I'm still not fully getting this. I can see two ways in which this might make sense, both of which seem doubtful to me:

1. Humans have an intuitive, tacit understanding of advanced physics which manifests itself in art and mythology. Hence, art and mythology end up 'looking a bit like' various scientific theories.

2. Scientific progress has been subconsciously guided by our art and mythology, so our theories of physics end up 'looking a bit like' the art and mythology that inform our worldview.

The first one seems doubtful biologically i.e. how could such a thing be selected for in evolutionary terms, and the second seems doubtful because it implies that our theories could have ended up wildly different if we had different art/mythology, which is a bit postmodern for my taste.

Is this anything like the point he's trying to make?

Actually larger families tended to send one child into the religious orders (at least in the upper classes of the social structure) so the pressure on children was also to keep the church well stocked with new blood (very important in a religion like Christianity which practices abstinence within its order).
In addition its a numbers game - religious power is directly linked to the number of people you have under your control. Have lots you have lots of power and influence; have few and you lose that control.

What I mean is that he is seeing patterns in the religion/arts literature that he is attributing to his higher level physics because of the link in the basic connections between the two subjects; however the links he is making might well be false connections and the result more of his desire for there to be a linkage rather than there actually being one by original design.

Really? And how do you know that gravity is the first one to emerge? Why gravity and not nuclear strong and weak force considering the elements which appeared after the big bang? Why not electromagnetism considering the amounts of radio-nuclear energy emitted?

See, with one simple thing the author made me ignore his whole book.

Also, what is all this talk about religion in The Divine Comedy, especially in Inferno? Hell/the afterlife was chosen especially to make social critic about the state of affairs in that time in Italy and the Christian/Catholic world, and so do all the characters in the book.

But remember a lot of science, whilst based on imperical data and fact, is also based upon theories (especially once you hit the areas of physics like Big Bang theory where we have only data via proxy, and even that is via even more proxies). Theories are ideas that are put together based on experience and influences upon the person as well as linking those to facts/evidence that the person considers relevant to the event that is trying to be explained. As a result the social experiences and constructs around that person as the grew up will have a profound (if subconscious) effect on how that person views the world and its workings, and thus also upon the likely theories that that person is going to suggest (and thus test for).

Thank you :3 Don’t worry though, it won’t. After staying here for several days I already expected this ratio of mixed reactions. But among ten ignoramuses there might be one enthusiasts and a conversation with this person can be worth the bleating (no offense to any sheeps present) of the rest.

Argh, damnit, I messed up the multi quotes. This is actually overread’s text. Fuck this board’s system, why is there no preview xD ?

It goes in that direction. He states that he doesn’t know the exact reasons for some of the analogies (they are there nevertheless) but look at it this way: Why is light associated with good and dark with bad? Why are gods living above us and demons etc. below us in most mythologies? I don’t think that this is something that had to be selected by evolution but something that influenced us passively. We are talking about our minds here after all and science isn’t that far (yet) in terms of its evolutionary genesis.
Perhaps you have to keep the following in mind as well: Since e=mc² there is no fundamental difference between matter and energy and if you take a look at the EPR experiment you can come to the conclusion that everything is one. So since we are part of the universe and subjects to its laws there might be a seemingly noncausal relation (synchronicity) that we do not understand.

Ah, alright. Well, of course this is possible but again, the evidence (I’d write “Belege” but there seems to be no equivalent in English) he provides is impressive.

The latter part is not actually true. That is in fact a strawman. The truth is most if not all atheists simply do not believe God does not exist. Not having a belief is not itself a belief. It is by tautology the absence of a belief. There are many things that I as an atheist believe in and that is not one of them.

Many atheists reject the term atheist precisely because it does not in fact represent what they do believe in unlike theists which does invoke some sort belief. And saying what you don't believe in is not as good a descriptor as what you do believe in. Hence the term Humanist. Me? I don't really care what I'm called in that respect. Labels are labels and whatever someone wants to label you as and make it dirty, they will do regardless of what you put forward.

This is all very well and good also remembering that organized religion adheres to dogma far more than science and doesn't like when science appears to contradict the literal interpretation of that dogma.

That said many important scientists even in fields like evolutionary biology are still religious. So I agree with overall idea that there is no conflict between religion and science. Do you know why? Because science is the pinnacle of atheism.

Sound like a contradiction? Not at all. For when you simply carry no belief over the existence of a supernatural deity, or deities for those of you who are polytheists, then you make no assumptions based on it nor arguments against it. Belief are just model assumptions where the model invokes a supernatural (but I'll use the terms interchangeably). The supernatural, by definition, is something that exists outside of the natural realm and is thus untouchable by science. Science can never prove nor disprove it's existence. Science is thus also the ultimate agnostic. Therefore for someone who is religious science can always simply be the instrument by which one studies the universe whose rules and foundations were laid by whatever spiritual process they believe in. For an atheist the rules and foundations of the natural world are the philosophical limit. Faith of the supernatural requires assumptions that fall outside of the natural realm. Thus an atheist cannot have them just as science cannot have them.

You've yet to discover statistics and politics ;)

Remember different statistical models will give a very big difference to the "meaning" and interpretation of data; and these models are in a constant state of flux as to which are "popular" and which are "unpopular"

In addition science is done by people, and as such is flawed in that scientific study also has politics. Both the politics of the countries supporting/funding the science; but also the politics within science itself. Popularity of one over another as well as the position (eg a Doctor over an intern student) can very well result in some theories (for all their actual fact and content) never seeing the light of day. In addition you have dogma and personal pride. People hate being shown that they were wrong, and when this also affects your pension and job it gives you even more reason to find small flaws or outright decry another scientists theory - again the actual facts are irrelevant.
Of course this only goes so far, since otherwise science might never move forward; but it can slow things down and, in the worst of cases, also destroy valid data and theories (that can often remain in such a state for many generations until revised again).

Of course which is why the scientific method exists and findings are peer reviewed - often times by people who vehemently disagree with you! Science is an extremely intellectually contentious field, which makes it all the more amazing that people think scientists suffer from group think. While we are still human and thus prone to all the fallacies of humans, it is the group you will least likely be able to get to agree on anything scientifically related unless the evidence is just too overwhelming or literally no one can think of an alternative explanation. :)
This actually happens far less than you might think. Scientists make careers on invalidating their peers work, not validating it. However, that said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are going to overturn the field, then you better have the evidence to back it up.

And of course people defend their own theories to death - everyone wants to be right and that in fact pushes science faster not slower. Because the fact that something novel is going to get pushed back ensures that the researcher must push themselves harder to get the evidence to back themselves up and the more accumulated evidence the stronger the support for hypothesis becomes. The faster that happens the faster the hypothesis becomes a theory for some young buck in the future to tear down.

True, but they also fight within their contemporaries as well to find out who beats their peers work. In the end of course there is the advance of science itself, but I feel that the problem is worth highlighting in a field where the study is performed by the very few and also where its theories are very thin due to the constant lack of data (thus new data or even extensions of the amount of existing data groups leads to new theories - either twisting original ones or totally new ideas).

And yet this is not fail-safe.

And see, with one simple thing you made me ignore you. No, just kidding, you get a second chance :> Obviously I didn’t know this either before reading this book. It’s bleeding edge physics after all. According to the most current theories gravity was the first force to emerge at a temperature of 10^32 K and 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The strong force came after that and finally the weak and electromagnetic force emerged last.

Who said anything about religion?

But it’s not a scientific paper only meant for peers. It is explained very well :<>

Both yes and no - if X is a professor whilst ABand C are students then X's theory might well carry over because ABand C lack the ability/influence to push their results into the community (or gain sufficient light to have the theory accepted by the majority). Furthermore even if ABC and X are all of similar experiences within the field its not simply a case of ABC having more similar results to each other over X - its also the models they use themselves to come to those conclusions which can also be the basis that X's theory is taken over ABC.

As I said in general this is not the case, otherwise science would not move forward, but its something that is part of the scientific process in itself and can't be fully ignored.

So what of this wall of text is actually yours? Try to shorten your quotations to only the parts you actually reply to. Oh and write AFTER the closing [/quote] tag.

Which field is this that suffers from a constant lack of data? My own, evolutionary biology, in some ways suffers from the opposite. Sequencing costs and time are going down far faster than Moore's law. We have so much of it and so many people working in it, it's actually extremely difficult to keep pace. Hence the popularity of review articles (in most fields) to try to collate arguments together into a single package.

Is the peer review process perfect? Hell no. But no model is perfect either. Scientists just trudge along holding up better and better fun-house mirrors to nature and trying in-artfully to describe what they see either by elegant formulae or crude categorization.

I think that was the whole point.