Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Never said that it was, it also doesn’t mean that in part both science and religion may be reconcilable, btw what is the quality of extraordinary evidence, evidence is just evidence.
There is conflation going on of the institutions of the scientific community and Science. They are different things.
The institutions and social processes are not the science.
The can be said of many religions (though some religions specifically weld the institutions into the religion itself).
Arguments about how the scientific community works is irrelevant to how science works and the rules by which it is assessed.
It may take time before better science wins out over worse science but the methods by which they are judged are relatively clear.
That is a fundamental difference between most religion and science.
Very well articulated.
There are way too many spurious arguments in this thread (and I’m not talking about assertions of the existence of supernatural entities), and it’s not helped by lack of recognition that the beliefs of individuals is separate from broadly accepted best-fit theories or well-researched evidence.
I’d agree with all you state, except about how you state the irrelevance about how the scientific community operates, science requires that fellow peers review findings, if a large section of the community has been sidelined and some even compromised through petty gain in one form or another, this could cloud the judgement of any findings. But I would agree ‘truth’ with the procession of time usually becomes apparent.
You are conflating the social processes by which science is evaluated and what it means for science to be valid.
Never heard about that ? That's weird .. It's widely accepted golden rule in science.. literally everybody knows it - and accepts it.
Let me give you example
1/
You observe bees as they are leaving nest .. you notice that 70% of them are leaving to left and just 30% to right .. then you observe 10 more nests and you get same result .. you realize that all of them are pointing to north, so you find 10 more pointing to south - and you find that there it is exact opposite, 70% of them are leaving to right and just 30% to left.
So your theory is that direction in which bee exits nest is given by nest orientation in north-south direction.
This is your theory, your proof is collection of measurements you did. Other scientists can validate your theory by observing and measuring another nests - if they get same result your theory is confirmed and accepted.
That's all. It's unlikely your theory will go through massive scrutiny, cause it is just something with minor impact and probably nobody before you was observing something similar, so there is no other theory which may explain this phenomenon differently. Your proof is OK, not likely somebody will ask another 10000 nests to be checked to really prove that theory is valid. Just 10 of every kind is OK for now. Evidence is needed, but not super strong evidence.
2/
Now different story. You developed new theory which contradicts special theory of relativity and states that matter can move faster than light.
This would be MAJOR twist in our current knowledge, it would go against one of most experimentally validated theories ever existed. So be ready for global shitstorm magnitude of 11 on the scale 1 - 10. Be sure your proof is really EXTRAORDINARY solid and bulletproof, easy to reproducible by anybody on the planet, and that there is no chance somebody finds some mistake in your method of proving your new theory is correct. Also be sure that rest of scientists will demand that your theory has to explain why all other previous experiments and measurement were indicating something other, your theory must explain WHAT they did wrong.
This is called extraordinaroy proof for extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim is the on with potential to shake all previous knowledge basis and even break whole part of science apart.
Indeed. Peer review does not mean that religious objections to evidence are considered - it means that methodologies are reviewed, and that results are proven to be repeatable, and in general that the approach to gathering evidence and the soundness of the conclusions is reasonable.
I’m not conflating this. One is the methodology the other the outcome, if the methodology is incorrect, logically the outcome would more than likely be incorrect. They are both inextricably linked.
Religious objections to evidence - where on earth did you get that from.
Yes. The quality of argument from some of the participants here is shockingly low and does not do much to help their cause. I think I'm pretty much done with this thead. It's very unlikely you'll change the mind of anyone with discussion like this on a forum. Bit of a waste of time for all involved really. Don't know about the rest of you, but I feel I've got better things to do. It was quite an interesting discussion when it started but has gone badly downhill.
It’s a comment on @espiegel123 ’s post on how science is evaluated.
Do you not agree and believe that no one has ever raised a religious objection to scientific evidence?
Quite an arrogant statement, laden with opinion, especially pointing out it’s a waste of your own time, by wasting the time in doing so, that doesn’t seem logical at all.
Yep, it is a bit arrogant. Apologies for that, but I felt it needed to be said, and yes, I am passing judgement. But now I'm out.
I don’t see the relevance as to scientific methodology, but I did provide you with data regarding people’s beliefs a few posts ago regarding the Eurobarometer study.
Can’t resist posting this: Tim Michin’s beat poem on Science vs. Not Science.
“Science adjusts its view based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
Not saying anyone here is saying that, it’s just a cool song/poem/animation.
At least you had the common decency to do so, that I do respect.
There’s a lot of thing in this thread that you choose not to see.
I did check your source and that 20% is for confirmed atheism. Looking more closely, it appears that the same source classifies the UK as “Relative non-religious majority”. Cherry picking results doesn’t look good on anyone when they’re using it to support an argument.
Anyway, I’m going to take a leaf out of @Gavinski ’s book, as I agree with him that the quality of the arguments is shockingly low here.
Have the last word if you want (I’m sure you will); I’m heading back to the 21st century.
Look back in the thread at the claim made, not by me, which was that belief in a god, creator, religion in Europe was dying, I argued that presumption wasn’t strictly true, look for that post, please, it doesn’t mention solely in respect to the UK, that is your inference and that is cherry picking. Just because people don’t practice a prescribed regimen of religion, doesn’t mean they don’t believe in something akin to a creator. That’s what the data for Europe inferred, not myself, the data.
I feel like we all should stop here, this discussion went off the road .. Just 3 steps back, deep breath. It’s not worth arguing. Let’s go back to music apps and make some music ..
🤐
To answer the original question from 6 years ago:
https://on.soundcloud.com/zv7Hq7NZ7otMKPgv6
What's sad is this thread was resurrected ( 😏 ) and everyone was simply stating their beliefs, personal objections, and we were getting on just fine. Then it went off the deep end. Thought we were better than this, but ah well. People will be people at the end of the day.
Anyways, back to music, the lot of you! 😤 Because I said so! 😂 (These last two sentences are meant to be silly.)
These are just personal observations…
A lot of people “followed the science” on a current event…and now are starting to regret that decision. A lot of science that we were almost forced to follow wasn’t science at all…it was more like dogshit…worthless. Just saying.
It appears there is real science and narrative science now…. Narrative science likes to push down any fact driven evidence and just be science without it, to say it’s science…kinda like a shite boss…who likes to tout themselves a boss, but can’t and don’t do work…it’s a badge to be impressive.
Most big scientific theories are exactly that…theories….not fact at all.
I don’t follow humans, for they were also born defenseless and nude just as I was…I see them as equals…never as my leaders. No man has jurisdiction over me…. I kinda see myself as a rattlesnake…I’ll warn you, I’ll try to turn you around, but if you keep coming at me, I’ll strike …you get what you deserve. Respect me and I respect you.
I don’t find science to be more reliable than my belief system, and science has never helped me through a whole lot in life. I won’t knock all things scientific, because humans have accidentally and sometimes on purpose invented some useful things. I do love the creativity of people.
Excersize:
I could walk up to any crowd and say I believe in any diety or god and nobody would be angry, or standoffish….unless it was Jesus/Yeshua…oh then prepare for battle…because the humans get so triggered. I Wonder why that particular choice has so much adversity? I’ve experimented plenty of times with this…and more times than not it’s exactly what happens.
So much hate for so much love…weird
Summary:
What you all choose as your belief system, doesn’t apply to me…so I have no beef with it. I don’t have to pay any price for you being right, or for you being wrong. So it literally matters to me none. I have friends from all walks of life and all belief systems…even atheists who believe nothing. What I believe in shouldn’t matter to you at all, unless you are interested in it and ask me about it, and then it’s no problem to explain it.
i do not wanted to continue here but it's not possible. When i see missinformations or missunderstanding of done well degined terms i need to react. Simly can't help myself, i must educate people when i see lack of knowledge 🤣
well, people don't "follow" science.. you can understand science or you can not understand science but "following" science makes no sense.. i do not understand all science there are areas where i have no clue. My main area of interest is particle physics and cosmology, if you have any question in this area i can try explain you what you're interested in.
Scientific theory is not " just theory". It's very serious thing. Thank to those theories you have your computer or phone or ipad which you use to read this text.
You may learn more on link bellow. Just main definition what is "theory" in science, it's something different than people use in common talk.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Basically everything you have in your life you have thanks to science. It is helping you literally every day.
This statement is extremely disrespectful to all scientists who made possible to exists all things you have around your - you should really reconsider it.
Did you ever took any meds which helped you ? You should thank science. Look at all your music gear. At your car. At your microwave owen or washmachine or TV. Do you have aircondition ? Do you live in house with heating during winter ?
I have surprise for you. Say “thanks” to scientists who made it possible. Only thing where faith or spirituality really helps - that cannot be denied - is what is inside your head - your mental state and how you feel every day (even that not always, sometimes science must step in and help too there). Rest of things you have around you - you have them only thanks to science.
Reason why you don’t live like animal, eating just what you find on trees with average lifespan 20-30 years just waiting that you become prey, but in advanced civilisation with all advantages like healthcare, electronics, quality food and clean drinking water is only and only science.
Note that this type of reaction you get usually from other religious people who's believe in other deity .. It's sad but actually religious people are the ones who are fighting each other becasue of belief, in some kind atheists are actually much more tolerant to faith than religious people lol. Except of communists (which is a kind of religion too lol) never saw some atheist group trying to erradicate some other group of people just because they believe in some god. All religions war were always one religion agains other religion, not atheists agains religion.
Sadly, it can't be said in opposite, atheists were persecuted by religious people for millenia, and they still are in some parts of world.
Funny thing is - there is over 6000 religions in existence. If you belive in some of them, you are basically "atheist" for menbers of all other 5999. So i always say, religious people are just very tiny bit less atheists than full blown atheists. like chance 1:6000 i am wrong vs. chance 1:5999 i am wrong
Beautigul, i have to remember this.
That statement is utter twaddle. Otherwise scientists with faith would be an impossibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
doing science and believing it god are 2 completely separated things… when you do science you apply just scienrific methods..
note that i am still tslking about real full blown science , not philosophy.
Science is the study of nature, it’s all encompassing, that’s what quite a few people believe is creation, and a creation well possibly needs a creator.
The device you composed your text on, needed a creator too.
Why do you denigrate philosophy, is it because of the hard question ‘consciousness’, perhaps.
I don't denigrate philosophy, it's just that it is special case in "science" category, cause it is often on the boundary between science and religion / spirituality .. or to say it in different way - philosopher often applies spiritual and religious frameworks for his philosophic thoughts .. so it is not exactly "science" in terms of using scientific methods which i described above .. i do not mean it in wrong way..
But you probably (i hope you do) see difference between what philosopher is doing, and what people in CERN with LHC are doing :-)
Personally i am not interested in philosophy, as i mentioned i specify on physics, particle physics, quantum physics / relativity and cosmology - those are things which make sense to me, where i can apply scientific method and analytic thinking, where it at some extend understand what's going on.
That's completely ok to believe in creation and creator of universe. But it has nothing to do with scientific approach when explaining nature phenomenons. You do not write into scientific paper "there is storm because god decide to punish people" .. no you describe physical processes which caused storm to form.
Even if scientist is working on theory which is related to how our universe was created (big bang, cyclic universe, or whatever existing theory of how universe started) doesn't apply god directly in that theory, because if he do, in that moment his theory is not scientific anymore, but religious, or at best philosophical. Again don't take it as something wrong - just trying to explain what is clean boundary between science and religion.
God is not subject of science, science is not trying to analyse, describe or even disprove existence of god. Scientist may easily be person of faith, visiting church every day. But still when it comes to his work - scientific papers about aby subject - he doesn't directly apply dogmas from religion.
As scientist, i do not care about things which are outside of science (eg. god or supernatural things in general), cause science cannot define/describe/explore/disprove them.
Again.. when i return back to beginning, to the statement
"Science adjusts its view based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
When you are doing science, you always adjust your opinion based on what you observed (or calculated), ready to admit you were wrong.
Regarding faith, you ignore what you observe, you just hold on of your faith - hence it is called faith. That's completely ok. If you are believer, that is point of faith - to believe without need of proof, if you have proof you doesn't need to believe cause you know.
But as soon as you start doing science, even through, in terms of faith, you are applying approach "do not question, just believe", in science you must apply approach "question everything, validate facts, change opionions if observations (or math result) forced you to do it. Throw away old opinion if new evidences points that things are different."
Nothing about the quote is at odds with scientists of faith except to the extent that one’s faith denies the legitimacy of repeatedly and systematically observed events.
Lots and lots of scientists consider themselves people of faith —without feeling the need to deny observed reality. They (as most people ) view religious texts as being largely metaphorical rather than literal).