Sacred Science

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by polymath

But there is a belief that science can ultimately explain everything...this is far from proven, and therefore is nothing but faith in science.

Originally posted by Fred LC
Having faith in science, well, its one thing, and rather justified considering how well its doing so far.

Science can only attempt to explain what is observable and quantifiable. Furthermore, the more rigorous brand of science- experimental science- can only attempt to explain that which can be manipulated. Even then the value of such explantions depends on the degree of correspondence between the natural state we wish to explain and the manipulations we are able to perform. These factors place limits on what science can do.

 

[thestonesfan]

The same people who never questioned religion will never question science. They are known as the 'masses'.

 

[FredLC]

Mrogreturns:

The faith in science I refer to is reasonable faith. Certianly, I don't believe science can explain everything now, and certainly, I doubt that absolute knowledge will ever be reached (as it seens that every question we answer poses three even more difficult and fundamental).

However, having "faith" in science, namely accepting as a principle that it may be possible that the paradigm of science

- observe, test, test again, conclude, offers for others to test -

is the correct path to achieve an absolute knowledge, even if we never get there, is a position I stand for.

Regards .

 

[Mr Pip]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
The same people who never questioned religion will never question science. They are known as the 'masses'.

Remove the 'm'.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Mr Pip

Remove the 'm'.

"The sae people"

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by FredLC
No, science will never be religion, and the simplest explanation to it is: science is too realistic for that.

From a Universal perspective, science IS realism.

 

[General Porkins]

Here is the difference between science and religion, at least the way I see it: science seeks answers and the reasons behind them, whereas religion provides answers and expects you to take them on faith. Science provides hard evidence to back its theories, where as religion provides a simple book of questionable origin. With science, I can go and look at the sun and the sky and the planets, and with some applied mathematics see for myself that the planets do orbit the sun. Anything you read in a science book you can recreate in front of your own eyes. The hard evidence is there for science, but it isn't there for religion. You just accept the fact that the Bible is the word of God (in the example of Christianity) without any proof to back it up. Another argument for science is the fact that it is convergent. Scientists around the world working separately often come to very similar conclusions. When new discoveries or theories are made, scientists will analyze them for themselves, and oftentimes reach the same conclusion on their validity. Religion is completely opposite. There are three religions branching from one area of the world. There are/were many other religions in existence throughout the world and throughout time. Whereas those with scientific minds will agree on many things (because the proof is all there and they can see it for themselves), religious minds will never agree with opposing ideas (because there special books and traditions and beliefs are different, and they will never change).

 

[MikeLynch]

Was there any time when people weren't materialistic?

Sure. The native Americans shared their possessions openly. Materialism is a Western invention; inequality, greed, avarice its side effects. And we call it civilization.

The same people who never questioned religion will never question science. They are known as the 'masses'.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. There's always a huge contingent of people who don't question really anything at all that they're told. They keep corrupt governments in power and will, I predict, prove to be the death knell of the grand experiment we call representative democracy.

But lest I go too far off-topic, I think faith is the key difference. To cut it as a scientist, you really can't go around saying "I have faith that my theory is right. No proof, but faith."

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin


From a Universal perspective, science IS realism.

Yes, it certainly can be described that way, if you agree that the term "science" refers to the natural event under investigation.

However, I refer to science as "the human discipline that describes natural events".

In that sense, I cannot equate those, as there is always a gap between the actual fact of life, and the description of the fact of life, no matter how accurately one does it.

Regards .

 

[General Porkins]

Originally posted by FredLC
In that sense, I cannot equate those, as there is always a gap between the actual fact of life, and the description of the fact of life, no matter how accurately one does it.

This sounds a little like Plato's Theory of the Forms

 

[FredLC]

It's exactly that, indeed. I am a huge fan of Plato's cave parabole, I think he hit the nail in the head there.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by XIII
Now then, the question will be - is CFC representative of society as a generality? Perhaps a study is needed.

Little bit of data:

CFC membership average on my World Today poll, standard difficulty: 11.96

Among my fellow students: below five

The record for the History Quiz would be even worse, but with 20 questions with four possible answers each it is hard to go much below 5 (the average score someone answering at random would get).

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by FredLC


However, having "faith" in science, namely accepting as a principle that it may be possible that the paradigm of science

- observe, test, test again, conclude, offers for others to test -

is the correct path to achieve an absolute knowledge, even if we never get there, is a position I stand for.

Regards .

I agree completly that the the principles of "observe, test, test again, conclude, offers for others to test" are the best means we have of finding out about the world, and perhaps it can ultimately lead to absolute knowlege- but only in respect of those phenomena for which the method is applicable.

Note that in pointing out these limits I am not putting in a plea for religion.

 

[FredLC]

Hmmm... just as an exercize of curiosity, can you name a phenomena to which such method is not applicable?

 

[Mescalhead]

I'm sure there are a myriad of phenomena that we are absolutely unaware of, because they are only "observable" with a certain tool or concept yet to be invented/discovered. No one knew what micro-organisms were in the past. There are certain "supernatural" phenomena that will be explained with perfectly natural laws.

 

[FredLC]

Indeed, but that fall within the criteria I proposed, the 'observe and test" thing. Lacking the means to observe and test presently do not place them out of this approach.

It was suggested, however, that there are phenomena that are, "a priori", outside of that proposed paradigm, for which such method is not applicable, even in a theoretical environment of "absolute knowledge".

I want to see how come.

Regards .

 

[Hygro]

Just today my english teacher said that if she hand-writes a grade, parents sometimes argue it since sometimes its a really bad grade. But if she prints it, parents wont argue. I'm sure this fits in somewhere.

 

[Mescalhead]

In Reply to FredLC
Why not? The human mind is very limited. I'm sure there are aspects of what we perceive, that we could never comprehend because of the bias or simply the limitations of our consciousness and momentary attention. Like I said, it would simply be a matter of perspective, but a perspective that could never intergrate into the human mindframe.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Science, as a system that seems to be axiomatic, does in fact require a bit of faith, namely that of faith in the correctness of one's chosen set of axioms.

 

[FredLC]

Mescalhead:

I do not disagree from it, but, as I said, that is another problem. The difficult lies not in the method "de per se", but in our incapacity to fully implement it.

What I want to know is what are the things that, in the opinion of Mrogreturns, aren't "phenomena for which the method is applicable", meaning, things that are intrinsically resilliant to this approach.

Regards .