Thousands of things have developed from humankind seeking answers to things that are unknown to us. To claim that they have something in common because they in some aspect were related to humankind's seeking of anwers, is not a very fruitful or revelating conclusion IMO. It's like saying "you and this rose algae both origined from the same basic polymeres, so you are similar to each other".Magrus wrote: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.
You claim science and religion resemble each other because they have the same origin, the human seeking of answers. By the same standard I could claim you and the algea resemble each other, because you share the same origin. In fact, everything resembles everything if we only select a small part of it and ignore all the differences.
This I define as faith.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.
<snip>
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.
Here, the faith ends. There are numerous control routines that make sure observations must be done not only by one person. There are also numerous control instances where instruments are checked to assure they measure the same thing. Equipment is calibrated and tested constantly. If you observe something unusual, you don't just buy in to it for face validity, you first check that your microscope is not broken, that other people see the same thing as you are, etc.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.
It is outside of their reality because they lack photoreceptors to perceive this with, but it does not mean that 3 million other people can measure this wavelenght with different instruments and all give the same value.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?
I thought we passed the stage that there is no absolute truth many posts ago...well, you must realise that because total perfection cannot be reached, means everything else is equally bad and worthless. If 1000 people watch the picture and 999 give a description that correlates to 90% and 1 gives a description that is totally different, it is more likely that the 1 person is incorrect than that the 999 are all incorrect. If we add to this 1000 people taking photos of the picture, and we look at the photos and find they also correlate highly with the 999 peoples record of the picture, I would say we have a version of reality that is meaningful, and where events can happen. It does not matter whether human interpretion corresponds to something "absolute" or not as long as we share it and observe it objectively. 50 million people are dying of AIDS. This is objectively measurable and quantifiable. If we find a cure for AIDS, they will be objectively measurable and quantifiable healthy. Do you (and this goes for IK as well) really think it matters whether these 50 million dying people is in fact an illusion we all share and what if it's all like in the movie Matrix oooooooh, scary?"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.
I don't.
If you choose to sit at home and hold beliefs, please do, it's your lives. If you want to hold beliefs that are only subjectivly applicable to your own life and your own thinking, that is your choice.
Science is a community based effort - you can't do science on your own, you constantly use interobserver-reliability, ie you check your observations with independent people all the time to minimise the risk for bias, coincidence, subjective errors, etc.
Again, what risk do you think is most likely? That you as a sole person will make an error, or that thousands of people making the same observation is making an error?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.
Yes it could be flawed. The moon could also be made of green cheese. And you could actually be an earthworm and not Magrus.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?
You seen to argue in the line of "everything is possible so science is no better than my own subjective personal feelings and opinions when it comes to gaining useful knowledge".
As I and Viscun have already described previously, and as you can read in the link I posted, science use a systemised control at several levels in order to minimise flaws. Also, you should know that the days when scientists used their own senses to gather data, are long gone.
That a method is not yet proven means it could we worthless rambles or it could be valid. Thus it is not yet neither a worthy method of research - although it might be later. It might be a worthy method of living your life though, that's a another thing.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.
In science, nothing is anyting until it is validated. A finding is not a discovery until it is critisised and replicated by independent scientists. A method is not a method until it is validated, ie demonstrated to measure what it should measure and to give reliable quantifications each time. Nobody is shooting down new methods - new methods are suggested, tested and used every month - but there is no reason to care about them either before they are demonstrated to be useful.
It seems that this discussion is getting more and more at rationalism v empirism. If you don't know what this is, please follow this link:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ratio ... mpiricism/
