Sacred Science

[Pongui]

If one considers shamens throughout history, their role and manner, and then observes today's quantum physicists...

 

[Mescalhead]

But the axioms themselves are an extension of the way that the human mind perceives, distinguishes, and evaluates information. Since the measurement is parallel with human consciosness, and it has been "tested" for about a half of a millenium, and is therefore yet to be proven impractical. Unfortunately it can never be absolute, but an approximation that the mind can understand.

 

[FredLC]

I have to disagree from that. I think that the axioms of the scientific method are exactly the safeguard we have against the tendency of human perception to misinterpret data, by granting tools to make the perception of the information more accurate than what it would be if left alone.

The problem is just that gathering the data necessary to make information understandable is a veeeery slow process, and in the meantime we struggle with mistakes that we are defenseless against.

But the tendency, with time, is that things get better and better.

Regards .

 

[YNCS]

Few people know enough about science to be able to accept it except on faith. I am an educated man (with a graduate degree) but I don't have a scientific background. If a scientist tells me that the universe is expanding, I have to take it on faith. In a similar way, if my computer guru tells me that I have to replace my hard drive, I have to take that on faith as well. I am not an expert and therefore I have to have faith that the experts (in science, computers, religion, etc.) are telling me the truth as they know it.

So yes, since religion is faith driven and I have to take science on faith, then science does have some religious overtones.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by YNCS
I am not an expert and therefore I have to have faith that the experts (in science, computers, religion, etc.) are telling me the truth as they know it.

But there is a difference. If you wanted to know how a flashlight works, an engineer can describe to you its design and a physicist can describe the physical properties in which enabled that design to work. If you wanted to know how a computer program works, software engineers can tell you how the program and the operating system is written, computer scientists can tell you how the logical gates are positioned to enable computation, electrical engineers and chemists can tell you how the silicon is doped to make gates, and so on ... With religion you really can't go much beyond "just take my word for it". With science one's knowledge is limited by one's inquisitiveness. With religion it's limited by the fact that it's all bs anyway.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Any kind of knowledge can misinterpreted by the uneducated or not-so-bright as having a "divine" or semidivine origin.

Yes, people do take scientific findings way too much on faith these days, but when I reflect on the relative levels of honesty [certain Church leaders KNEW the earth was round, knew the heliocentric theory was correct, and went on teaching the wrong way] I am reassured. There will be stupid people in all ages, but I think we can trust science to take advantage of them less.

 

[stratego]

With religion you really can't go much beyond "just take my word for it".

That's because bibical writers are historians, and the only proves are records. We don't really have proof that pocahantos saved John Smith, but we accept it has it had happen.

 

[Mrogreturns]

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

Some of the questions that turn up on these boards- the difference between good and evil, the existene or otherwise of god etc.

More down to earth problems are more related to difficulties in manipulating the phenomonon of interest. Consider schizophrenia, how do you manipualte it? You can't. The best you can do is to compare those with it to those without it - an approach that introduces multiple confounds.

 

[floppa21]

Originally posted by stratego


That's because bibical writers are historians, and the only proves are records. We don't really have proof that pocahantos saved John Smith, but we accept it has it had happen.

Not quite on the same level there.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by stratego
That's because bibical writers are historians, and the only proves are records. We don't really have proof that pocahantos saved John Smith, but we accept it has it had happen.

Interesting analogy there... but one that fails to realize that actual historical findings have to be backed by credible sources and artifact findings. Ever stopped to think why people accept the existence of Rome, but not of Atlantis, or why we treat the Aztecs as a historical people, but we don’t do the same about the Amazon female warriors?

Anyway, suffices to say that if historical records told that Pocahontas saved Smith by making the moon stop in the sky for a whole week than making brimstone rain on his foes, we wouldn’t give it much credit as well…

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
Some of the questions that turn up on these boards- the difference between good and evil, the existene or otherwise of god etc.

I think that calling good and evil “phenomena” is pushing it. There are not such things as good and evil, they are just labels we create to refer to things we approve or not. The actual material consequences of the events we label as good and evil – as well as the events themselves – are easily measurable by the given criteria.

As for God, well, I’d say that the very same idea applies. Instead of dealing with the Infinite mysteries of the universe, people summed them all in one big mystery and named it “God”. But it’s not phenomena, not even abstraction… just conjecture. If, however, we ever come across anything at all that implicates the existence of God other than for wishful thinking, there is no reason to imagine that it won’t be measurable.

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
More down to earth problems are more related to difficulties in manipulating the phenomonon of interest. Consider schizophrenia, how do you manipualte it? You can't. The best you can do is to compare those with it to those without it - an approach that introduces multiple confounds.

Schizophrenia is a whole other deal. We can question how we select our parameters of normality, sure, and how much arbitrary thinking is involved at that – but, from a certain parameter, any deviation has it’s origin in a certain variation in the brain… and Ido not presume that our current ignorance of the brain will stand forever. Hence, I have no reason to imagine that we “can’t” manipulate schizophrenia. We can’t now, but the future is the future…

Regards .

 

[Mrogreturns]

@FredLC The morality issues, god etc are not observable, quantifiable phenomona and are consequently not open to scientific investigation- I don't think we have any argument there. This is a limitation on what science can do for us.

[EDIT}- Now I notice that my previous post could have lead you to think that I considered such issues to be phenomona- no that's not the case.

As for the other point- I guess you can argue that there may be no hard limits to the application of the method. That no matter what the difficulties of complexity, distance, energy or time- we can overcome them. That, whenever we are stuck, we will catch that lucky break to give us the necessary leg up.

I agree the method is powerful- the best we know of- but I don't have that much faith in it's application.

 

[col]

The real power of science is that it works. If you look at the progress in the last 200 years compared to the previous 2000 years there has been a startling leap in our ability to comprehend and manipulate the universe.

You dont have to have faith to believe in science to see a light bulb go on and off. The evidence of the success of science and scientific method is all around you.

 

[Speedo]

Having faith in science and it's methods does not require the worship of science.

However, plenty of people do worship science.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Which is just as bad (if not worse) than worshiping God

 

[polymath]

Sacred Science is an interesting choice of Thread Title.

The Sacred Scientific Method, would be closer to the truth. It is a tool, like any other. Just as, to take a very frivolous example, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is a tool. But even if it was just a tool, and not Holy, it would not be less useful.

So that would be my other point - whether it is is sacred or not, makes no difference to its effectiveness. It does not require belief to make it work. It is a bridge between what we know to be the case and what we believe to be the case. Each plank of the bridge decreases the gap between the known and unknown.