Member baru? Bingung? Perlu bantuan? Silakan baca panduan singkat untuk ikut berdiskusi.

Selamat datang, Pengunjung. Silahkan masuk atau mendaftar. Apakah anda lupa aktivasi email?

Desember 07, 2021, 06:50:31 AM

Masuk dengan nama pengguna, kata sandi dan lama sesi

Topik Baru

Artikel Sains

Anggota
Stats
  • Total Tulisan: 139668
  • Total Topik: 10408
  • Online Today: 54
  • Online Ever: 441
  • (Desember 18, 2011, 12:48:51 AM)
Pengguna Online
Users: 0
Guests: 30
Total: 30

Ikuti ForSa

ForSa on FB ForSa on Twitter

Penulis Topik: Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains  (Dibaca 10928 kali)

0 Anggota dan 1 Pengunjung sedang melihat topik ini.

Offline mhyworld

  • Profesor
  • *****
  • Tulisan: 1.503
  • IQ: 50
  • Gender: Pria
  • .start with the end in mind.
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #15 pada: Oktober 04, 2012, 12:59:16 PM »
...
saya ingin tahu, apakah jelek itu kebalikan dari cantik? atau keadaan dimana cantik tidak ada?
IMO, jelek itu kebalikan dari cantik, karena tidak ada nilai mutlak untuk sifat tersebut. Hal serupa juga dijumpai dalam pasangan kata baik-jahat, kaya-miskin, sehat-sakit, dll.
Ini berbeda dengan suhu dan intensitas cahaya yang dibicarakan dalam cerita di atas. Pasangan kata lain dalam kategori ini antara lain berat-ringan, panjang-pendek, besar-kecil.
once we have eternity, everything else can wait

Offline IndoManiak

  • Mahasiswa
  • **
  • Tulisan: 14
  • IQ: 1
  • http://worldpeace8281.blogspot.com/
    • WorldPeace8281
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #16 pada: Oktober 05, 2012, 12:18:15 PM »
ehm ehm, kok hasil klarifikasinya belum diterjemahin ya :-*

Kutip
Einstein Proves God Exists

In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.

Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)

Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.

Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God.

(Note: None of what follows is intended to disprove the existence of God, nor suffices to do so.)

Specious logic

The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)

The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.

So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.

The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.

Defining evil

Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.

The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.

You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.

Augustine's theodicy

Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.

Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

Einstein and religion

From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.

"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
sudikiranya Anda sekalian mampir ke blog saya ini: worldpeace8281.blogspot.com

jangan lupa untuk beri komentar pada topik2 yang ada disana ya

trima kasih

Offline ytridyrevsielixetuls

  • To Kick Out Fake Critical Thinkers!
  • Global Moderator
  • Profesor
  • *****
  • Tulisan: 687
  • IQ: 219
  • Gender: Pria
  • ▄▄█▀▀█▄▄█▀▀█▄▄█▀▀█▄▄
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #17 pada: Oktober 06, 2012, 12:05:43 PM »
Kutip
- Dingin itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah ketiadaan panas.
- Gelap itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah ketiadaan cahaya.
- kematian itu tidak ada, Itu hanyalah ketiadaan kehidupan.
- Kejahatan itu tidak ada, Itu hanyalah ketiadaan kebaikan.

dari versi kontra atheisme atau pro theisme, pihak theis mengatakan bahwa tidak ada kejahatan. yang ada hanyalah ketiadaan dari kebaikan. bukankah ini setara dengan cantik-jelek ? dimana ukurannya adalah subjektif.

lantas di dalam cerita versi theis tsb, bagaimana mungkin jahat-baik bisa dianalogikan/disetarakan dengan dingin-panas ?

adakah barometer kebaikan? ketika seseorang berbuat sesuatu, sebagian orang menganggapnya jahat, baik, atau netral.

logical fallacy detected
     -/"|           -/"|           -/"|
<(O)}D     <(O)}D     <(O)}D
     -\_|          -\_|           -\_|

Offline IndoManiak

  • Mahasiswa
  • **
  • Tulisan: 14
  • IQ: 1
  • http://worldpeace8281.blogspot.com/
    • WorldPeace8281
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #18 pada: Oktober 15, 2012, 12:37:17 AM »
sial banget sih :'( kok belum ada yg nerjemahin hasil klarifikasinya :'(

Kutip
Einstein Proves God Exists

In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.

Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)

Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.

Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God.

(Note: None of what follows is intended to disprove the existence of God, nor suffices to do so.)

Specious logic

The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)

The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.

So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.

The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.

Defining evil

Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.

The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.

You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.

Augustine's theodicy

Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.

Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

Einstein and religion

From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.

"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."

Offline Dhantez

  • Dosen
  • ****
  • Tulisan: 281
  • IQ: 10
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #19 pada: Oktober 21, 2012, 03:36:32 AM »
Highlight dari klarifikasi itu adalah:

Lawan kata: panas (hot) & dingin (cold), cahaya (light) & gelap (dark)
Panas merupakan energi, sehingga panas adalah kata benda (noun, n). Sementara, dingin adalah kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan tingkat ketiadaan energi panas.
Begitu juga dengan cahaya (light) adalah energi, jd berupa kata benda. Oleh krn itu, gelap merupakan sebuah kondisi (adj) yang menggambarkan ketiadaan benda berupa cahaya tadi.

Beberapa org berargumen, jika Tuhan mahabaik kenapa Dia menciptakan kejahatan (evil) di dunia ini?

Argumen balasannya adalah: Tuhan tidak menciptakan kejahatan. Tuhan hanya menciptakan kebaikan dalam diri manusia. Hanya saja, Tuhan memberikan kebebasan pada diri manusia. Sejalan dg pola pikir di atas, kejahatan adl kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan kondisi tingkat ketiadaan kebaikan (noun) dalam diri manusia - karena pilihan/kehendak manusia itu sendiri.

Itu adl terjemahan intisari artikel klarifikasi pd posting sebelumnya.
Oba-chan ga itte ita: Ore wa ten no michi wo iki, subete wo tsukasadoru otoko

Offline IndoManiak

  • Mahasiswa
  • **
  • Tulisan: 14
  • IQ: 1
  • http://worldpeace8281.blogspot.com/
    • WorldPeace8281
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #20 pada: Oktober 23, 2012, 08:38:59 AM »
Highlight dari klarifikasi itu adalah:

Lawan kata: panas (hot) & dingin (cold), cahaya (light) & gelap (dark)
Panas merupakan energi, sehingga panas adalah kata benda (noun, n). Sementara, dingin adalah kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan tingkat ketiadaan energi panas.
Begitu juga dengan cahaya (light) adalah energi, jd berupa kata benda. Oleh krn itu, gelap merupakan sebuah kondisi (adj) yang menggambarkan ketiadaan benda berupa cahaya tadi.

Beberapa org berargumen, jika Tuhan mahabaik kenapa Dia menciptakan kejahatan (evil) di dunia ini?

Argumen balasannya adalah: Tuhan tidak menciptakan kejahatan. Tuhan hanya menciptakan kebaikan dalam diri manusia. Hanya saja, Tuhan memberikan kebebasan pada diri manusia. Sejalan dg pola pikir di atas, kejahatan adl kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan kondisi tingkat ketiadaan kebaikan (noun) dalam diri manusia - karena pilihan/kehendak manusia itu sendiri.

Itu adl terjemahan intisari artikel klarifikasi pd posting sebelumnya.

kok cmn Highlightnya sih :( saya maunya kan semuanya dijelasin :(

Offline Pi-One

  • Next Hikaru Genji
  • Profesor
  • *****
  • Tulisan: 6.981
  • IQ: 40
  • Gender: Pria
  • Next Hikaru Genji
    • Membantah Hoax
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #21 pada: Oktober 27, 2012, 11:19:50 AM »
Intinya:
Artile yang disodorkan di awal adalah urband legend ngawur, baik dari segi cerita (Einsten gak mungkin bicara macam itu, karena dia agnosti) dan kesalahan logika dingin sebagai ketiadaan panas atau gelap sebagai ketiadaan terang).

Offline IndoManiak

  • Mahasiswa
  • **
  • Tulisan: 14
  • IQ: 1
  • http://worldpeace8281.blogspot.com/
    • WorldPeace8281
Re:Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains
« Jawab #22 pada: November 01, 2012, 10:03:02 AM »
Intinya:
Artile yang disodorkan di awal adalah urband legend ngawur, baik dari segi cerita (Einsten gak mungkin bicara macam itu, karena dia agnosti) dan kesalahan logika dingin sebagai ketiadaan panas atau gelap sebagai ketiadaan terang).
kok "intinya" sih :( disertai penjelasan lengkap dr terjemahannya donk biar jelas :(

 

Related Topics

  Subyek / Dimulai oleh Jawaban Tulisan terakhir
SUSU - penjelasan dan rasionalisasi

Dimulai oleh jesuisnoel « 1 2 3 » Kesehatan

39 Jawaban
40885 Dilihat
Tulisan terakhir Januari 04, 2012, 06:53:42 AM
oleh Astrawinata G
21 Jawaban
11272 Dilihat
Tulisan terakhir Januari 20, 2011, 02:24:15 AM
oleh maula
2 Jawaban
4054 Dilihat
Tulisan terakhir Februari 13, 2012, 09:59:42 PM
oleh borisnegara
0 Jawaban
2434 Dilihat
Tulisan terakhir Maret 16, 2014, 12:54:58 PM
oleh supraba
1 Jawaban
152563 Dilihat
Tulisan terakhir Mei 05, 2016, 02:49:13 AM
oleh dimensidata