-realism or something between of neutrinos then depends from your more general metaphysical/philosophicla belief system or world view, which you have not so far stated.
That's my best guess why you believe in neutrinos, leaving open the question how you believe.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
157 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Here's the Billboard: Being positive won't make any difference, the radical theists will be outraged
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#1
Passive-aggressive, rancorous posts are OK when you make them for GAWD.
2ndAmForComputers
Feb 2013
#112
The same way you can have a personal relationship with someone who may or may not have lived...
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#4
Reality is more than human beings. Everyone has personal relationships with people.
rug
Jan 2013
#10
If you cannot see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it - then it doesn't exist. Now that's
humblebum
Jan 2013
#34
It can also be reasoned that there is a high certainty that God is real. In any case,
humblebum
Feb 2013
#67
Well. if you insist on being technical, then I will change the term "proof" to "evidence."
humblebum
Feb 2013
#69
"However, there is plenty of subjective evidence to suggest the existence of God. "
gcomeau
Feb 2013
#73
Your argument, I believe, was for any evidence for the existence of God. One could use
humblebum
Feb 2013
#74
Actually, they are arguments, but they are not arguments that you accept. And yes, we are discussing
humblebum
Feb 2013
#78
You and I both know that these arguments can never be won. But you are more than welcome
humblebum
Feb 2013
#81
Actually people like me realize that subjective evidence very much exists and we also realize
humblebum
Feb 2013
#87
"evaluating evidence in a supernatural framework is an impossibility" - well, considering your
humblebum
Feb 2013
#94
Yes, you did mention that there is a difference between proof and evidence, but you failed to
humblebum
Feb 2013
#100
No one is debating your methodology and it is very straight forward. What is being debated now
humblebum
Feb 2013
#109
I still say you don't know everything about evaluating evidence. And I have dodged nothing.
humblebum
Feb 2013
#111
You have received very sufficient explanations of methodologies used to determine
humblebum
Feb 2013
#144
"...the universe looks exactly as it does as if there were no God." Really? And
humblebum
Feb 2013
#157
Probably because after the existence of neutrinos was first postulated, evidence for
humblebum
Feb 2013
#114
So are you saying that the existence of neutrinos was not empirically proven
humblebum
Feb 2013
#118
It's more as if you are decreeing that you do not believe in the evidence of neutrinos,
humblebum
Feb 2013
#124
I never said that you could see gravity or taste an electromagnetic field, nor implied such,
humblebum
Feb 2013
#127
"scientists were able to predict the existence of black holes" - so then they did not observe data,
humblebum
Feb 2013
#141
So you have now plainly stated that empiricism (or logical empiricism) were not used
humblebum
Feb 2013
#150
"including those which do not rely on direct observation." - so who is talking about
humblebum
Feb 2013
#151
That was beautifully put. I too feel that human experience is much more complex than
humblebum
Feb 2013
#154
I can't understand why something someone (atheists) don't believe in upsets them so much. There must
demosincebirth
Jan 2013
#51
Deepens? I watched Prop. 8 pass, watched gays and lesbians lose their civil rights...
Moonwalk
Feb 2013
#132