[QUOTE=Brynn]Well, you can find dogmatic aspects in science - it definitely is based on some theories believe to be absolute true, isn't it? Every thesis is proved by axioms accepted as "true".[/QUOTE]
No, there are no theories considered absolutely true. The concept of an axiom is a mathematical one, not a scientific one; there are no axioms in science as nothing is accepted as true with no prior experimentation.
Science the end all and be all
*shrugs* Unless I'm sorely mistaken it was before written history started. Who can say when it actually started? When a human being formed the thought that a higher, supernatural, power defined, ruled and/or created a specific event, held onto said thought and spread it to others?frogus23 wrote:That's been my point. I believe the origins of religion led to the origins of science.
Is this really your point?
In that case, what are the origins of religion?
I'll quote myself...Vicsun wrote:I sincerely doubt you can disprove scientific theories without extensive training in the field.
You've delved into science, head first. Most of the explinations you could give me on the subjects you deal with would seem like gibberish to me. Why, I haven't the experience or knowledge you do. The reverse would be the same.
I don't have training, yet, you don't NEED training in something to be able to look at certain (not all) things and say "that's a load of crap". If I said "Huzzub the midget with a peg-leg broke the speed of light by tumbling downhill at a velocity of 2234903024590 miles/hour", what would your reaction be? Would you analyze it and say "No, the pegleg would create too much drag for a such a speed"? No, you'd discount it as false and move on.
I work on the principle if logic decrees something blatantly false, I discount it. If what I hold in my head can absolutely prove something false, I discount it. If I require the help of someone more knowledgable than me on a subject, and they can prove it false, I discount it. I'm apt to change my mind if evidence is provided that rules out a prior decision. Thats just common sense to do so.
I'm being vague for a reason. I had one, simple, general point to make and it's been steered off into nitpicking and totally off course. Whatever manner in which I process, accumulate and validate data on the subject of my religion, it doesn't matter to anyone else BUT me. Why? It's my religion and touches no one but me. I keep it to myself and thats that.You are being oh so terribly vague. What are your tools for research? Obtaining knowledge through reason is, for example, definitely more reliable than 'knowing' through emotion. Not all ways of knowing or 'tools for research', as you call them, are equal.
Not entirely. Just because you see it that way doesn't make it true.Faith is, per definition, non-falsifiable. And religion is based on faith.
Also, I can't SEE oxygen around me, I have faith that it's there because a scientist told me so. If you bottle it, and provide me with a measure to magnify what I'm looking at and say "See that little molecule there? That is oxygen" I'm having faith you know what your talking about and aren't loony and we aren't both hallucinating and seeing spots from staring into a strange gizmo.
Religion, in general. I don't care for any religions out there that others follow personally.Furthermore, which religion are you referring to? Seeing as how is predates Christianity, would you attribute it to Greek deities? Or are ancient Grecian beliefs not considered a religion?
Defination from http://www.dictionary.com...
The first human, to hold the first such beliefs, would be the beginning of religion. Now, why would such a belief be fostered? I'm assuming, said human was lost on a certain aspect, perhaps more than one, of his/her life and wanted answers to certain questions. Finding none readily available, "superstitious beliefs" were formed.1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
"What is that strange ball of light?" Could possibly have been the first question to bring on religion, one based on worshipping the sun.
Which leads to my main point. What is the basis of the founding religion, and what is the basis of the founding of science? They are both seeking answers to questions are they not? At some point down the road, one person took a more "down to earth" attitude and tossed aside his religious ideals and starting tinkering with the world around him hands on. Attempting to figure out how things work and why, early 'science" was then born. Which eventually evolved into a patterned method, and has continually evolved since. Just as religion, in it's crude and base form, has changed and evolved since it's earliest conception. New methods and ways of going about each have surfaced, yet the initial drive is still there, and the same for each.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=Magrus]
The first human, to hold the first such beliefs, would be the beginning of religion. Now, why would such a belief be fostered? I'm assuming, said human was lost on a certain aspect, perhaps more than one, of his/her life and wanted answers to certain questions. Finding none readily available, "superstitious beliefs" were formed.
[/QUOTE]
You're probably right. I think that stories and fictional characters which humans can understand and relate to are created so that certain events can be explained. That is probably why the early Gods have human-like characteristics. Religion also probably served to provide a moral structure through stories of Good Gods fighting Evil ones.
However, the Greeks eventually moved away from these thoughts and liberated philosophy from religion. From what I understand from reading your posts, you can probably be described as a Rationalist like Descartes and Spinoza while most modern Scientists can be described as Empiricists. I guess this discussion is not so much about religion as it is about philosophy.
The first human, to hold the first such beliefs, would be the beginning of religion. Now, why would such a belief be fostered? I'm assuming, said human was lost on a certain aspect, perhaps more than one, of his/her life and wanted answers to certain questions. Finding none readily available, "superstitious beliefs" were formed.
[/QUOTE]
You're probably right. I think that stories and fictional characters which humans can understand and relate to are created so that certain events can be explained. That is probably why the early Gods have human-like characteristics. Religion also probably served to provide a moral structure through stories of Good Gods fighting Evil ones.
However, the Greeks eventually moved away from these thoughts and liberated philosophy from religion. From what I understand from reading your posts, you can probably be described as a Rationalist like Descartes and Spinoza while most modern Scientists can be described as Empiricists. I guess this discussion is not so much about religion as it is about philosophy.
The Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, whatever are irrevelant for my argument. Groups and religions don't matter in and of themselves, it's the two basic concepts, and where they came from and why they came to be.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=Magrus]The Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, whatever are irrevelant for my argument. Groups and religions don't matter in and of themselves, it's the two basic concepts, and where they came from and why they came to be.[/QUOTE]
But if we go back in evolution and look at religion and science as basic concept, related to humanity rather than to any specific culture - in what way do you mean science came from the origin of religion?
And even if one did originate from the other 100 000 years ago, or they both origin from humankinds basic drive to understand they world around us, why does it mean they are similar today?
But if we go back in evolution and look at religion and science as basic concept, related to humanity rather than to any specific culture - in what way do you mean science came from the origin of religion?
And even if one did originate from the other 100 000 years ago, or they both origin from humankinds basic drive to understand they world around us, why does it mean they are similar today?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
The philosophical elephants in the room
One aspect that no one has mentioned so far (who was talking about epistemology? they should back me up on this...) is the idea of Aristotelian Causality. Thinking about this will really help clear up the debate of religion vs. science (it is analogous to the tension between Ancient and Modern philosophy).
Aristotle outlined 4 causes:
(1) the Material cause: the substance of something (ie: an oak tree is made of wood)
(2) the Formal cause: the form or shape of something (ie: an oak tree has the form of an oak tree)
(3) the Efficient cause: How something does what it does (ie: growing from seed to tree via photosynthesis, using nutrients, etc.)
(4) the Final cause: Why something does what it does (ie: to flourish and achieve full potential as an oak tree)
The point of all this is to understand a tension- science (and modern philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Efficient cause, the HOW question. Religion (and ancient philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Final cause, the WHY question.
What this means is that, while modern science can tell you how things work, like how a brain functions or stars keep burning, modern science doesn’t handle why things work very well at all. Science can’t give us “meaning” in the existential sense, and people react to that in a variety of ways. I believe that all people, from to religious fanatics, want a final cause, a reason to live- some people are better at finding it than others.
As for the question of the absolute truth of science/a priori concepts, I am of the opinion that every a priori law has relied upon a posteriori testing (ie- trail and error evaluation) to be proven true. Many scientic truths are altered over time (ie- physics from Newton to Einstein), and consequently truth seems to be a subjective, not objective, term.
Re: Theory of Knowledge class
Did the class mention that the idea of eternal, a priori truth is one that has been debated since it was first put forward? In every era there have been proponents and opponents arguing the validity of unchanging truth, and there hasn’t been a definite conclusion reached ever. For example, consider the tensions of Anaximander vs. Hera****es, Platonists vs. Sophists, Kant vs. Nietzsche, Popes vs. Dali Lamas.
If anyone is interested in this, an easy read that talks about epistemology is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.
Edit- the name of the philosopher above is Heracl1tes (change 1 for i)
One aspect that no one has mentioned so far (who was talking about epistemology? they should back me up on this...) is the idea of Aristotelian Causality. Thinking about this will really help clear up the debate of religion vs. science (it is analogous to the tension between Ancient and Modern philosophy).
Aristotle outlined 4 causes:
(1) the Material cause: the substance of something (ie: an oak tree is made of wood)
(2) the Formal cause: the form or shape of something (ie: an oak tree has the form of an oak tree)
(3) the Efficient cause: How something does what it does (ie: growing from seed to tree via photosynthesis, using nutrients, etc.)
(4) the Final cause: Why something does what it does (ie: to flourish and achieve full potential as an oak tree)
The point of all this is to understand a tension- science (and modern philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Efficient cause, the HOW question. Religion (and ancient philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Final cause, the WHY question.
What this means is that, while modern science can tell you how things work, like how a brain functions or stars keep burning, modern science doesn’t handle why things work very well at all. Science can’t give us “meaning” in the existential sense, and people react to that in a variety of ways. I believe that all people, from to religious fanatics, want a final cause, a reason to live- some people are better at finding it than others.
As for the question of the absolute truth of science/a priori concepts, I am of the opinion that every a priori law has relied upon a posteriori testing (ie- trail and error evaluation) to be proven true. Many scientic truths are altered over time (ie- physics from Newton to Einstein), and consequently truth seems to be a subjective, not objective, term.
Re: Theory of Knowledge class
Did the class mention that the idea of eternal, a priori truth is one that has been debated since it was first put forward? In every era there have been proponents and opponents arguing the validity of unchanging truth, and there hasn’t been a definite conclusion reached ever. For example, consider the tensions of Anaximander vs. Hera****es, Platonists vs. Sophists, Kant vs. Nietzsche, Popes vs. Dali Lamas.
If anyone is interested in this, an easy read that talks about epistemology is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.
Edit- the name of the philosopher above is Heracl1tes (change 1 for i)
Custodia legis
-
stormcloud
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:29 am
- Contact:
I took a logic class, therefore all you need to do is disprove just one of your conjectures and the whole thing becomes flawed.
ie you say science is not absolute
all we need do is analyze your meaning and apply. if your meaning does not apply then your argument is invalid.
i can counter like this:
science is absolute, because we observe an event and make a logical conclusion, ie. the sun rises every morning. anything less than 100% fact is not a "science".
therefore science is 100% absolute.
its the little unproven facts people mix in that we confuse as science.
ie you say science is not absolute
all we need do is analyze your meaning and apply. if your meaning does not apply then your argument is invalid.
i can counter like this:
science is absolute, because we observe an event and make a logical conclusion, ie. the sun rises every morning. anything less than 100% fact is not a "science".
therefore science is 100% absolute.
its the little unproven facts people mix in that we confuse as science.
"Learn to know the dark side of the Force and you achieve a power greater than any Jedi..."
[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Aristotle outlined 4 causes:
(1) the Material cause: the substance of something (ie: an oak tree is made of wood)
(2) the Formal cause: the form or shape of something (ie: an oak tree has the form of an oak tree)
(3) the Efficient cause: How something does what it does (ie: growing from seed to tree via photosynthesis, using nutrients, etc.)
(4) the Final cause: Why something does what it does (ie: to flourish and achieve full potential as an oak tree)
The point of all this is to understand a tension- science (and modern philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Efficient cause, the HOW question. Religion (and ancient philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Final cause, the WHY question.
What this means is that, while modern science can tell you how things work, like how a brain functions or stars keep burning, modern science doesn’t handle why things work very well at all. Science can’t give us “meaning” in the existential sense, and people react to that in a variety of ways. I believe that all people, from to religious fanatics, want a final cause, a reason to live- some people are better at finding it than others.[/QUOTE]Can I conclude from this that one can't fully understand the oak (in this case) without science to find the how and religion for the why? Couldn't it be the oak is there for it's own efficiency, in other words, the oak is there, because it has to do what it does, answering the WHY-question with the answer to the HOW-question. That way religion is eliminated.
[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]As for the question of the absolute truth of science/a priori concepts, I am of the opinion that every a priori law has relied upon a posteriori testing (ie- trail and error evaluation) to be proven true. Many scientic truths are altered over time (ie- physics from Newton to Einstein), and consequently truth seems to be a subjective, not objective, term.
[/QUOTE]*gasp*
(1) the Material cause: the substance of something (ie: an oak tree is made of wood)
(2) the Formal cause: the form or shape of something (ie: an oak tree has the form of an oak tree)
(3) the Efficient cause: How something does what it does (ie: growing from seed to tree via photosynthesis, using nutrients, etc.)
(4) the Final cause: Why something does what it does (ie: to flourish and achieve full potential as an oak tree)
The point of all this is to understand a tension- science (and modern philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Efficient cause, the HOW question. Religion (and ancient philosophy) is primarily concerned with the Final cause, the WHY question.
What this means is that, while modern science can tell you how things work, like how a brain functions or stars keep burning, modern science doesn’t handle why things work very well at all. Science can’t give us “meaning” in the existential sense, and people react to that in a variety of ways. I believe that all people, from to religious fanatics, want a final cause, a reason to live- some people are better at finding it than others.[/QUOTE]Can I conclude from this that one can't fully understand the oak (in this case) without science to find the how and religion for the why? Couldn't it be the oak is there for it's own efficiency, in other words, the oak is there, because it has to do what it does, answering the WHY-question with the answer to the HOW-question. That way religion is eliminated.
[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]As for the question of the absolute truth of science/a priori concepts, I am of the opinion that every a priori law has relied upon a posteriori testing (ie- trail and error evaluation) to be proven true. Many scientic truths are altered over time (ie- physics from Newton to Einstein), and consequently truth seems to be a subjective, not objective, term.
[/QUOTE]*gasp*
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
I wrote a big answer to this and it didn't post!
[QUOTE=ik911]Can I conclude from this that one can't fully understand the oak (in this case) without science to find the how and religion for the why? [/QUOTE]
No no no, I didn't mean that. What I mean was that, in ancient times final causality was what science and religion were both concerned with- Aristotle's physics is a great example of this. The "why?" question was what was important. Religion answered the question by saying (more or less) "Because- God!". Plato answered the question by saying "Because- the Good!". No matter what the answer, the question remained the same.
This changed starting with Descartes, and eventually expanded through Newton, Machiavelli, and the Renaissance. People wanted to know about the efficient cause- the "how?" question- because Descartes was seeking to provide a solid, modern foundation for metaphysics. He thought that the great Greek edifice of Metaphysics had been constructed on the very soft ground of ancient physics. So, he invented the scientific process, and since then we've been talking about "how?", not "why?". This is the basic summary of the tension between Ancient and Modern philosophy.
The only thing I meant is that you should be careful when asking modern science to provide answers to questions it probably isn't equipped to answer; ie- we can clone people, but should we? Science can't really answer that.
[QUOTE=ik911]Couldn't it be the oak is there for it's own efficiency, in other words, the oak is there, because it has to do what it does, answering the WHY-question with the answer to the HOW-question. That way religion is eliminated.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is a totally valid opinion. Many people I've read (Bill Bryson most recently) believe that life exists just for the sake of existing and procreating. However, this point of view most people find to be lacking in fulfillment- this is what led, in part, to existentialism (looking for meaning from within, not an external force/god) I'll bet CE has something to say about all this...
[QUOTE=ik911]*gasp*[/QUOTE]
Hey, life is change my friend! That isn't bad, but remember that just because you wake up every day and think of yourself as the same person, that won't stop your heart from beating or your hair from growing. Everything changes over time- science, society, people... looking for truth isn't bad, but thinking that it is eternal or objective is what I have a problem with.
[QUOTE=ik911]Can I conclude from this that one can't fully understand the oak (in this case) without science to find the how and religion for the why? [/QUOTE]
No no no, I didn't mean that. What I mean was that, in ancient times final causality was what science and religion were both concerned with- Aristotle's physics is a great example of this. The "why?" question was what was important. Religion answered the question by saying (more or less) "Because- God!". Plato answered the question by saying "Because- the Good!". No matter what the answer, the question remained the same.
This changed starting with Descartes, and eventually expanded through Newton, Machiavelli, and the Renaissance. People wanted to know about the efficient cause- the "how?" question- because Descartes was seeking to provide a solid, modern foundation for metaphysics. He thought that the great Greek edifice of Metaphysics had been constructed on the very soft ground of ancient physics. So, he invented the scientific process, and since then we've been talking about "how?", not "why?". This is the basic summary of the tension between Ancient and Modern philosophy.
The only thing I meant is that you should be careful when asking modern science to provide answers to questions it probably isn't equipped to answer; ie- we can clone people, but should we? Science can't really answer that.
[QUOTE=ik911]Couldn't it be the oak is there for it's own efficiency, in other words, the oak is there, because it has to do what it does, answering the WHY-question with the answer to the HOW-question. That way religion is eliminated.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is a totally valid opinion. Many people I've read (Bill Bryson most recently) believe that life exists just for the sake of existing and procreating. However, this point of view most people find to be lacking in fulfillment- this is what led, in part, to existentialism (looking for meaning from within, not an external force/god) I'll bet CE has something to say about all this...
[QUOTE=ik911]*gasp*[/QUOTE]
Hey, life is change my friend!
That isn't bad, but remember that just because you wake up every day and think of yourself as the same person, that won't stop your heart from beating or your hair from growing. Everything changes over time- science, society, people... looking for truth isn't bad, but thinking that it is eternal or objective is what I have a problem with.Custodia legis
No, I didn't mean you were supposed to explain what would change your mind, I meant in general, when trying to differ between science, religion and other systematic sets of values, opinions or beliefs, it is useful to ask people what would make them change their opinion. This is related to Vicsun's explanation about faith - the definition of faith is to believe something although there is no evidence. In science there is no faith, because you don't hold "beliefs". Instead of beliefs, you have hypothesis, which you must test.Magrus wrote:I've spent my whole life questioning and searching, just like scientists spend years in college learning what it is they need to do. Asking me to define and explain what it is that makes me belief what I believe would be like asking you condense all of the learning you've accumulated through all of this time.
What makes sense to me, I hold onto. Somethings I KNOW based on the experiences I've been through. Others, I'm lost on, just theories. Still others, things people pose to me, I discount as nonsense based on what I've found out.
I don't know what tools you have developed, but in general, measurement tools that are based on the human body and human perception are more fallible and give less reliability. Also, instruments that are "your own perception" and not possible to replicate objective (ie by independent persons) are useless in science since scientific knowledge must be generalisable, it cannot only be valid for one individual. I don't really think you could compare a particle accelerator to the human body.Just as you happen to use tools for your research, ones you have learned and been trained to use I have my own. Ones you haven't bothered to exercise or learn of. Who's to say which are better, or whether they can be applied to the same things even?
However, sufficient proof for something is a personal matter IMO. Looking back at what scientists have done, some have given up on the basis they couldn't go any further. Others have picked up their work, and succeeded, needing more proof, and finding it to prove them right, or wrong.
This I don't understand. How persistent a specific scientist is, does not change the level of evidence needed for something to be accepted as "knowledge". One of the characteristics with science is that it is impersonal - ie it doesn't matter who carries out the experiments or when. A certain scientist may give up on something because technology is lacking or because s/he is just fed up, but that does not change how much evidence must be gathered. We are not only talking about you, we are talking about the concept of religion and faith. If you revise your beliefs according to empirical observations you make, you don't have faith. Faith is believing without evidence, and the large monotheistic world religions demand that you have faith, ie you must believe in god although you have not seen evidence he exists.Who's to say they aren't falsifiable? Because many blindly believe them? I am constantly revising my beliefs and views on the world and my religion. I use what I know, what I sense, to allow my beliefs to evolve.
This is not Vicsun's personal view. This is the standard definition. When we discuss, we should use lexiographic definitions of terms, not definitions that we made up ourselves, because otherwise we will be constantly confused and get stuck in semantics all the time.Magrus][quote=Vicsun] Faith is wrote: Not entirely. Just because you see it that way doesn't make it true.
You can choose to have faith in the scientist. You can also choose to read studies of the subject, and conclude that the scientist is correct. Just because the human senses cannot detect something in a conscious way, does not mean we cannot measure it. You can measure oxygen perfectly well. Anyone can learn how to measure oxygen. Now, you can't measure god. Nobody has ever done controlled, replicated studies that confirms the existence of god. Therefore, believing in that god is faith, beliving in oxygen is justified belief based on independent, replicated empiric observation.Also, I can't SEE oxygen around me, I have faith that it's there because a scientist told me so.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Yes, that is a totally valid opinion. Many people I've read (Bill Bryson most recently) believe that life exists just for the sake of existing and procreating. However, this point of view most people find to be lacking in fulfillment- this is what led, in part, to existentialism (looking for meaning from within, not an external force/god) I'll bet CE has something to say about all this...[/QUOTE]
No, I haven't - I am a scientist not a philosopher
I just like to add that over the years I've been posting here at SYM I've seen all sorts of misunderstandings regarding what science is, how it is defined, what the aim is and how it can be applied. One of the most common misunderstandings seems to be that the aim of science is too search for some absolute truth, and also (from some religious members) that science is a form of religion. It is strange how many people have had a lot of opinions about science without even having the basic understanding of what it is? Some religious people seem to feel that science is in conflict with religion, and whereas this is true for extremist religious beliefs such as creationism, it is no conflict for most religious people. Apart from religious messages that are destructive or inhumane (such as the former pope erranously claiming that condoms do not protect against HIV), science is not interested in dealing with questions such as how people should live their lives or whether or not transcendence exists. So where is the problem? Why do people need to form a lot of erranous images about what science is?
Issues about absolute truth, meaning, intention and moral, belong to philosophy and religion, not to science. Science is usually not very interesting to laymen, it's just the application that is of interest.
No, I haven't - I am a scientist not a philosopher
I just like to add that over the years I've been posting here at SYM I've seen all sorts of misunderstandings regarding what science is, how it is defined, what the aim is and how it can be applied. One of the most common misunderstandings seems to be that the aim of science is too search for some absolute truth, and also (from some religious members) that science is a form of religion. It is strange how many people have had a lot of opinions about science without even having the basic understanding of what it is? Some religious people seem to feel that science is in conflict with religion, and whereas this is true for extremist religious beliefs such as creationism, it is no conflict for most religious people. Apart from religious messages that are destructive or inhumane (such as the former pope erranously claiming that condoms do not protect against HIV), science is not interested in dealing with questions such as how people should live their lives or whether or not transcendence exists. So where is the problem? Why do people need to form a lot of erranous images about what science is?
Issues about absolute truth, meaning, intention and moral, belong to philosophy and religion, not to science. Science is usually not very interesting to laymen, it's just the application that is of interest.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
C Elegans:
-----
Having faith in religious beliefs, means believing something without a systemic set of evidence. One of the major points in the big monotheistic religions is that you should believe without evidence - that is the very nature of faith.
-----
Coming from the point of view of one who would probably be described as 'religious,' I disagree with that. I'm not sure exactly where it came from, but I'd be interested to know. Certainly, faith is very useful, but from what I can see, everyone has faith so I don't see why faith should be linked to religion so closely.
Also I wouldn't describe faith as believing without evidence - I wouldn't believe anything without evidence - but more as having to believe without proof. I still don't see a problem with that though as, as many people here agree, absolute proof is impossible, even for science, so scientists (in my understanding) believe things without complete proof as well, although they usually require some form of scientific proof.
I realise you have a great deal of respect for science and have studied it a lot, so I if I say something about science which isn't actually true then please tell me - I don't know nearly as much about it as you do and what I'm writing is from my perception of science, so if that perception is wrong I'm very happy to realise that.
-----
In science, you don't have faith in anything.
-----
Personally, I believe it takes far more faith to believe in a universe without a God which somehow managed to create itself from nothing, not to mention life coming from nothing, than to believe in an all-powerful God who is outside of the laws of space and time (as He created them) and who can cause all this with just a thought.
-----
Scientific method has produced a lot of knowledge that has been useful and been applied to decrease suffering and improve human life. There is a lot of evidence that it is useful. I consider the invention of antibiotics one of the greatest discoveries humankind has ever done.
-----
Never let it be said that I dislike science, or that I think science is a bad thing. Science has done wonderful things for the world which should not be denied. However, I view science as explaining how the universe works, while I still believe the universe was created by God.
-----
I don't have any evidence that religious dogma have been useful for decreasing suffering and improving human life.
-----
I don't know whether this is a scientific opinion or not, but I believe 'evidence' to be a subjective term. I personally believe that 'religion' (I'm not sure what you mean by dogma) has improved lives on Earth in ways that science never could. Further than that I believe that 'religion' can lead to salvation, which we don't see until after we die, and improving life on Earth is nothing compared to improving (or giving) life after death. I believe this from what I see as evidence. I gather you see the evidence in a different way.
-----
Therefore, believing in that god is faith, beliving in oxygen is justified belief based on independent, replicated empiric observation.
-----
But isn't believing in oxygen still faith? Does faith have to be totally without evidence? As I see it the only difference between believing in God and believing in oxygen is that one can be measured by science, and one can't. And if that is the benchmark for what is reasonable to believe in and what is not, isn't saying that science really is the 'be all and end all'?
Magrus:
-----
I work on the principle if logic decrees something blatantly false, I discount it. If what I hold in my head can absolutely prove something false, I discount it.
-----
What you say about the peg leg makes sense but I just don't see logic in discounting something just because it goes against fundamentals of what you believe. For example, I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I know from experience that atheists don't believe this at all, and most count it as utterly ridiculous. As I see it, it defies logic, science, everything that we know. When people die, they are dead. So as I understand your approach, this would be discounted immediately. Yet I believe it with all my heart (and my mind), because I believe in a God who is outside of the laws that we as humans are accustomed to. People discounted Galileo's theories too - I know that's not the same but I just don't think we can discount things because they defy the way we are accustomed to things happening.
-----
Having faith in religious beliefs, means believing something without a systemic set of evidence. One of the major points in the big monotheistic religions is that you should believe without evidence - that is the very nature of faith.
-----
Coming from the point of view of one who would probably be described as 'religious,' I disagree with that. I'm not sure exactly where it came from, but I'd be interested to know. Certainly, faith is very useful, but from what I can see, everyone has faith so I don't see why faith should be linked to religion so closely.
Also I wouldn't describe faith as believing without evidence - I wouldn't believe anything without evidence - but more as having to believe without proof. I still don't see a problem with that though as, as many people here agree, absolute proof is impossible, even for science, so scientists (in my understanding) believe things without complete proof as well, although they usually require some form of scientific proof.
I realise you have a great deal of respect for science and have studied it a lot, so I if I say something about science which isn't actually true then please tell me - I don't know nearly as much about it as you do and what I'm writing is from my perception of science, so if that perception is wrong I'm very happy to realise that.
-----
In science, you don't have faith in anything.
-----
Personally, I believe it takes far more faith to believe in a universe without a God which somehow managed to create itself from nothing, not to mention life coming from nothing, than to believe in an all-powerful God who is outside of the laws of space and time (as He created them) and who can cause all this with just a thought.
-----
Scientific method has produced a lot of knowledge that has been useful and been applied to decrease suffering and improve human life. There is a lot of evidence that it is useful. I consider the invention of antibiotics one of the greatest discoveries humankind has ever done.
-----
Never let it be said that I dislike science, or that I think science is a bad thing. Science has done wonderful things for the world which should not be denied. However, I view science as explaining how the universe works, while I still believe the universe was created by God.
-----
I don't have any evidence that religious dogma have been useful for decreasing suffering and improving human life.
-----
I don't know whether this is a scientific opinion or not, but I believe 'evidence' to be a subjective term. I personally believe that 'religion' (I'm not sure what you mean by dogma) has improved lives on Earth in ways that science never could. Further than that I believe that 'religion' can lead to salvation, which we don't see until after we die, and improving life on Earth is nothing compared to improving (or giving) life after death. I believe this from what I see as evidence. I gather you see the evidence in a different way.
-----
Therefore, believing in that god is faith, beliving in oxygen is justified belief based on independent, replicated empiric observation.
-----
But isn't believing in oxygen still faith? Does faith have to be totally without evidence? As I see it the only difference between believing in God and believing in oxygen is that one can be measured by science, and one can't. And if that is the benchmark for what is reasonable to believe in and what is not, isn't saying that science really is the 'be all and end all'?
Magrus:
-----
I work on the principle if logic decrees something blatantly false, I discount it. If what I hold in my head can absolutely prove something false, I discount it.
-----
What you say about the peg leg makes sense but I just don't see logic in discounting something just because it goes against fundamentals of what you believe. For example, I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I know from experience that atheists don't believe this at all, and most count it as utterly ridiculous. As I see it, it defies logic, science, everything that we know. When people die, they are dead. So as I understand your approach, this would be discounted immediately. Yet I believe it with all my heart (and my mind), because I believe in a God who is outside of the laws that we as humans are accustomed to. People discounted Galileo's theories too - I know that's not the same but I just don't think we can discount things because they defy the way we are accustomed to things happening.
Give us the gate key.
I have no gate key.
Fezzik, tear his arms off.
Oh, you mean this gate key?
I have no gate key.
Fezzik, tear his arms off.
Oh, you mean this gate key?
That faith means believing without evidence, is a standard definition. Here is one example from Dictionary.com:Arrylium wrote: Coming from the point of view of one who would probably be described as 'religious,' I disagree with that. I'm not sure exactly where it came from, but I'd be interested to know. Certainly, faith is very useful, but from what I can see, everyone has faith so I don't see why faith should be linked to religion so closely.
Also I wouldn't describe faith as believing without evidence - I wouldn't believe anything without evidence - but more as having to believe without proof.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See 3.
3. Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
4. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
5. often Faith, Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
6. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
7. A set of principles or beliefs.
Faith is similar to trust, ie if you trust a person you are convinced that what the person tells you is true, without the person providing evidence for this.
Also, in science we don't use the term "proof", we use "evidence" and it means "observable event supporting or falsifying an hypothesis". This means that with our definition of evidence, no evidence exists that support the existance of a god.
This is a good (although simplified) explanation of how science works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
How do you then define "faith" and "evidence"? Nobody knows for sure how the universe came to be, and nobody know how life came to be. However, what we do know is that life can develop not from nothing, but from non life. Every necessary step between non-life and life can be created in a lab. That is not evidence life on earth really happened that way, but it is evidence it could have happened that way, ie it is evidence that no god is necessary to explain abiogenesis. Thus, is requires no faith at all to believe life could have developed from minerals.Personally, I believe it takes far more faith to believe in a universe without a God which somehow managed to create itself from nothing, not to mention life coming from nothing, than to believe in an all-powerful God who is outside of the laws of space and time (as He created them) and who can cause all this with just a thought.
However, I view science as explaining how the universe works, while I still believe the universe was created by God.
With this view, there should be no conflict between science and religion since they do not overlap and deal with different areas.
I believe 'evidence' to be a subjective term. I personally believe that 'religion' (I'm not sure what you mean by dogma) has improved lives on Earth in ways that science never could. Further than that I believe that 'religion' can lead to salvation, which we don't see until after we die, and improving life on Earth is nothing compared to improving (or giving) life after death. I believe this from what I see as evidence. I gather you see the evidence in a different way.
"Evidence" in everyday language may be a subjective term, in science it is defined as I wrote above. Thus, personal opinion, speculation and ideas that cannot be observed, cannot consist evidence.
"Dogma" is usually defined as an idea, principle or statement that is absolutely true, and thus unchangeble. Like my examples "There is only one god and Muhammed is his prophet" or "Jesus was resurrected" is a dogma. Islam is not going to change its mind and claim that new evidence support the idea that Muhammed was not a prophet.
But isn't believing in oxygen still faith? Does faith have to be totally without evidence? As I see it the only difference between believing in God and believing in oxygen is that one can be measured by science, and one can't.
Now when you know how I define "faith" and "evidence", you already know my answer to this: the fact that one can be measured and one not, means that for one there is evidence and for the other not.
And if that is the benchmark for what is reasonable to believe in and what is not, isn't saying that science really is the 'be all and end all'?
Science is not logics. There are many things an individual may find subjectively reasonable to believe, that may not at all fulfil the criteria for evidence in science. Internal human reasoning is one of the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions - in science, conclusions must be based on empiric observation, not opinion, thoughts or feelings.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-----
That faith means believing without evidence, is a standard definition. Here is one example from Dictionary.com:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See 3.
3. Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
4. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
5. often Faith, Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
6. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
7. A set of principles or beliefs.
----
Hmm. This is quite interesting - I'm a Christian and would consider myself to be a man (or person) of faith, but I wouldn't believe anything if there was no evidence at all for it. The idea strikes me as nonsense. My belief in God is founded upon evidence, logic, and faith together. So maybe there are different definitions of faith (as the 7 from dictionary.com) and we're just working from different ones?
-----
Faith is similar to trust, ie if you trust a person you are convinced that what the person tells you is true, without the person providing evidence for this.
-----
But you don't trust someone without evidence, do you? If a complete stranger walked up to you and told you something you might not believe him, but if someone you really trust told you, you might be more inclined to think it was true. We trust certain people, ususally, because we know they are trustworthy, and we know this by spending quite a bit of time with them, experiencing that trustworthiness, and those experiences I would count as evidence. So is that really faith?
Now you have a different definition of evidence, which is fair enough. But looking at it, I don't actually see any difference between your idea of evidence and mine (although I'm not sure whether you use 'supporting' and 'falsifying' to mean putting something beyond a shadow of doubt or just inclining opinion further in that direction). If a person promises to give you chocolate tomorrow (if only ) and then gives it to you, isn't that an observable event (or pair of events)? And doesn't that support the idea that it is a trustworthy person? So doesn't that make it evidence? And if it is, then trusting or having faith in that person is not without evidence, isn't it?
I think believing something (without evidence) because it was told to you by someone you trust is believing it with evidence - the evidence that that person is trustworthy.
I think the main difference in our views is that I see certain things as evidence for God, but you see them a different way. That's what I meant when I mentioned evidence being subjective.
-----
How do you then define "faith" and "evidence"?
-----
This isn't a totally refined definition but in a nutshell I would say faith is believing something without absolute proof, whereas evidence is an event or object or something which can change opinion in some way (probably by bringing new information to light), and like you I think it would be either supporting or falsifying a hypothesis.
-----
Nobody knows for sure how the universe came to be, and nobody know how life came to be. However, what we do know is that life can develop not from nothing, but from non life. Every necessary step between non-life and life can be created in a lab. That is not evidence life on earth really happened that way, but it is evidence it could have happened that way, ie it is evidence that no god is necessary to explain abiogenesis. Thus, is requires no faith at all to believe life could have developed from minerals.
-----
I think no human knows how the universe came to be. I dare say you agree with this but not with the implication behind it.
As far as life coming from non-life: Really? (this may come across as if I'm being sarcastic, please believe me that I'm not. I've never heard this before) As far as I'm concerned, non-life cannot become life. I'd never heard that scientists thought they had discovered a way, and I think I would have heard about something that big and important if the scientists were sure. I'm inclined to disblieve it but I'd be very interested to see the evidence - just how can non-life create life?
-----
With this view, there should be no conflict between science and religion since they do not overlap and deal with different areas.
-----
This is why I do not view science as evil, or even as a bad thing. I think it's wonderful. I think conflict occurs when science attempts to explain things (like the origin of the universe or the origin of life) which it simply cannot explain because they are not scientific, and I believe these things necessitate a God. It is my perception that scientists are often so confident in science that they believe it can explain everything and that there is no need for God. Please don't take offence at this - it's only my opinion and it's an overgeneralisation.
-----
Now when you know how I define "faith" and "evidence", you already know my answer to this: the fact that one can be measured and one not, means that for one there is evidence and for the other not.
-----
Surely there are different sorts of proof aside from measurability?
-----
Internal human reasoning is one of the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions - in science, conclusions must be based on empiric observation, not opinion, thoughts or feelings.
-----
No disagreements here.
That faith means believing without evidence, is a standard definition. Here is one example from Dictionary.com:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See 3.
3. Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
4. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
5. often Faith, Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
6. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
7. A set of principles or beliefs.
----
Hmm. This is quite interesting - I'm a Christian and would consider myself to be a man (or person) of faith, but I wouldn't believe anything if there was no evidence at all for it. The idea strikes me as nonsense. My belief in God is founded upon evidence, logic, and faith together. So maybe there are different definitions of faith (as the 7 from dictionary.com) and we're just working from different ones?
-----
Faith is similar to trust, ie if you trust a person you are convinced that what the person tells you is true, without the person providing evidence for this.
-----
But you don't trust someone without evidence, do you? If a complete stranger walked up to you and told you something you might not believe him, but if someone you really trust told you, you might be more inclined to think it was true. We trust certain people, ususally, because we know they are trustworthy, and we know this by spending quite a bit of time with them, experiencing that trustworthiness, and those experiences I would count as evidence. So is that really faith?
Now you have a different definition of evidence, which is fair enough. But looking at it, I don't actually see any difference between your idea of evidence and mine (although I'm not sure whether you use 'supporting' and 'falsifying' to mean putting something beyond a shadow of doubt or just inclining opinion further in that direction). If a person promises to give you chocolate tomorrow (if only
) and then gives it to you, isn't that an observable event (or pair of events)? And doesn't that support the idea that it is a trustworthy person? So doesn't that make it evidence? And if it is, then trusting or having faith in that person is not without evidence, isn't it?I think believing something (without evidence) because it was told to you by someone you trust is believing it with evidence - the evidence that that person is trustworthy.
I think the main difference in our views is that I see certain things as evidence for God, but you see them a different way. That's what I meant when I mentioned evidence being subjective.
-----
How do you then define "faith" and "evidence"?
-----
This isn't a totally refined definition but in a nutshell I would say faith is believing something without absolute proof, whereas evidence is an event or object or something which can change opinion in some way (probably by bringing new information to light), and like you I think it would be either supporting or falsifying a hypothesis.
-----
Nobody knows for sure how the universe came to be, and nobody know how life came to be. However, what we do know is that life can develop not from nothing, but from non life. Every necessary step between non-life and life can be created in a lab. That is not evidence life on earth really happened that way, but it is evidence it could have happened that way, ie it is evidence that no god is necessary to explain abiogenesis. Thus, is requires no faith at all to believe life could have developed from minerals.
-----
I think no human knows how the universe came to be. I dare say you agree with this but not with the implication behind it.
As far as life coming from non-life: Really? (this may come across as if I'm being sarcastic, please believe me that I'm not. I've never heard this before) As far as I'm concerned, non-life cannot become life. I'd never heard that scientists thought they had discovered a way, and I think I would have heard about something that big and important if the scientists were sure. I'm inclined to disblieve it but I'd be very interested to see the evidence - just how can non-life create life?
-----
With this view, there should be no conflict between science and religion since they do not overlap and deal with different areas.
-----
This is why I do not view science as evil, or even as a bad thing. I think it's wonderful. I think conflict occurs when science attempts to explain things (like the origin of the universe or the origin of life) which it simply cannot explain because they are not scientific, and I believe these things necessitate a God. It is my perception that scientists are often so confident in science that they believe it can explain everything and that there is no need for God. Please don't take offence at this - it's only my opinion and it's an overgeneralisation.
-----
Now when you know how I define "faith" and "evidence", you already know my answer to this: the fact that one can be measured and one not, means that for one there is evidence and for the other not.
-----
Surely there are different sorts of proof aside from measurability?
-----
Internal human reasoning is one of the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions - in science, conclusions must be based on empiric observation, not opinion, thoughts or feelings.
-----
No disagreements here.
Give us the gate key.
I have no gate key.
Fezzik, tear his arms off.
Oh, you mean this gate key?
I have no gate key.
Fezzik, tear his arms off.
Oh, you mean this gate key?
I am gonna be really cheeky and ask doesn't that mean Science is the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions as they are based on human reasoning?-----
Internal human reasoning is one of the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions - in science, conclusions must be based on empiric observation, not opinion, thoughts or feelings.
-----
No disagreements here.
I would love to see peoples views on this.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
Of course they deal with different areas. It's not the middle and the end result which I said were similar, I said the roots in which both were created. Whether not they take a different approach, or use different methods doesn't touch on that point. Both stem from a human being having a question and seeking an answer to something unknown, correct? The first person to take off down the path of both religion, and science had a question, and were seeking an answer. The question is irrevelant. It's the fact there WAS a question, and the fact they were seeking the answer. It's simply two different approaches branching off of that one aspect of life.C Elegans wrote:With this view, there should be no conflict between science and religion since they do not overlap and deal with different areas.
"Evidence" in everyday language may be a subjective term, in science it is defined as I wrote above. Thus, personal opinion, speculation and ideas that cannot be observed, cannot consist evidence.
I've been trying to come up with a way to put my take on things with this, and none of them have seemed to get my point across so I'll try another.Now when you know how I define "faith" and "evidence", you already know my answer to this: the fact that one can be measured and one not, means that for one there is evidence and for the other not.
If you take away, all of the learning you have, the knowledge and life experience you've gained. Put yourself back into the mindset of a child, say of 3 years old. You look up at the sky and say "Mommy/Daddy, what's that?" and point at the sky, to which they answer "That's the sky. It's made of air and water and surrounds us for miles above the earth." As a child, you're absolutely clueless to what any of those terms mean. However, you have faith that the knowledge your parents holds is correct.
When you enter into a college class, sit down at your seat and listen to the professor, you have faith that person is handing you information that is correct. It's what that person is paid to do right?
When you look into a microscope, and look at say, a drop of blood. You are having faith that what you see isn't flawed. Whether through the failing of your own sense, or mind, or through a broken microscope.
For example, reality is a personal thing. If you tell a person who is color blind that something is red, when they have never, and will never see the color red, that is outside of their reality is it not? If you write in a book, what a bird sounds like to a deaf person, they can imagine, but if they were born deaf, they have no real understanding or grasp on what it is they are reading about.
"Evidence", which is presented to me is something I process, within my own mind, for my own reasons, with my own senses. Which, happen to be different from each and every person on this planet in tiny ways. My eyesight is bad, my hearing is imperfect, etc. So, based on your own argument previously that human sense aren't infallible, how can we know what is and isn't there? If you look at a picture, well sure, if the picture has a 100% chance of being correct, that is simply the picture alone. You are still required to use your own sense of sight to analyze it, which, in and of itself is capable of being flawed through delusion is it not? That color blind person being told to look at a picture sees things completely different than another person in the picture. Why then, would it not be the case for others? I will see things different than the first person comes across because I'm near-sighted and my vision is not perfect.
Not only that, take for instance instruments that measure sound waves, infra-red sensors, vibrations, etc. Who made those instruments? People, who each, and every one of the people who made such things have the possibility of making errors.
So, you were saying that the methods I use are less reliable than yours, because you use instruments which have been proven by scientists.
1. People made those methods.
2. People made those instruments.
3. Those methods are being put to use by people.
4. People are using those methods with those instruments.
5. People aren't perfect, and neither are their senses.
Wouldn't logic dictate that each and every bit of data or information which is gathered through science quite possibly biased, flawed, and imperfect in some manner? That each, and every scientist is having faith in his senses, state of mind, and the methods and instruments they have used to gather their evidense is perfect?
But that IS your belief, so you wouldn't discount it, because for whatever fundamentals you use to belief or in turn discount something presented before you, you chose to believe. Despite logic, you fit that into your system of beliefs.What you say about the peg leg makes sense but I just don't see logic in discounting something just because it goes against fundamentals of what you believe. For example, I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I know from experience that atheists don't believe this at all, and most count it as utterly ridiculous. As I see it, it defies logic, science, everything that we know. When people die, they are dead. So as I understand your approach, this would be discounted immediately. Yet I believe it with all my heart (and my mind), because I believe in a God who is outside of the laws that we as humans are accustomed to. People discounted Galileo's theories too - I know that's not the same but I just don't think we can discount things because they defy the way we are accustomed to things happening.
As to my personal beliefs regarding that issue, you assume. I may not follow your religion, but who's to say I don't believe that happened? I may believe IN your god, but who's to say I have to follow him in order to do so? I feel it's a flawed view to buy the first car you see on the lot, I took the same view with deities and religious beliefs.
Your arguing with me about something I agree with. I discount things based on my beliefs yes, but I never discussed what those were for anyone to disagree with me on individual points with them.
My view on reality is different from nearly everyone I've come into contact with, and for my own reasons. Yes, I agree that 2+2=4, but then again, what if the person who came up with the number system had left out "4" and went straight from "3" to "5". Wouldn't that shake the foundations of mathematics as we know it? "Math" which has been "proven" is nothing but a man-made method created by someone who sought answers.
Just like different groups of people have different languages, and there are different written alphapets to picture those languages on paper there are different methods in which for people to gather the evidence for their thoughts and beliefs. I haven't bothered to learn Japanese because English suits my purposes where I stand far better. I haven't bothered to learn how an engine works becuase I don't drive. I haven't bothered to learn to use a proton-accelerator because I don't care. None of those things are things I personally value. To the mechanic though, he values them enough to head to a class and learn how an engine works. T
o the scientist, they value, and believe, and trust in science enough to devote years worth of learning to understand it. I've devoted years worth of research to my beliefs. Like those pioneers which have been mentioned above, someone has to start somewhere in the unknown correct? Just because what I'm doing isn't written in a book somewhere, or known to others doesn't mean it isn't possible that it could garner true results. I'm not trying to say I'll be the next nobel prize winner or prophet. All I'm saying is, that discounting a method which has yet to be proven, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy method of research. If everyone shot down new, unproven methods, nothing would ever get invented, no new thoughts would be proven, no new cures would be developed, etc.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
Are you from the US, Arrylium?
Like you point out, in most other areas of life, religion included, we base our beliefs and opinions on more mixed data, not only data from controlled experiments. We don't need that degree of systematisation and control in our everyday life, but we do need it in science.
generalisations most people make, are invalid in a scientific sense. To illustrate with an example: I am convinced my husband my husband is currently in Paris. I have not checked empirically that he is there. I have no reports from other sources saying he is there. He has been in Paris 10 times before, and in fact I don't really know for sure that he has been there any time he has said so since I have no independent reports from several sources and I have not seem measurments (ie like photos or other objective documentation) of him being there.
The reason I am convinced he is indeed in Paris, is that I have no reason to believe he should tell me incorrect facts, and as far as I know, he has generally been an honest person for time I have known him.
However, if I translated a similar situation to science: you would never interpole data from one situation (ie everyday life) to a different situation (a journey to Paris) without first having valid evidence there are in fact highly correlated to each other. In science, that would be like generalising knowledge from agriculture to oncology. Also, there is burden of independent evidence - in science results must be replicated by several independent lab groups who can also demonstrate evidence they are independent of each other and does not have finacial interest in the results. Translated to my husband, this means I would not believe he was in Paris unless several different people who didn't know each other, presented objective evidence he was there (ie not their own stories, but material evidence such as photos taken with cameras where the date cannot be manipulated).
Do you see now why evidence in the scientific sense differs from evidence in everyday language, and why there (in the scientific sense) is evidence that oxygen exists but not a god?
If you are interested in how life could have developed from non life, you should first start reading about something called the RNA world hypothesis.. It is necessary to have a basic understanding of proteins, RNA and bacteria, and of chemistry. A good starting point is to check out the work of Altman and Cech, the 1989 Nobel Price laureates in chemistry. The discovered the biocatalystic properties of RNA, a step that already in the 1960's was formulated as necessary if the RNA world hypothesis should have worked.
Current scientific knowledge does not know how life began on earth, but it can demonstrate in experiments that the necessary steps from non organic self replication to DNA can happen.
Are you familiar with the concept "god of the gaps"?
I think the difference is that in science, evidence must always consist of independently replicable empiric observation and there is no element of faith at all. Logics is not really interesting to apply to science, since what matters is how valid the premises are, not the logical conclusion drawn from them.Arrylium wrote: Hmm. This is quite interesting - I'm a Christian and would consider myself to be a man (or person) of faith, but I wouldn't believe anything if there was no evidence at all for it. The idea strikes me as nonsense. My belief in God is founded upon evidence, logic, and faith together. So maybe there are different definitions of faith (as the 7 from dictionary.com) and we're just working from different ones?
Like you point out, in most other areas of life, religion included, we base our beliefs and opinions on more mixed data, not only data from controlled experiments. We don't need that degree of systematisation and control in our everyday life, but we do need it in science.
Yes it is faith, since the jumps between actual observations andBut you don't trust someone without evidence, do you? If a complete stranger walked up to you and told you something you might not believe him, but if someone you really trust told you, you might be more inclined to think it was true. We trust certain people, ususally, because we know they are trustworthy, and we know this by spending quite a bit of time with them, experiencing that trustworthiness, and those experiences I would count as evidence. So is that really faith?
generalisations most people make, are invalid in a scientific sense. To illustrate with an example: I am convinced my husband my husband is currently in Paris. I have not checked empirically that he is there. I have no reports from other sources saying he is there. He has been in Paris 10 times before, and in fact I don't really know for sure that he has been there any time he has said so since I have no independent reports from several sources and I have not seem measurments (ie like photos or other objective documentation) of him being there.
The reason I am convinced he is indeed in Paris, is that I have no reason to believe he should tell me incorrect facts, and as far as I know, he has generally been an honest person for time I have known him.
However, if I translated a similar situation to science: you would never interpole data from one situation (ie everyday life) to a different situation (a journey to Paris) without first having valid evidence there are in fact highly correlated to each other. In science, that would be like generalising knowledge from agriculture to oncology. Also, there is burden of independent evidence - in science results must be replicated by several independent lab groups who can also demonstrate evidence they are independent of each other and does not have finacial interest in the results. Translated to my husband, this means I would not believe he was in Paris unless several different people who didn't know each other, presented objective evidence he was there (ie not their own stories, but material evidence such as photos taken with cameras where the date cannot be manipulated).
Do you see now why evidence in the scientific sense differs from evidence in everyday language, and why there (in the scientific sense) is evidence that oxygen exists but not a god?
You have never heard before that every step needed in the development from non-life to life has been demonstrated in laboratory? Then you must not have followed the life sciences well over the past 20 years.As far as life coming from non-life: Really? (this may come across as if I'm being sarcastic, please believe me that I'm not. I've never heard this before) As far as I'm concerned, non-life cannot become life. I'd never heard that scientists thought they had discovered a way, and I think I would have heard about something that big and important if the scientists were sure. I'm inclined to disblieve it but I'd be very interested to see the evidence - just how can non-life create life?
If you are interested in how life could have developed from non life, you should first start reading about something called the RNA world hypothesis.. It is necessary to have a basic understanding of proteins, RNA and bacteria, and of chemistry. A good starting point is to check out the work of Altman and Cech, the 1989 Nobel Price laureates in chemistry. The discovered the biocatalystic properties of RNA, a step that already in the 1960's was formulated as necessary if the RNA world hypothesis should have worked.
Current scientific knowledge does not know how life began on earth, but it can demonstrate in experiments that the necessary steps from non organic self replication to DNA can happen.
But there is not need for a god. That however does not mean there is not a god. Whether there is a god or not, science cannot investigate since it's not a scientific question. What science can do, is to demostrate that life on earth and the beginning of the universe could have happened also if there was no god, ie it can be explained without the need of a god. This has already been done.It is my perception that scientists are often so confident in science that they believe it can explain everything and that there is no need for God.
Are you familiar with the concept "god of the gaps"?
Not in science. In maths and logics there is a different kind of "proofs" because they, like religion, are not based on replicable observation but on internal consistency. In science however, you must be able to observe, measure and quantify.Surely there are different sorts of proof aside from measurability?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
CM wrote:Your question is not relevant in this context. I wrote "Internal human reasoning...". Science is the opposite of internal human reasoning since it is not based on reasoning, it is based on empiric observation that must be objective, ie not only observed by 1 individual but many and objectively recorded, ie with instruments and not only with your own bodily senses. So what I just said is the opposite of the question you applied to what I said.C Elegans]Internal human reasoning is one of the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions - in science wrote: I am gonna be really cheeky and ask doesn't that mean Science is the most fallible and less reliable ways to reach conclusions as they are based on human reasoning?
I don't mean to sound arrogant, but it is tireing to constantly explain things that could be read in any basic textbook rather than actually having a discussion.
Please everybody who has opinions about science: do fulfil the basic criteria to have an opinion about anything, namely, learn at least the basics about it. We shoudn't go around and have a lot of opinions about people we don't know. Also, we should not go around and have a lot of opinions about topics we don't know. The link I posted to Arrylium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
provides excellent beginners reading about what science is and is not, and how it works. Please read it.
You are welcome to think what you want about anything, science included, but please try to avoid all the invalid strawman arguments. If you don't know what a strawman argument is, please read follow this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I would like to comment on Magrus' reply that I'm getting all kinds of deja-vues (Like the math thing. You're not the first to post these kinds of proclaimed 'wordgames', eh CE ), just like when I gasped at Cuchulain82 (I'm always ahead of you guys.... ).
[quote="C Elegans]Logics is not really interesting to apply to science"]With science you only seem to address the experiment or characterization phase. To form a prognosis and review your or other's scientific methodical process, you're not going anywhere without logics. You can't have science without seeing the structure of what you are about to possibly discover. Logics can reveal that structure and provide a base for your hypothesis. In your replies you give the impression that the hypothesis is already made and you're only making the measurements and quantifications etc to prove it true or false.
), just like when I gasped at Cuchulain82 (I'm always ahead of you guys.... ).[quote="C Elegans]Logics is not really interesting to apply to science"]With science you only seem to address the experiment or characterization phase. To form a prognosis and review your or other's scientific methodical process, you're not going anywhere without logics. You can't have science without seeing the structure of what you are about to possibly discover. Logics can reveal that structure and provide a base for your hypothesis. In your replies you give the impression that the hypothesis is already made and you're only making the measurements and quantifications etc to prove it true or false.
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]