|
 dkmonk
Psychonaut Lover
Registered: 10/24/11
Posts: 321
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
 Science being a religion to people. 1
#15786794 - 02/10/12 12:41 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Let me say first that I enjoy science and its discoveries and like to have facts. It is very valuable and important to satisfying our curiosity as humans. I do wish more of its discoveries were predominantly used for pure good, then greed and power, but that is life.
I think a lot of people are so wrapped up in it being the all knowing truth that is concrete so much that they are blinded by it and not able to imagine something that hasn't been proven or measured, so its existence must be impossible.
It is if they are the Radical's of religion, but complete opposite and radical to science when it is subject to change at any time.
If it were't for someone having contridicting ideas about something that science believes to be true then we would not have many of the discoveries we have today.
I think just because you hear there was a new discovery or something has been tested a few hundred times doesn't make it true, maybe the tests aren't being performed in the a manner where they will only get that answer, or doesn't show some additional information to the answer that keeps occurring.
It would be easy for someone to put on a lab coat with a degree, and gather these hardened science believers in a room and lie out there teeth and provide a bunch of data to their claims, and because he spent half his life in school, works in a lab, and has a certain job title makes his statement infallible to them.
I believe science discoveries to be true, but don't view them as absolute truth, and still use my mind to not block out the possibilities that there can be a possible different scenario or that the information can be expounded on and what has been discovered is just the tip of what there is to learn about that theory.
I think with anything a medium is needed, so we aren't ignorant to other possibilities limiting our self which is counterproductive to the field.
--------------------
First Grow Golden Teacher Koh Samui - in progress
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15330714
|
 Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk] 1
#15786845 - 02/10/12 01:00 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Every branch of science has a horizon we can't see beyond that gradually recedes as more nuanced interpretations emerge. For every new thing we learn we prove an earlier belief naively mistaken at best. Until we have consilience among the physical sciences we can't begin to understand the more complex systems that underpin mental phenomena and consciousness, much less macrosystems like climate, ecology, and evolution. To hold a hard line on scientific materialism is no more rational than fundamentalist religion.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
Edited by Mr Person (02/10/12 01:05 AM)
|
dkmonk
Psychonaut Lover
Registered: 10/24/11
Posts: 321
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15786869 - 02/10/12 01:10 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
The pressures of scientists to hold common beliefs instead of trying a new approach due to being scorned and viewed as an outcast of their scientific community has probably hindered a lot of discoveries.
The people don't want to present a new idea, because even if it has good credit to it and it is slightly off they are forever viewed as a bad scientist just because their idea was right in all parts, but one, so it was never given a chance past a first look.
Funding is also is hard to get if you don't hold traditional beliefs, so the proper expenses aren't allotted to help or produce that many theories that may disprove an old one or modify it.
--------------------
First Grow Golden Teacher Koh Samui - in progress
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15330714
|
B0b0
Sage
Registered: 09/22/11
Posts: 264
Last seen: 1 hour, 27 seconds
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15786953 - 02/10/12 01:38 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Science can't be a religion, the person putting their trust into science isn't going off blind faith. It's merely the best system of discovery humans have to explore the world around us without letting our weak minds distort the information. No blind claims of what is unknown.
--------------------
|
dkmonk
Psychonaut Lover
Registered: 10/24/11
Posts: 321
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: B0b0]
#15787009 - 02/10/12 02:00 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I wasn't saying it is, but more that people put so much emphasis on it sometimes that their view of science is like radical religious people about their religion.
Some treat it as the only truth, and deny possibilities since it can't be shown or hasn't yet in science. When science experiments are only as good as the people that do them, and can be wrong, but still held right for a long period of time without out anyone challenging the theory.
I agree with having trust in science, but not putting all your trust in it as the end all to questions or ideas.
If something is unknown, but wants to be, don't we need to have some blind ideas to form what we think is going to happen. You are only given what you already know, and fill in the spots most logically to begin to see if your ideas are true.
A science with out imagination would have got us nowhere. A lot of good discovers are made in a time of peace that is open to imagination, and encourages ideas that have no scientific backing.
I feel we are discouraged by society to have these ideas and talk about them. It earns us labels that connote negativity to discredit the person. Pseudoscience or conspiracy theorist, just because their view are not in line with common ideas. (I agree a lot of conspiracy theorists have idea I don't think has much merit, but there are some that are labeled as that who do have genuine ideas that should be labeled in a negative way)
--------------------
First Grow Golden Teacher Koh Samui - in progress
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15330714
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15787220 - 02/10/12 03:39 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
You certainly win the award for 'Nonsense Thread of the Year Award'. 
Quote:
If it were't for someone having contridicting ideas about something that science believes to be true then we would not have many of the discoveries we have today.
Science is a methodology and holds no beliefs. 
How were these new discoveries CONFIRMED? That's right, folks! Using science.
And in your sig you parade your Mushrooom Grow Log. Hmmm, let us ponder where this METHODOLOGY on inoculation and sterilization came from? Any guesses? Begins with an S. Does this make you the Radical of Religion you mislabel and then despise?
Quote:
I believe science discoveries to be true, but don't view them as absolute truth
Is there a point to a single part of your rant? Scientific 'truths' are hardly viewed as absolutes by educated people. This is quite basic else theories would never be amendable.
Quote:
the possibilities that there can be a possible different scenario
Just a heads up: not everyone here speaks gibberish.
Quote:
I think with anything a medium is needed...
More meaningless stuff and incorrectly phrased to boot. What is the medium to 'gravity is the attractive force between objects with mass and is proportional to distance'?
Quote:
so we aren't ignorant to other possibilities
Ignorance pertains to knowledge, not possibilities. Anything else you care to get wrong?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15787231 - 02/10/12 03:43 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To hold a hard line on scientific materialism is no more rational than fundamentalist religion.
A strawman and a flat and erroneous statement with zero support.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
dkmonk
Psychonaut Lover
Registered: 10/24/11
Posts: 321
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
|
You certainly win the award for 'Nonsense Thread of the Year Award'.
Quote:
If it were't for someone having contridicting ideas about something that science believes to be true then we would not have many of the discoveries we have today.
Science is a methodology and holds no beliefs.
You are splitting hairs here. Science does hold statements that they view to be true, so that scientists can use them to formulate other hypothesis
How were these new discoveries CONFIRMED? That's right, folks! Using science.
And in your sig you parade your Mushrooom Grow Log. Hmmm, let us ponder where this METHODOLOGY on inoculation and sterilization came from? Any guesses? Begins with an S. Does this make you the Radical of Religion you mislabel and then despise?
If you are able to comprehend the entirety of what I was writing is that a lot of people are holding as an absolute and not as what is believed to be true based repeated tests. I wasn't saying science is a religion, and was arguing that it isn't, and that is why people sometimes get too carried away and began to exemplify the characteristics of an overly religious individual.
Again you are being very literal and not using very good reasoning to try to attack my view, but that is fine and acceptable.
Quote:
I believe science discoveries to be true, but don't view them as absolute truth
Is there a point to a single part of your rant? Scientific 'truths' are hardly viewed as absolutes by educated people. This is quite basic else theories would never be amendable.
My point being again that I have witnessed a lot of people who start blurring the lines and making discoveries out to be concrete proof that can't ever be disproven
Quote:
the possibilities that there can be a possible different scenario
Just a heads up: not everyone here speaks gibberish.
Yes, that is very vague and I agree. I was trying to say that individuals who I witness acting in a manner that I am trying convey in this topic choose to see only one possibility and that is what science has showed that is the most likely do to tests, and shut off their mind to anything but that.
Quote:
I think with anything a medium is needed...
More meaningless stuff and incorrectly phrased to boot. What is the medium to 'gravity is the attractive force between objects with mass and is proportional to distance'?
I was typing fast, and apologize for using a wrong word that is similar in structure to the word I meant to use which is median, but seeing as how everything else you take very literal to counter my ideas this is no surprise you didn't you context clues and logic to figure it out.
It is best to have a balanced view on the subject that understands what has been proven, and uses it as what is best known for that time, but doesn't exclude that this idea isn't complete, and can be added on to, or to not rule out something completely different to the idea, by applying other theories to it and try to see if it can dispell the current held idea.
Quote:
so we aren't ignorant to other possibilities
Ignorance pertains to knowledge, not possibilities. Anything else you care to get wrong?
I was saying that it is good to keep an open view so that your mind doesn't shut other views out, and by doing that it would become less aware of another theory than the current held one. If you can't see how that might pertain to knowledge then I don't know what to say
I do apologize for not being the best written opinion on how I see people becoming very close minded when supporting an open minded subject, because they believe what has been shown to work is definitive and complete.
I don't say all people do this, or the majority, but I frequently see it happening.
Like I said before I enjoy reading science articles about the ideas they have tested and got positive results back showing this is how whatever the subject may be most likely works.
Science allows me to get a better understanding for what is around me.
You seem to be misunderstanding me as saying science has no purpose, or I view it as not helping us, or that it is filled with pitfalls, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Which isn't at all what I was saying in my original post.
I take the blame for not writing it more thoroughly, so it was very blatant to what I was trying to express, so hopefully you now understand the purpose of the post.
--------------------
First Grow Golden Teacher Koh Samui - in progress
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15330714
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15787376 - 02/10/12 05:21 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I think a lot of people are so wrapped up in it being the all knowing truth that is concrete so much that they are blinded by it and not able to imagine something that hasn't been proven or measured, so its existence must be impossible.
I can't think of one person here who thinks this way.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
dkmonk
Psychonaut Lover
Registered: 10/24/11
Posts: 321
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Icelander]
#15787392 - 02/10/12 05:36 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I have met a few people who will not even acknowledge an idea unless it has scientific back up, and if it doesn't then they don't even listen.
I might of been a little dramatic in explaining the people, but that is how they come off when I have heard them speak or had a conversation. I was speaking out of emotion on how their inability to even hear a different scenerio made gave me that impression.
--------------------
First Grow Golden Teacher Koh Samui - in progress
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15330714
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15787518 - 02/10/12 06:41 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I have met a few people who will not even acknowledge an idea unless it has scientific back up, and if it doesn't then they don't even listen.
In my experience this is due to the fact that that "idea" has been debunked by them dozens of times or more and they are just fed up hearing the same old flawed rational defending it. After years here I'm certainly tired of hearing certain urban legends repeated by every new crop of wannabes.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
Yohlugax
Stranger
Registered: 10/20/11
Posts: 22
Last seen: 1 month, 21 hours
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15788296 - 02/10/12 10:55 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
The people you are talking about where/whoever they are clearly do not understand what science attempts to do and are just probably too lazy or even unable to reason for themselves so they will believe anything they are handed. It just so happens at this time that they are more often than not being handed scientific discoveries by the media and whoever else.
Science(and any scientist should necessarily agree with this) is anti-dogmatic in the strictest sense.
If this truly interests you I suggest reading some of Karl Popper's work, specifically Conjectures and Refutations.
Good evening.
Edited by Yohlugax (02/10/12 11:05 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Icelander] 1
#15788325 - 02/10/12 11:51 AM (3 months, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
After years here I'm certainly tired of hearing certain urban legends repeated by every new crop of wannabes.
Probably because you are only using 10% of your brain. 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
To hold a hard line on scientific materialism is no more rational than fundamentalist religion.
A strawman and a flat and erroneous statement with zero support.
Exactly what is the straw man in my argument? You can attack my argument but it doesn't make my conclusion untrue. That is the Fallacy Fallacy. You conspicuously neglect to explain how holding beliefs that are not yet proven by science is rational.
That fact is scientific materialists are starting with unwarranted assumptions as premises and therefore no matter how good your logic is and how much evidence you have your conclusions cannot be truly validated. For example, in the short time I've been a member here I've seen you post numerous threads that seem to be working from the premise that we humans of 2012 have gotten to the point where we understand things mostly. There are a couple of pesky details to iron out still, but the evidence points to a fully materialistic universe. This is an unprovable assumption since we have no idea how much there is left that we don't know. There are anomalies everywhere you look, and no branch of science is anywhere close to "complete" as far as we can tell.
People throughout history have always believed they were right on the cusp of having the universe all figured out. When you take present day scientific assumptions and project them out into the future without accounting for all the unknown unknowns that we haven't discovered yet you are following in this noble tradition of rationalization passed down through the ages. Just as many previously orthodox scientific beliefs are laughable to us today, I don't think your assumptions will necessarily remain legitimate as we discover more about the universe through science.
In fact I think that the more a person learns about the universe the less likely scientific materialism seems. There is a reason so many working scientists identify as religious or at the least spiritually open . The universe is more awe inspiring and complex than your reductionist ideas give it credit for, and to claim that it is entirely materialistic with certainty is to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary which is inherently irrational.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15789158 - 02/10/12 03:28 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
That fact is scientific materialists are starting with unwarranted assumptions as premises
Like what?
Premises, or postulates, in science are not warranted by definition. They are assumed. That is how postulates work. Nobody really claims otherwise.
|
 millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 4,631
Last seen: 2 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15789274 - 02/10/12 03:49 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
To hold a hard line on scientific materialism is no more rational than fundamentalist religion.
A strawman and a flat and erroneous statement with zero support.
Exactly what is the straw man in my argument? You can attack my argument but it doesn't make my conclusion untrue. That is the Fallacy Fallacy. You conspicuously neglect to explain how holding beliefs that are not yet proven by science is rational.
That fact is scientific materialists are starting with unwarranted assumptions as premises and therefore no matter how good your logic is and how much evidence you have your conclusions cannot be truly validated. For example, in the short time I've been a member here I've seen you post numerous threads that seem to be working from the premise that we humans of 2012 have gotten to the point where we understand things mostly. There are a couple of pesky details to iron out still, but the evidence points to a fully materialistic universe. This is an unprovable assumption since we have no idea how much there is left that we don't know. There are anomalies everywhere you look, and no branch of science is anywhere close to "complete" as far as we can tell.
People throughout history have always believed they were right on the cusp of having the universe all figured out. When you take present day scientific assumptions and project them out into the future without accounting for all the unknown unknowns that we haven't discovered yet you are following in this noble tradition of rationalization passed down through the ages. Just as many previously orthodox scientific beliefs are laughable to us today, I don't think your assumptions will necessarily remain legitimate as we discover more about the universe through science.
In fact I think that the more a person learns about the universe the less likely scientific materialism seems. There is a reason so many working scientists identify as religious or at the least spiritually open . The universe is more awe inspiring and complex than your reductionist ideas give it credit for, and to claim that it is entirely materialistic with certainty is to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary which is inherently irrational.
this.
--------------------
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.- Philip K. Dick
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 4,734
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15789285 - 02/10/12 03:53 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
To hold a hard line on scientific materialism is no more rational than fundamentalist religion.
A strawman and a flat and erroneous statement with zero support.
Exactly what is the straw man in my argument? You can attack my argument but it doesn't make my conclusion untrue. That is the Fallacy Fallacy. You conspicuously neglect to explain how holding beliefs that are not yet proven by science is rational.
That fact is scientific materialists are starting with unwarranted assumptions as premises and therefore no matter how good your logic is and how much evidence you have your conclusions cannot be truly validated. For example, in the short time I've been a member here I've seen you post numerous threads that seem to be working from the premise that we humans of 2012 have gotten to the point where we understand things mostly. There are a couple of pesky details to iron out still, but the evidence points to a fully materialistic universe. This is an unprovable assumption since we have no idea how much there is left that we don't know. There are anomalies everywhere you look, and no branch of science is anywhere close to "complete" as far as we can tell.
People throughout history have always believed they were right on the cusp of having the universe all figured out. When you take present day scientific assumptions and project them out into the future without accounting for all the unknown unknowns that we haven't discovered yet you are following in this noble tradition of rationalization passed down through the ages. Just as many previously orthodox scientific beliefs are laughable to us today, I don't think your assumptions will necessarily remain legitimate as we discover more about the universe through science.
In fact I think that the more a person learns about the universe the less likely scientific materialism seems. There is a reason so many working scientists identify as religious or at the least spiritually open . The universe is more awe inspiring and complex than your reductionist ideas give it credit for, and to claim that it is entirely materialistic with certainty is to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary which is inherently irrational.
Yeah, you're pointing at psuedo-scientists. lol.
+5
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 4,631
Last seen: 2 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: teknix]
#15789320 - 02/10/12 04:00 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
correct me if i'm wrong mr. person, but i think he's saying that the notion that science has everything figured out is psuedo science in itself.
--------------------
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.- Philip K. Dick
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 4,734
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15789410 - 02/10/12 04:20 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dkmonk said:
Let me say first that I enjoy science and its discoveries and like to have facts. It is very valuable and important to satisfying our curiosity as humans. I do wish more of its discoveries were predominantly used for pure good, then greed and power, but that is life.
I think a lot of people are so wrapped up in it being the all knowing truth that is concrete so much that they are blinded by it and not able to imagine something that hasn't been proven or measured, so its existence must be impossible.
It is if they are the Radical's of religion, but complete opposite and radical to science when it is subject to change at any time.
If it were't for someone having contridicting ideas about something that science believes to be true then we would not have many of the discoveries we have today.
I think just because you hear there was a new discovery or something has been tested a few hundred times doesn't make it true, maybe the tests aren't being performed in the a manner where they will only get that answer, or doesn't show some additional information to the answer that keeps occurring.
It would be easy for someone to put on a lab coat with a degree, and gather these hardened science believers in a room and lie out there teeth and provide a bunch of data to their claims, and because he spent half his life in school, works in a lab, and has a certain job title makes his statement infallible to them.
I believe science discoveries to be true, but don't view them as absolute truth, and still use my mind to not block out the possibilities that there can be a possible different scenario or that the information can be expounded on and what has been discovered is just the tip of what there is to learn about that theory.
I think with anything a medium is needed, so we aren't ignorant to other possibilities limiting our self which is counterproductive to the field.
+5 to you too.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: dkmonk]
#15789630 - 02/10/12 05:20 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dkmonk said:
.
If it were't for someone having contridicting ideas about something that science believes to be true then we would not have many of the discoveries we have today.
Such as what? This doesn't seem obvious to me, though I hear religious appologists and mystics claiming this all the time.
Quote:
It would be easy for someone to put on a lab coat with a degree, and gather these hardened science believers in a room and lie out there teeth and provide a bunch of data to their claims, and because he spent half his life in school, works in a lab, and has a certain job title makes his statement infallible to them.
So what? What does that have to do with science?
Quote:
I believe science discoveries to be true, but don't view them as absolute truth, and still use my mind to not block out the possibilities that there can be a possible different scenario or that the information can be expounded on and what has been discovered is just the tip of what there is to learn about that theory.
People claiming these sorts of things seem to make up quite a bit of error that i don't think exists in the history of science. Like my challenge to your earlier claim, I don't think there's much that shows previous positive scientific theories to be wrong. This is one of the strengths of science- what you know can be presumed correct with a high degree of confidence. Most of the denigrating or limiting claims I see about science (again, often from the religious folks or the hippies) seems to be made by folks who don't know what science is or are simply wrong. These folks often read media reports and draw conclusions from what is quite often crappy reporting.
Quote:
dkmonk said:
The pressures of scientists to hold common beliefs instead of trying a new approach due to being scorned and viewed as an outcast of their scientific community has probably hindered a lot of discoveries.
How do you back this up?
Quote:
Funding is also is hard to get if you don't hold traditional beliefs, so the proper expenses aren't allotted to help or produce that many theories that may disprove an old one or modify it.
So what? This is a good thing, I would think. It would seem more fruitful to examine the unknown than to test what we allready have proven or demonstrated for the tenth time.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15789684 - 02/10/12 05:36 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
What gets me is that you can almost always predict who will defend the scientific method and who will scrutinize it. Fundamentalists the lot of us.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle] 1
#15789692 - 02/10/12 05:38 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
What gets me is that you can almost always predict who will defend the scientific method and who will scrutinize it. Fundamentalists the lot of us.
How does that make either party a fundamentalist? To me it just says that we have opinions and have gotten to know what each others opinions are.
I have never seen anybody change their mind on the science vs whatever debate in here.
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 4,631
Last seen: 2 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15789798 - 02/10/12 06:05 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I have never seen anybody change their mind on the science vs whatever debate in here.
science is by no means static. it is constantly changing. i think the poster you are responding to was pointing out the hypocrisy of dogmatically adhering to something that is the antithesis of dogmatic thought.
moreover, you're never going to answer religious questions with science and vice versa. both are addressing completely different aspects of being with science focusing on object and religion focusing on subjective experience. this is a major source of disconnect in this discussion (in general not just this particular thread).
--------------------
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.- Philip K. Dick
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: millzy]
#15789807 - 02/10/12 06:07 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
science is by no means static.
Science or scientific theories and hypothesis? I keep getting confused which one is being reffed too. They are different things and I suspect losing that distinction is something that fuels the mystics misunderstanding.
The complaints I see in this thread are just flat out false IMO. Just about every claim made in the OP against science is something made up by mystics that doesn't really happen.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15789910 - 02/10/12 06:37 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Kickle said:
What gets me is that you can almost always predict who will defend the scientific method and who will scrutinize it. Fundamentalists the lot of us.
How does that make either party a fundamentalist? To me it just says that we have opinions and have gotten to know what each others opinions are.
I have never seen anybody change their mind on the science vs whatever debate in here.
Fundamentalist in the sense of being caught on a viewpoint down to the most fundamental of levels. Science certainly needs no defending and yet we persist.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15789937 - 02/10/12 06:45 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Its definitely got a pejorative tone when you use it though. Can I support science and accept scientific theories without be a fundamentalist? If I reject mysticism then I am a fundamentalist, right?
I certainly dont agree that science needs no defending, not by a long shot - as evidenced by this very thread.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15790005 - 02/10/12 07:05 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Say no one stepped in to defend science, what happens? The method falls apart? The findings no longer have validity? Or is it more that some hethen gets away without being challenged by righteousness?
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15790018 - 02/10/12 07:08 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Say no one stepped in to defend science, what happens?
One step, large or small, closer to dark ages and all that entails. Its a pretty big deal. Thankfully science has been winning for a while, but that doesn't mean we have room to give up.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15790029 - 02/10/12 07:11 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Could be. There have been periods without science that were far from dark ages though.
Reminds me of a preacher who warns of moral decline without religious identity tho TBH
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15790265 - 02/10/12 08:07 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Like what?
Premises, or postulates, in science are not warranted by definition. They are assumed. That is how postulates work. Nobody really claims otherwise.
I gave an example right after that. I don't disagree with any specific scientific postulates, in fact I agree that science is one of the only methods of acquiring true knowledge. It's in the unknowns of scientific knowledge that I still see room for "mysticism".
The big unwarranted assumptions that dogmatic materialists make are:
1) that we know enough about the universe to come to a final conclusion on it's nature
2) that we are close to, if not already, understanding all phenomena we know of through science
3) that it is possible for humans to know the universe
None of those can logically or scientifically be proven true. Until they can be materialism is (like dualism, mysticism, and other non-materialist philosophies) only a possibility. Personally I tend to think the answer is probably in between somewhere. Don't ask me how that works I'm just a human.
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Can I support science and accept scientific theories without be a fundamentalist? If I reject mysticism then I am a fundamentalist, right?
And alternatively, can one reject materialism and not be uncritically accepting of every New Age idea that comes their way? If I reject materialism then I am a wacky mystic right?
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15790351 - 02/10/12 08:34 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Mr Person,
Who believes either of those three ideas you mentioned? Sounds like a straw man to me- the same stuff is constantly claimed to represent the scientific viewpoint (or dogma), yet nobody ever seems able to substantiate such claims. Far as I can tell, its just ignorant or aggrieved people railing against some concept they themselves created- some perverse notion of what science is that is unrecognizable.
I don't think its a coincidence that those who bitch about science in these forums often reveal themselves to have a poor understanding of what the method actually is, and are entirely incorrect in a number of their assumptions. (how often do you here people claiming science can't investigate ESP, spirituality, mysticism, or whatever? Quite a bit, and people offer these claims as some justification of their wacky beliefs, yet they never seem able to explain what's so difficult about testing their mystical claims, revealing a strange unfamiliarity with basic scientific methodology)
Quote:
Kickle said:
Say no one stepped in to defend science, what happens? The method falls apart? The findings no longer have validity? Or is it more that some hethen gets away without being challenged by righteousness?
What happens is you get ignoramuses making it official policy to lie to children about the "scientific theory" of intelligent design and evolution, straight-faced claims that their is some scientific controversy over whether creationism or evolution best explains the origin of species, and you get religious people conniving to teach bible stories with no empirical evidence in science class.
You get media articles making shockingly poor claims regarding what a study showed, and a student body who can get in "A" in high school science without knowing how to do a scientific experiment or what science actually is. Much of the public seems to conflate science with trivia-like lists of factoids of the type taught in many schools.
Science is constantly under attack by people who find it inconvenient, and like any man-made institution, it needs to be defended or it will die of neglect. Long before that happens, however; the fruits of the method will cease to be of use to large swaths of the population under the control of those with agendas inconvenienced by reality- the new agers, the religious, and so forth. These attacks have been going on since before science really existed as a formal discipline, in the era of 'natural philosophers'.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15790371 - 02/10/12 08:41 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I don't understand. The institution needs to be defended or it will return to ignorance? Does that mean that people are ignorant without guidance? That line of thinking sounds very similar to the religious mentality of "a shepherd for the flock".
If people would easily slip back into ignorance without being forced into science, then I am far more worried about what they will do with science when they get their hands on it than anything.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214] 1
#15790409 - 02/10/12 08:57 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Mr Person,
Who believes either of those three ideas you mentioned? Sounds like a straw man to me- the same stuff is constantly claimed to represent the scientific viewpoint (or dogma), yet nobody ever seems able to substantiate such claims. Far as I can tell, its just ignorant or aggrieved people railing against some concept they themselves created- some perverse notion of what science is that is unrecognizable.
I'm not criticizing science or the scientific viewpoint. I'm criticizing people that try to force a false dichotomy between science and mysticism. I guess this is where my own assumptions come into play, because I assume that anyone who is forceful or aggressive in their belief of abiogenesis and materialism must believe the assumptions I listed. I guess I just can't get past the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging the deficiencies of modern science while still completely accepting materialism. This doesn't mean I think that science is wrong about anything it touches on, just ignorant of other things.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
Racinette
Stranger
Registered: 06/29/10
Posts: 75
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15790650 - 02/10/12 10:09 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I had a similar conversation with my friend a while ago. Science has basically taken the place religion held hundreds of years ago. While science is supposed to be an unbiased testable discipline, people still believe it like they would any other religious belief.
Scientists take the place of priests and bishops hundreds of years ago. They said this and that about god and people believed them because they were higher ups who know more than the general population. They had a more intimate connection with god
Scientists are the same way these days. People believe they are educated people and have a better understanding of reality than them, so when science says X is true or we have found out Y, people blindly believe it simply because a scientists said it. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. All the matters is people treat it the same way as a religious belief. They blindly believe it to be true without actually knowing. Obviously this doesn't apply to EVERYONE, but to the majority of the population.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person] 1
#15790752 - 02/10/12 10:38 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Can I support science and accept scientific theories without be a fundamentalist? If I reject mysticism then I am a fundamentalist, right?
And alternatively, can one reject materialism and not be uncritically accepting of every New Age idea that comes their way? If I reject materialism then I am a wacky mystic right?
Probably. Wacky mystics are the ones who use that term 'materialist' so much. Scientific and secular people dont generally identify with 'materialist'. As a philosophic notion it is projected far more often than it is embraced IME.
Im not even sure what context you are using it in, everybody has their own take on it...
('Physical' is another one of those loaded words that mystics love to debate about but secular people dont really care about it as much as thought)
Science is not about materialism. That is a pejorative projection. Science is about modeling observations and necessarily keeping those models tentative. Materialism has nothing to do with except for people who want their magic powers to be real (IME).
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15790864 - 02/10/12 11:16 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
I don't understand. The institution needs to be defended or it will return to ignorance?
No, the institution's value and merit needs to be defended or it will diminish in its effectiveness and the fruits of it will be unrecognized, unavailable, or unembraced.
Quote:
Does that mean that people are ignorant without guidance? That line of thinking sounds very similar to the religious mentality of "a shepherd for the flock".
I don't think so. I beleive it to suggest people are ignorant without enlightenment, and science is the best way of learning about our world that we have, hence to reject it is to invite ignorance and counterproductive policy, injustice, et cet.
Quote:
If people would easily slip back into ignorance without being forced into science, then I am far more worried about what they will do with science when they get their hands on it than anything.
I did not suggest nor contemplate "forcing [someone] into science". What I suggested was that it is useful to defend science and the fruits thereof from those who wish to lie about them or divorce public policy from them.
Quote:
Mr Person said:
I guess this is where my own assumptions come into play, because I assume that anyone who is forceful or aggressive in their belief of abiogenesis and materialism must believe the assumptions I listed.
Why? I don't see why you'd need to believe any of those things
Quote:
I guess I just can't get past the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging the eficiencies of modern science while still completely accepting materialism. This doesn't mean I think that science is wrong about anything it touches on, just ignorant of other things.
I echo diecommie's point about "materialist" and similar terms. I view my world view as scientifically-based, that is I believe what the evidence suggests, ideally. I suppose I'd call myself a materialist, but I don't believe any of the three points you offered.
I don't really get the term in the first place, though. Far as I can see, if some immaterial phenomena were at all relevant to our world then it woudl seem to be material by definition. I don't really think the question is too important, I just generally find suggestions of immaterial phenomena to be stupid in many cases because they seem entirely speculative and often founded upon illogical premises, such as an undetectable phenomena that nevertheless influences the physical world- a contradiction by itself.
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 4,734
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15791192 - 02/11/12 01:27 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
It is simple: knowing vs thinking you know.
To me this is one of the "dumber" insights that some fail at.
At the time it was quite profound, even though it is now seemingly dumb in retrospect.
Realizing how little you really know isn't for everyone.
:P
Edited by teknix (02/11/12 01:43 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Racinette]
#15791308 - 02/11/12 02:30 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Racinette said:
I had a similar conversation with my friend a while ago. Science has basically taken the place religion held hundreds of years ago. While science is supposed to be an unbiased testable discipline, people still believe it like they would any other religious belief.
Humans are still humans... and we humans have a brain deficiency which makes us inclined to believe in dogma, authority figures, and so on. Humans are also experts on suppressing contradictory information. There are for example tons of scientists that still believe in Christianity, even though the two world-views clearly are contradictory. Clearly there is less dogma and bias in scientific communities than in religious communities, but scientists are still humans and therefore prone to make the same mistakes as all other humans.
And btw... I don't think it is a coincidence that the big bang theory was invented in the west by a Christian priest. Both judeo-christianity and the big bang theory has a linear conception of time. Seems to me like the big bang theory merely is an attempt at reconciling the modern scientific world-view with the traditional jeudo-christian world-view. If the scientific revolution had happened in China or India, I highly doubt that the big bang theory would be the consensus of the scientific community.
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/12 02:51 AM)
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15791811 - 02/11/12 07:55 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
that's a good point but it doesn't take away from the mountain of evidence pointing towards a primordial explosion + there are lots of theories of why the big bang happened that are hardly linear.
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
Edited by blingbling (02/11/12 07:56 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15791826 - 02/11/12 08:07 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said:
that's a good point but it doesn't take away from the mountain of evidence pointing towards a primordial explosion + there are lots of theories of why the big bang happened that are hardly linear.
Explosion? I think inflation is a much better word to use, and as far as I know more and more cosmologists don't believe that the universe started with the big bang. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe in the big bang as an event, but they tend to embed the "big bang event" into some larger eternal theory of the universe ( usually either as a multiverse or a cyclic model of the universe ). An eternal cyclic model of the universe can hardly be called the big bang theory. A much better name would be the eternal cyclic theory, or something like that.
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/12 08:15 AM)
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15791836 - 02/11/12 08:10 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
it makes sense that something happened to cause the big bang but i quite like hawkings model which proposes that time didn't exist before the big bang but again, what caused time to start?
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214] 1
#15791860 - 02/11/12 08:20 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I don't think so. I beleive it to suggest people are ignorant without enlightenment, and science is the best way of learning about our world that we have, hence to reject it is to invite ignorance and counterproductive policy, injustice, et cet.
Believe what you want. I have rejected science and I do not invite ignorance or counterproductive policy in. The benefit of rejecting science is that I do not have to tow a party line in every debate. Science is useful, but it is not by a long shot the only useful system of understanding the world. The claim of best is speculative and personal. For myself I find that science becomes much more useful when it is one aspect amongst a collection of systems rather than the exclusive means to examine an event.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791866 - 02/11/12 08:22 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
that depends on how you define science.
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15791868 - 02/11/12 08:23 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
What are you thinking of exactly?
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791874 - 02/11/12 08:25 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
well, if you incorporate reason itself into science then surely science is the best way to analyze reality.
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15791879 - 02/11/12 08:27 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Assuming that reality is reasonable?
|
White Beard
Venerable White Beard
Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 2,318
Loc: In the forest somewhere.
Last seen: 1 hour, 21 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791886 - 02/11/12 08:29 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
lol
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791904 - 02/11/12 08:34 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Assuming that reality is reasonable?
maybe it's not. but what other choice do we have?
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15791911 - 02/11/12 08:37 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
To not have any expectations for what we don't really understand.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15791913 - 02/11/12 08:37 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
but again, what caused time to start?
Putting new batteries in my watch.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791919 - 02/11/12 08:40 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
but again, what caused time to start?
Putting new batteries in my watch.
Quote:
Kickle said:
To not have any expectations for what we don't really understand.
are you refuting reason?
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Icelander]
#15791922 - 02/11/12 08:41 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Assuming that reality is reasonable?
Its not assumed, its observed. And to a large part our 'reason' is formulated and defined by our observations.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15791943 - 02/11/12 08:47 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
If reality is reasonable then there are no unreasonable things, since they would have to exist outside of reality.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791951 - 02/11/12 08:49 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
If reality is reasonable then there are no unreasonable things, since they would have to exist outside of reality.
Sure. And if reality (or better put, observations) defines our reason then it is absolutely reasonable. (If not, our reason is wrong)
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15791960 - 02/11/12 08:51 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Pure speculation IMO. I have no idea how one could determine that reality is reasonable without knowing all of reality.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15791965 - 02/11/12 08:54 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Pure speculation IMO. I have no idea how one could determine that reality is reasonable without knowing all of reality.
Thats why I said observations. Science doesnt really deal with reality, it deals with observations.
Many observations are reasonable, we observe them and reason their properties. Other observations are not reasonable, and we endeavor to build systems of reason to describe them.
Reason is defined by our observations.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15791973 - 02/11/12 08:56 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Probably. Wacky mystics are the ones who use that term 'materialist' so much. Scientific and secular people dont generally identify with 'materialist'. As a philosophic notion it is projected far more often than it is embraced IME.
Im not even sure what context you are using it in, everybody has their own take on it...
('Physical' is another one of those loaded words that mystics love to debate about but secular people dont really care about it as much as thought)
Science is not about materialism. That is a pejorative projection. Science is about modeling observations and necessarily keeping those models tentative. Materialism has nothing to do with except for people who want their magic powers to be real (IME).
Well now I feel like I'm arguing with a Fox News Christian. Really? Science is not about materialism? Are we living in the same world here? Granted the scientific method in it's purest form is not about materialism, but the modern institution that is Science is quite firmly grounded in a materialistic framework. And I'm not using some made up conception of an obscure word. It's pretty simple. "The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."
"Materialism is closely associated and aligned with the natural sciences. Modern science involves the study of the material world around us, learning about material events, and theorizing about their material causes. Scientists are materialists in that they only study the material world, although they may personally believe in non-material entities."
If you really don't believe that modern science and materialism are practically synonymous then please do some research on the history of modern science back to the scientific revolution.
"Historians of the scientific revolution traditionally maintain that its most important changes were in the way in which scientific investigation was conducted, as well as the philosophy underlying scientific developments. Among the main changes are the mechanical philosophy, the chemical philosophy, empiricism, and the increasing role of mathematics."
Mechanism, chemical philosophy, and empiricism are all fundamentally materialistic philosophies that underpin modern science and fly in the face of assertions of it's somehow non-materialistic nature.
Also check out the debate between Rene Descartes (dualist) and Pierre Gassendi (materialist). They wrestled over this debate for the foundations of modern science. (Spoiler alert!) The materialists won.
I agree it's possible to embrace science without being a materialist. I embrace science and I don't consider myself a materialist. But I am also not condescending to people who believe in chakras. I don't try to convince people on the internet that abiogenesis is fact. And I don't automatically assume that we humans are in a position to be explaining the universe any more than we've actually accomplished on any given day.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15791988 - 02/11/12 09:01 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
like the sig
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15791989 - 02/11/12 09:01 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Kickle said:
Pure speculation IMO. I have no idea how one could determine that reality is reasonable without knowing all of reality.
Thats why I said observations. Science doesnt really deal with reality, it deals with observations.
Many observations are reasonable, we observe them and reason their properties. Other observations are not reasonable, and we endeavor to build systems of reason to describe them.
Reason is defined by our observations.
Sure scientific observations are reasonable. No debate there.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15791999 - 02/11/12 09:03 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Ill say again... Its the wacky mystics who focus on 'materialism' and what it entails. Scientists dont care about it.
Your linked definition of materialism - so what? All things are matter or energy? Thats not even a scientific statement. Matter is ill defined in science. As such, thats a meaningless statement. And what of other concepts like space, time, probability, charge? Those are neither matter nor energy yet they are the bread and butter of science.
I think you are stuck in an old school mystical interpretation of science.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15792001 - 02/11/12 09:04 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Kickle said:
Pure speculation IMO. I have no idea how one could determine that reality is reasonable without knowing all of reality.
Thats why I said observations. Science doesnt really deal with reality, it deals with observations.
Many observations are reasonable, we observe them and reason their properties. Other observations are not reasonable, and we endeavor to build systems of reason to describe them.
Reason is defined by our observations.
Sure scientific observations are reasonable. No debate there.
I didnt say scientific observations.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15792011 - 02/11/12 09:06 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Oh
That's good.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15792022 - 02/11/12 09:10 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I don't think so. I beleive it to suggest people are ignorant without enlightenment, and science is the best way of learning about our world that we have, hence to reject it is to invite ignorance and counterproductive policy, injustice, et cet.
Believe what you want. I have rejected science and I do not invite ignorance or counterproductive policy in. The benefit of rejecting science is that I do not have to tow a party line in every debate.
How is that a benefit of rejecting science? I can't see what embracing science has to do with a party line.
Quote:
Science is useful, but it is not by a long shot the only useful system of understanding the world. The claim of best is speculative and personal.
Of course such a claim is personal, subjective, and so forth- do you challenge it? What other methodology is similar in its efficacy and usefulness?
Quote:
For myself I find that science becomes much more useful when it is one aspect amongst a collection of systems rather than the exclusive means to examine an event.
What other systems do you refer to here?
Quote:
teknix said:
It is simple: knowing vs thinking you know.
To me this is one of the "dumber" insights that some fail at.
At the time it was quite profound, even though it is now seemingly dumb in retrospect.
Realizing how little you really know isn't for everyone.
:P
What does this have to do with my post? You seem to declare a bunch of things without connecting them to anything of relevance.
Quote:
Kickle said:
Pure speculation IMO. I have no idea how one could determine that reality is reasonable without knowing all of reality.
Because, as diecommie mentioned, a thought is determined to be reasonable simply by testing it against reality. Reality is reasonable by definition.
Even ignoring this tautology, the sciences have shown a remarkable simplicity permeates our world: the physical world is remarkably simple to understand and model by simple equations. I would not have suspected, for instance, that basic physics is such a simple endeavor, with so few variables and calculations required to make accurate predictions regarding the energy of a moving body, the time an object will strike the earth, and so forth. The same is true in chemistry- you can predict results with amazing accuracy simply by taking a few measurements.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15792033 - 02/11/12 09:14 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I think you are stuck in an old school mystical interpretation of science.
I think it is you who is stuck in an alternative definition of science. You've got this platonic ideal in your head of science as this pure instrument of observation or something but that minimizes the hundreds of years of baggage, dogma, and cognitive bias that it has accumulated since the Enlightenment... almost like a religion! And that brings us full circle to the point of this thread.
"The history of the physical sciences is replete with episode after episode in which the discoveries of science, subversive as they were because they undermined existing knowledge, had a hard time achieving acceptability and respectability. Galileo was forced to recant; Bruno was burned at the stake; and so forth."
So what makes us so sure that today's science is any more sound than the "science" Bruno and Galileo were up against? Faith in unwarranted assumptions.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person] 1
#15792044 - 02/11/12 09:19 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Faith in unwarranted assumptions.
No. Dropping the baggage of 'material' debates is why today's scientific perspective is more sound than in the past. Increasingly accurate models that predict and describe observations is why todays scientific theories are more sound that of the past. And a better understanding of the relationships between those observations has led us, particularly in the 20th century, to a point where the distinction between 'material' or not, 'physical' or not is irrelevant.
Nobody in science gives a crap is something is material or physical. They care if they can model it and predict observations quantitatively and/or qualitatively. This is something beginning students struggle with... They ask if the electric field is 'real'? Its an irrelevant question.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15792051 - 02/11/12 09:22 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I meant party line not in a republican/democrat sense but in a political sense. Fighting for it's [science] influence on the country.
For methodologies that show similar efficacy? Maybe Buddhism. But for the most part efficacy is not a criteria of other systems and so personally it's not what I would use to weigh their worth. Usefulness on the other hand, any. Unless you confine what sort of use you're referring to, any belief structure can be just as useful as another.
Briefly, I am influenced by psychoanalytic theory, christianity, buddhism, psychedelic experiences, non-psychedelic experiences, scientific findings, grofian theory, jungian theory, death anxiety, comparative psychology, comparative mythology, greek mythology, etc.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15792098 - 02/11/12 09:38 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
No. Dropping the baggage of 'material' debates is why today's scientific perspective is more sound than in the past. Increasingly accurate models that predict and describe observations is why todays scientific theories are more sound that of the past. And a better understanding of the relationships between those observations has led us, particularly in the 20th century, to a point where the distinction between 'material' or not, 'physical' or not is irrelevant.
Who dropped the materialism debate? As far as I knew it was still unresolved, and still underpinning the natural sciences. Again are we in the same world here? Just because you and some anecdotal researchers don't care about it doesn't mean that it's not still being debated.
And don't you think the establishment of Bruno's day felt that their models were getting increasingly accurate? And that they had a better understanding than any other humans that had ever lived? Not to say they were even wrong about that but humans have always felt that way and they never even realized how much they had left to learn.
Kickle I like your style! You should check out dynamic paradoxicalism.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15792156 - 02/11/12 09:59 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
I meant party line not in a republican/democrat sense but in a political sense. Fighting for it's [science] influence on the country.
Yes, I understood, I just don't see how your statement makes sense: how does rejecting science free you from having to advance a party line?
Quote:
For methodologies that show similar efficacy? Maybe Buddhism.
How do you back that up? What useful predictions has Buddhism produced? What accurate models of phenomena has it developed? I don't understand how Buddhism is challenging at all to the sceintific methodology.
Quote:
But for the most part efficacy is not a criteria of other systems and so personally it's not what I would use to weigh their worth. Usefulness on the other hand, any.
How can you question whether science is the best methodology to learn about the world, advance other methods as supperior in some respects, and claim that their efficacy is irrelevant? It is the efficacy of science that is its greatest merit- it works.
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
No. Dropping the baggage of 'material' debates is why today's scientific perspective is more sound than in the past. Increasingly accurate models that predict and describe observations is why todays scientific theories are more sound that of the past. And a better understanding of the relationships between those observations has led us, particularly in the 20th century, to a point where the distinction between 'material' or not, 'physical' or not is irrelevant.
Who dropped the materialism debate?
Was there ever a debate in science as a discipline to begin with? Seems more like a remnant of the time of the natural philosophers and such. I've never heard one word about materialism in any of my science classes- it simply isn't an issue. Science is concerned with observations and predictions- whether the phenomena is "material" or not is irrelevant.
Quote:
And don't you think the establishment of Bruno's day felt that their models were getting increasingly accurate?
No, I believe they felt they were absolutely certain and thus scientific inquiry was a waste of time at best, and heretical at worst. Further, they couldn't be said to be scientists or users of science anyways. Just like the flat earthers and other beliefs people trot out to suggest science is quite often incorrect in its beliefs, this seems fallacious. The flat earth belief does not seem to be a scientificly-arrived at hypothesis, nor was geocentricism.
Then, as now, those believers in revelation and faithare impediments to science in so much as they involve themselves with it- for they are absolutely sure what is true. (then, after many years pass and they can't fight it any more, they simply reverse course and declare god to have designed the heliocentric solar system, contagious diseases, and evolution- never again making refrence to their previous dogmatic opposition to these scientific discoveries that they fought for so long against).
Quote:
And that they had a better understanding than any other humans that had ever lived?
What does it matter? This is a false comparison with scientific theories. Scientific theories should not be believed because people are confident in them, but because they are supported by the evidence and have survived falsifiable tests. This is entirely different than the belief in geocentrism on the grounds of authority, consensus, and divine revelation.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15792223 - 02/11/12 10:22 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I said Buddhism because Buddhism places responsibility upon the individual to find out whether what it purports is true or not. If one tries it and finds it to be effective, then one can say it has high efficacy. It isn't supposed to be challenging to science, which IMO has a different goal, I was merely addressing efficacy. Buddhism from the earliest texts does not expect people to buy into the teachings on faith but to find out if there is truth to them. An advantage over science here is that anyone can test what Buddhism describes. There is no special equipment needed. Being human is sufficient. So any aspect of the teaching can be explored and none need be taken on faith. This to me differs from science which requires many findings to be taken on faith as they simply cannot be replicated by anyone or everyone. It also is a big perk for me on a personal level when I do not have to take efficacy findings on faith and can find out first hand.
I take this sort of thinking to other religions which do not depend upon being effective towards any particular goal themselves. I find a lot of useful and effective teachings when actually put to the test. If I cannot test it myself the credibility for me is in constant question, to varying degrees, not to mention somewhat useless on a personal level. This includes science. It's not a matter of superiority in any objective sense, it's a matter of what works for me. Another approach might work better for another. I'm arguing that science is not objectively the best means to exploring the world and using myself as evidence. Scrutinize it. Are my posts ignorant? Do I push forward harmful policies? If so, show me. It's here to examine.
As for how it frees me from advancing a party line, it's because I don't think anyone knows what they are talking about. I can't get behind any party because I think we are all full of shit 
|
soldatheero
lastirishman
Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,588
Loc: 
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie] 1
#15792272 - 02/11/12 10:40 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Was there ever a debate in science as a discipline to begin with? Seems more like a remnant of the time of the natural philosophers and such. I've never heard one word about materialism in any of my science classes- it simply isn't an issue. Science is concerned with observations and predictions- whether the phenomena is "material" or not is irrelevant
Of course it's not an issue, it's not an issue because it is an axiom that is assumed and left undefended. The axiom that is materialism is the cornerstone of the entire paradigm, nobody is taught about materialism it isn't even acknowledged, we are not taught about materialism but instead are taught in terms of materialism.
It's bullshit to say "materialism no longer has implications on science" or anything of that sort, thats absurd. Neuro-scientists build their theories under the premise that all experiences are caused by brain states, biologists and evolutionists build theories under the premise that darwinian evolution ( survival of the fittest&natural selection) is correct and evolution is random and purposeless. Materialism determines theories in physics and how QM is interpreted and all theories exclude the existence of mind. Psychologists and psychiatrists treat the individual as if it is a machine that can be fixed by replacing parts.. etc etc etc
Materialism is completely self-assumed in this society even more so then 100 years ago, that is why you don't think it is an issue and nobody is debating it. It's an assumption that people have forgotten they are making do to indoctrination and conditioned thinking. If you think otherwise then sad to say but you are likely another victim.
--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
Edited by soldatheero (02/11/12 10:54 AM)
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15792372 - 02/11/12 11:08 AM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Who dropped the materialism debate?
Modern scientists. At least, 20th century scientists and beyond. Its a non-issue, only continued by people that want to believe that they have magical powers or eternal lives waiting for them. Even here you see soldatheero redefining it yet again and particularly focusing on phenomenon that revolve around magic powers and eternal lives.
"Materialism" and the debates about it are history, just as all of your historic citations allude too. Science is about modeling observations. Furthermore, the notion that we can intuitively understand the universe has already been debated and rejected by mainstream science, nearly a hundred years ago. Its fully accepted and embraced that the best we can do is categorize, model and relate our observations to some precision.
We are organisms that evolved on the African Savannah, there is no reason to expect that we can fully and intuitively understand the universe. We use the mental tools we do have to model that which we can observe. This is all science really claims to do. Claiming otherwise is a strawman, as OrgoneConclusion pointed out early on.
They way you think mainstream science works, it hasnt been that way for nearly a hundred years.
Quote:
The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
...
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.
~Niels Bohr (1934)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 13,639
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15793113 - 02/11/12 02:00 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
gonna get me a lab coat and boogie
--------------------
~~~~~
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 4,734
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15793383 - 02/11/12 03:13 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Expansion caused time to start.Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Who dropped the materialism debate?
Modern scientists. At least, 20th century scientists and beyond. Its a non-issue, only continued by people that want to believe that they have magical powers or eternal lives waiting for them. Even here you see soldatheero redefining it yet again and particularly focusing on phenomenon that revolve around magic powers and eternal lives.
"Materialism" and the debates about it are history, just as all of your historic citations allude too. Science is about modeling observations. Furthermore, the notion that we can intuitively understand the universe has already been debated and rejected by mainstream science, nearly a hundred years ago. Its fully accepted and embraced that the best we can do is categorize, model and relate our observations to some precision.
We are organisms that evolved on the African Savannah, there is no reason to expect that we can fully and intuitively understand the universe. We use the mental tools we do have to model that which we can observe. This is all science really claims to do. Claiming otherwise is a strawman, as OrgoneConclusion pointed out early on.
They way you think mainstream science works, it hasnt been that way for nearly a hundred years.
Quote:
The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
...
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.
~Niels Bohr (1934)
You definitely failed to determine that it is also held by psuedo-scientist, which seem much more likely than someone trying to make magic exist. Look you have an answer to everything, just like god provides for the religious, not so much different really are you?
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: teknix]
#15793579 - 02/11/12 03:50 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Look you have an answer to everything, just like god provides for the religious, not so much different really are you?
An answer for everything, or just an answer to the false charges you and others have pushed? It certainly seems like the latter to me- the allegations pushed on science in this thread were the same old ones that have been discussed previously: scientists thinking they know everything, scientists being dogmatic, and all sorts or irrelevant distinctions nobody cares about.
As has been said previously about a million times, the difference between scientific knowledge and religious is that science is based on empirical evidence and not revelation, and scientific theories are tested while religious ideas are held absolute despite the evidence.
Far from these refutations providing an answer to everything, they meerly provide an answer to the repeated arguments that have been made here an in pop culture all the time- usually by people that have no idea what they're talking about.
Despite Kickle challening my claim that science is the best method to determine information about the world, on the grounds of it being subjective, personal, whatever, the only alternative so far is one that even he claims is not where efficacy is not a major concern. It remains unexplained how such a method offers an alternative, let alone a challenge to the scientific method.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15793675 - 02/11/12 04:11 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
I said that in Buddhism efficacy is paramount. And Buddhism is also a way to gain information about the world. I don't see where those aspects were not addressed
If you believe science to be objectively the best, you must have a good explanation why. I'd love to hear it.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15795191 - 02/11/12 09:14 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
exactly what have you found out about the world through your buddhist practice?
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling] 1
#15795229 - 02/11/12 09:22 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Well, you can work for a week and buy a nice down jacket to protect you from the cold - or after 15-20 years of intensive breathing exercises, you can boost your ego by sitting out in freezing weather with next to no protection to impress others.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15795276 - 02/11/12 09:34 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said:
exactly what have you found out about the world through your buddhist practice?
depends on the practice
overall that life is suffering and there are ways to remove (lessen) that suffering
|
soldatheero
lastirishman
Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,588
Loc:
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15795332 - 02/11/12 09:46 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Buddhism can help you grasp the nature of things such as impermanence, interdependence and emptiness. It doesn't deliver sheer facts and data but instead provides the capacity to correctly interpret that data.
--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: soldatheero]
#15795358 - 02/11/12 09:53 PM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
how?
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15796007 - 02/12/12 01:04 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Quote:
blingbling said:
exactly what have you found out about the world through your buddhist practice?
depends on the practice
overall that life is suffering and there are ways to remove (lessen) that suffering
Just read Becker and you can get all that in a week.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15796125 - 02/12/12 02:14 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Faith in unwarranted assumptions.
No. Dropping the baggage of 'material' debates is why today's scientific perspective is more sound than in the past. Increasingly accurate models that predict and describe observations is why todays scientific theories are more sound that of the past. And a better understanding of the relationships between those observations has led us, particularly in the 20th century, to a point where the distinction between 'material' or not, 'physical' or not is irrelevant.
I agree with you that newer models usually are more accurate than older models, but there is also a serious problem with modern science which was less prevalent in the past. The problem is that as the scientific field grows bigger, it becomes increasingly difficult for any one individual to understand all of science. Most scientists today are extremely specialized, and it is very common today to find professors that barely know anything beyond their own field of research. The marriage between modern capitalism and increasingly specialized science is also not necessarily working for the benefit of mankind. If I use my scientific skills to make a drug that is very addictive, that might be highly profitable but not necessarily beneficial for mankind. In a huge biotech company, individual researchers might not even be aware of how their research is influencing the grand scheme of things.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15796191 - 02/12/12 03:13 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
no one is aware of how they are influencing the grand scheme of things
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Icelander]
#15796659 - 02/12/12 07:45 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
Kickle said:
Quote:
blingbling said:
exactly what have you found out about the world through your buddhist practice?
depends on the practice
overall that life is suffering and there are ways to remove (lessen) that suffering
Just read Becker and you can get all that in a week.
Not to the degree I want 
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15796666 - 02/12/12 07:47 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Then you're not good at it.
But then very few buddhists are good at what they do either.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Icelander]
#15796777 - 02/12/12 08:26 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Oh? And here I was feeling good 
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15796892 - 02/12/12 09:04 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
If you're feeling good it's best not to listen to what others have to say. 
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Icelander]
#15796959 - 02/12/12 09:34 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Lalalalalalala
But more seriously I find some people are worth listening to so long as it isn't on faith. And those same people worth listening to don't seem to get butthurt if you question a bit and really try to poke a hole.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797000 - 02/12/12 09:53 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
An answer for everything, or just an answer to the false charges you and others have pushed? It certainly seems like the latter to me- the allegations pushed on science in this thread were the same old ones that have been discussed previously: scientists thinking they know everything, scientists being dogmatic, and all sorts or irrelevant distinctions nobody cares about.
Quote:
DieCommie said:
"Materialism" and the debates about it are history, just as all of your historic citations allude too. Science is about modeling observations. Furthermore, the notion that we can intuitively understand the universe has already been debated and rejected by mainstream science, nearly a hundred years ago. Its fully accepted and embraced that the best we can do is categorize, model and relate our observations to some precision.
We are organisms that evolved on the African Savannah, there is no reason to expect that we can fully and intuitively understand the universe. We use the mental tools we do have to model that which we can observe. This is all science really claims to do. Claiming otherwise is a strawman, as OrgoneConclusion pointed out early on.
They way you think mainstream science works, it hasnt been that way for nearly a hundred years.
You guys keep defending science yet no one is denigrating it. To acknowledge that science is materialistic is not an insult. It's a value-neutral observation. No one has accused scientists themselves of being dogmatic. I actually posted a link to research that says on average they are more religious and spiritual than not. I've said multiple times it's not science itself that is the issue here-- it's fundamentalist laypeople who feel the need to jump to science's defense whenever someone merely suggests that other ways of knowing the universe are valid. Actual scientists know how little we really understand, which explains their high rate of religiosity. It suggests that rather than learn the details of what science knows vs what is currently unknown, people like you just accept all of science uncritically (like a religious fundamentalist) which is a historically unsound position.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797015 - 02/12/12 10:00 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
whenever someone merely suggests that other ways of knowing the universe are valid
For example?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797051 - 02/12/12 10:15 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
people like you just accept all of science uncritically
Wow, you really havent read a thing I have posted. Way to ignore the ideas I brought up and just keep parroting your same nonsense over and over.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797061 - 02/12/12 10:18 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
You actually sound surprised.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
|
Ha, guess Im hopeless optimist sometimes...
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie] 1
#15797093 - 02/12/12 10:24 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
What is beyond humorous, is the line I highlighted; especially the use of the word 'valid'. To validate a new system or world-view would take *drumroll please* science!
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797116 - 02/12/12 10:29 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Wow, you really havent read a thing I have posted. Way to ignore the ideas I brought up and just keep parroting your same nonsense over and over.
I have read what you posted and I don't disagree with your ideas. You say modern science isn't concerned with materialism it's just doing whatever it needs to do to understand reality around it.
I'm saying, that doesn't matter. The point of this thread is not what modern science is or isn't doing. The thread and conversation is about people clutching to modern science to fulfill the same needs that religion fills for a fundamentalist.
You, johnm214, and Orgoneconclusion are trying to force this into a zero sum game where you either believe in science or you are a mystic weirdo. The rest of us are saying that you can believe in science at the same time as you believe in other things and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
And, Orgone, examples of those alternative beliefs are irrelevant as well. All that needs to be established is that science is fallible and incomplete. That's a fact. Argue all you want but as long as it remains a fact then uncritical acceptance of science is irrational.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797123 - 02/12/12 10:30 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
All that needs to be established is that science is fallible and incomplete.
Are you talking about science or scientific theories here? You keep confusing the two and I suspect that is where part of your misconceptions lie.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797141 - 02/12/12 10:34 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
All that needs to be established is that science is fallible and incomplete
Science is a methodology that has yet to fail. Ever. Now datasets may be incomplete and lead to incorrect or premature conclusions, but that is hardly a flaw in the method.
Quote:
The rest of us are saying that you can believe in science at the same time as you believe in other things and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Science is not about belief. Period. Try disbelieving your computer and it will still function.
Believing other things without evidence is by defintion irrational, hence the mystic /weirdo label.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (02/12/12 11:16 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797190 - 02/12/12 10:45 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
I actually posted a link to research that says on average they are more religious and spiritual than not. I've said multiple times it's not science itself that is the issue here-- it's fundamentalist laypeople who feel the need to jump to science's defense whenever someone merely suggests that other ways of knowing the universe are valid. Actual scientists know how little we really understand, which explains their high rate of religiosity.
Are you claiming that the majority of scientists are religious, or are you claiming that there is a higher percentage of religiosity among scientists than among people in general? I seriously doubt that there is a higher percentage of religiosity among scientists than among people in general, but I don't find it hard to believe that the majority of scientists are religious. The left hemisphere of the human brain is very good at suppressing contradictory information.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Science is not about belief. Period. Try disbeliving your computer and it will still function.
Science in its very nature is inductive rather than deductive, and inductive reasoning never gives absolute proof. So science is definitely about belief. Strong belief, but belief nevertheless.
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797233 - 02/12/12 11:00 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
All that needs to be established is that science is fallible and incomplete.
Are you talking about science or scientific theories here? You keep confusing the two and I suspect that is where part of your misconceptions lie.
That's actually you attempting to nitpick my semantics more than me confusing anything. I'm talking about the institution in it's entirety-- Science with a capital S.
This includes the scientific method, which through it's fundamental reliance on empiricism is automatically biased against any sort of phenomena that can't be sensed directly by humans or their machines.
It includes scientific theories which, while predictive, are often proven much more incomplete than initially imagined as more data becomes available. More questions than answers.
It includes scientists, their bosses, lab assistants, grant writers, politicians, teachers, students, test subjects, schools, research corporations, journals and all the attendant subjectivity, baggage, and cognitive bias that they bring with them.
Real science is not a platonic ideal floating in the eternal perfection in the ether. It is influence by core assumptions, imperfect people, and institutions.
Zanthius,
I posted a link to a book on the subject where the author reports that 50% of the scientists she interviewed identified as "religious", while "many others are what she calls 'spiritual entrepreneurs,' seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion."
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15797239 - 02/12/12 11:01 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
I dont see how that follows. We all know that science is incapable of giving absolute proof. But that does not entail that we need believe anything. We dont actually need to believe that the earth is a sphere (scientifically), we just need to use that idea as a model to describe our observations (or explore regimes where the model does not describe our observations.)
I dont have to believe anything. My observations are made, my axioms are chosen and my observations are modeled. I have just done science, I have no belief - Science is not a religion (at least, not to scientists).
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797267 - 02/12/12 11:07 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
That's actually you attempting to nitpick my semantics more than me confusing anything.
Its not nitpicking, its an important distinction. Science is an idea of a methodology. The institutions you claim are science are an example of bureaucracy not science.
You do yourself a disservice by washing over the difference between a scientific theory, science and bureaucratic institutions.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797289 - 02/12/12 11:13 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I dont see how that follows. We all know that science is incapable of giving absolute proof. But that does not entail that we need believe anything. We dont actually need to believe that the earth is a sphere (scientifically), we just need to use that idea as a model to describe our observations (or explore regimes where the model does not describe our observations.)
I dont have to believe anything. My observations are made, my axioms are chosen and my observations are modeled. I have just done science, I have no belief - Science is not a religion (at least, not to scientists).
I guess it is quite common among scientists to be aware that the models that are used to approximate reality often are simplifications that don't necessarily represent the full extent of reality. There were however many scientists that believed that Newtonian mechanics represented the full extent of reality before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics came...
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15797300 - 02/12/12 11:16 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There were however many scientists that believed that Newtonian mechanics represented the full extent of reality before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics came...
Yea. Thats why I used the time frame of about 100 years to mark when scientists already addressed the concerns in the original post. Scientists dont believe that way anymore, at least not the vast majority of them. We are well aware that the map is not the territory. Mystics make up the notion that we do not, hence the strawman that OC called out earlier.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797313 - 02/12/12 11:19 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Scientists dont believe that way anymore, at least not the vast majority of them.
You seem to have a very positive view of modern scientists... tell me, what field are you doing research in? I certainly see a lot of religiosity and irrationality among my compatriots. Maybe not as much as among people in general, but still a lot.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15797319 - 02/12/12 11:20 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
I did theoretical biophysics as a undergrad and now do experimental solid state physics partnered with chemists as a grad student.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Mr Person]
#15797320 - 02/12/12 11:21 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
is automatically biased against any sort of phenomena that can't be sensed directly by humans or their machines.
As with much of your content, I have no idea what that means. I wonder if you are familair with the definition of bias.
As to your definition of science, it is so broad as to preclude discussion. Good job!
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,385
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15797327 - 02/12/12 11:22 AM (3 months, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I did theoretical biophysics as a undergrad and now do experimental solid state physics partnered with chemists as a grad student.
In other words, *TOP SECRET* DC is working on a time machine.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,604
Loc: underbelly
|
|
He want's to go back and vote for Nixon this time. 
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15798390 - 02/12/12 02:43 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
This includes the scientific method, which through it's fundamental reliance on empiricism is automatically biased against any sort of phenomena that can't be sensed directly by humans or their machines.
Another one of these claims... What phenomena that exists or even could exist could not be scientifically examined? I've never heard one yet, despite many posters claiming there exists such things and that they represent a practical limitation to the usefulness of science.
As for the "direct" qualification you add, I've ignored this as spurious- all measurements occur indirectly through mediating bodies, forces, and this has no more to do with science than anything else.
Quote:
It includes scientists, their bosses, lab assistants, grant writers, politicians, teachers, students, test subjects, schools, research corporations, journals and all the attendant subjectivity, baggage, and cognitive bias that they bring with them.
What does any of that crap have to do with science? Science is a method of learning about the world, it has nothing to do with bosses, lab assistants, and so forth.
Someone, somewhere, making a mistake or being ignorant does not impugn science.
Quote:
Kickle said:
I said that in Buddhism efficacy is paramount. And Buddhism is also a way to gain information about the world. I don't see where those aspects were not addressed
If you believe science to be objectively the best, you must have a good explanation why. I'd love to hear it.
You said in response to my prior question that efficacy was not a concern of the alternative methods you suggest are possibly superior, depending on personal considerations. If buddhism is a potential contender to a superior methodology, then what evidence of this do you have?
I believe science to be the best method because it relies on no neccesary presuppositions and appears to be the simplest method universally applicable to determining the nature of our world. It has shown itself to work, and all competing methodologies, such as revelation, have not.
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Scientists dont believe that way anymore, at least not the vast majority of them.
You seem to have a very positive view of modern scientists... tell me, what field are you doing research in? I certainly see a lot of religiosity and irrationality among my compatriots. Maybe not as much as among people in general, but still a lot.
What field do your compatriots work in and what is their general level of education/training? I've not observed anything like what you describe except in lay people who are quite ignorant about science (secondary school teachers, journalists, et cet) or social scientists who often aren't accurately described as scientists at all.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman
Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,588
Loc:
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15798466 - 02/12/12 02:55 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Another one of these claims... What phenomena that exists or even could exist could not be scientifically examined? I've never heard one yet, despite many posters claiming there exists such things and that they represent a practical limitation to the usefulness of science.
Examined directly? What about dark matter, parallel universes, super strings, eleven dimensions and the ongoing list of hypothetical entities postulated by modern physicists and cosmologists?
--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15798497 - 02/12/12 03:00 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
You said in response to my prior question that efficacy was not a concern of the alternative methods you suggest are possibly superior, depending on personal considerations. If buddhism is a potential contender to a superior methodology, then what evidence of this do you have?
I believe science to be the best method because it relies on no neccesary presuppositions and appears to be the simplest method universally applicable to determining the nature of our world. It has shown itself to work, and all competing methodologies, such as revelation, have not.
I don't think any single method is superior. I think an eclectic approach is, for myself. There are advantages to science and downfalls. I tried to point to a downfall of science (not everyone can perform every experiment to determine the truthfulness of the claims) and how Buddhism does not have these same limitations. Buddhism has it's own downsides as well. Primarily that it doesn't really claim much of anything. In fact it claims that all "things" that could be claimed are empty and really pretty meaningless except in the way they offer a path out of suffering or keep one bound to it. This is a downside for anyone looking to make use of the material world for a purpose other than getting out of suffering.
Often many methodologies are very compatible, as a venn diagram with much of what exists overlapping. When combined though the picture garnered is larger than any by itself. I don't see the reason that science should be used exclusively. It's almost like an excuse to go to war with other ideologies. I feel the very same way about someone who feels that a religious ideology is the best ideology; that it is unnecessarily limiting.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: soldatheero]
#15798503 - 02/12/12 03:01 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Examined directly?
A meaningless distinction. There generally is no direct observation in science, not strictly speaking. You cannot directly observe traditional matter, why would you expect to be able to directly observe dark matter?
About the only thing you can argue we directly observe is light patterns that enter our eye, sound patterns that enter our ear, etc. Everything else, from the mundane like the clouds and the sun to the 'exotic' like dark matter and black holes is inferred from evidence.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle]
#15799562 - 02/12/12 06:20 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said:
Quote:
Another one of these claims... What phenomena that exists or even could exist could not be scientifically examined? I've never heard one yet, despite many posters claiming there exists such things and that they represent a practical limitation to the usefulness of science.
Examined directly? What about dark matter, parallel universes, super strings, eleven dimensions and the ongoing list of hypothetical entities postulated by modern physicists and cosmologists?
You neglected the following sentence which put forth much the same point diecommie did, but science can detect dark matter, which is how we know of it. A quite small telescope can get you a look at a spiral galaxy, where you can detect dark matter in the coherent spiral arms stretching most of the radius of the galaxy. The rest of the things you mention are not known to exist, and so theh question is moot- indeed, it is the great criticism of string theory that it is not testable in many of its predictions (with those that are being incorporated a priori due to the results of prior observations).
It suffices to say that our observations don't support 11 dimensions, super strings, parallel universes, at the moment.
Quote:
Kickle said:
You said in response to my prior question that efficacy was not a concern of the alternative methods you suggest are possibly superior, depending on personal considerations. If buddhism is a potential contender to a superior methodology, then what evidence of this do you have?
I believe science to be the best method because it relies on no neccesary presuppositions and appears to be the simplest method universally applicable to determining the nature of our world. It has shown itself to work, and all competing methodologies, such as revelation, have not.
I don't think any single method is superior. I think an eclectic approach is, for myself. There are advantages to science and downfalls. I tried to point to a downfall of science (not everyone can perform every experiment to determine the truthfulness of the claims) and how Buddhism does not have these same limitations. Buddhism has it's own downsides as well. Primarily that it doesn't really claim much of anything. In fact it claims that all "things" that could be claimed are empty and really pretty meaningless except in the way they offer a path out of suffering or keep one bound to it. This is a downside for anyone looking to make use of the material world for a purpose other than getting out of suffering.
Often many methodologies are very compatible, as a venn diagram with much of what exists overlapping. When combined though the picture garnered is larger than any by itself. I don't see the reason that science should be used exclusively. It's almost like an excuse to go to war with other ideologies. I feel the very same way about someone who feels that a religious ideology is the best ideology; that it is unnecessarily limiting.
It doesn't appear you've provided even a single example or aspect of buddhism, nor alternatives, that are superior to science in any aspect. Your mention of equipment seems spurious because you've not established buddhism having similar explanatory power without the equipment as science with. It suffices that science does not require any equipment, and any particular case where it might require such would have to be examined on the merits, which you've not done.
As such, I think your questioning of science as the best methodology we have to learn about the world is unsupported.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15799686 - 02/12/12 06:47 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
What phenomena that exists or even could exist could not be scientifically examined?
what about something that's really, really far away?
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15799717 - 02/12/12 06:56 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
It doesn't appear you've provided even a single example or aspect of buddhism, nor alternatives, that are superior to science in any aspect.
Of course. You're the one who keeps using science as the standard that others must rise to, not me
I'm not trying to pit any of these views against each other, I'm trying to understand the world. I find it best to allow them to co-exist, utilizing their strengths while acknowledging their weaknesses. I do not find science best by itself. I enjoy science as a process a lot though
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,835
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: blingbling]
#15799810 - 02/12/12 07:12 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said:
What phenomena that exists or even could exist could not be scientifically examined?
what about something that's really, really far away?
Thats not a phenomenon though.
Thats the opposite, assuming that there is some interaction and then looking for a phenomenon.
Edited by DieCommie (02/12/12 07:40 PM)
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 18 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: DieCommie]
#15800004 - 02/12/12 07:52 PM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
oh, i see.
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15801502 - 02/13/12 01:32 AM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
What field do your compatriots work in and what is their general level of education/training?
Biotechnology/biochemistry. My compatriots are mostly master students, PhD students, and professors.
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I've not observed anything like what you describe except in lay people who are quite ignorant about science (secondary school teachers, journalists, et cet) or social scientists who often aren't accurately described as scientists at all.
Ignorant about science? Do you think that PhD students in biotechnology/biochemistry need to know anything about the philosophy of science? They need to know how to use the lab equipment and they need to know how to write scientific reports. That's about it. PhD students studying the "philosophy of science" are probably much less ignorant of these things than most scientists themselves.
Edited by Zanthius (02/13/12 01:53 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15801537 - 02/13/12 01:49 AM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
You neglected the following sentence which put forth much the same point diecommie did, but science can detect dark matter, which is how we know of it.
It doesn't necessarily need to be dark matter. There are other hypotheses like modified newtonian dynamics or scalar–tensor–vector gravity which also try to explain the galaxy rotation problem. I don't necessarily believe in any of those hypotheses, but I am not so convinced of the dark matter hypothesis either.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Zanthius]
#15801790 - 02/13/12 05:09 AM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I've not observed anything like what you describe except in lay people who are quite ignorant about science (secondary school teachers, journalists, et cet) or social scientists who often aren't accurately described as scientists at all.
Ignorant about science? Do you think that PhD students in biotechnology/biochemistry need to know anything about the philosophy of science? They need to know how to use the lab equipment and they need to know how to write scientific reports. That's about it. PhD students studying the "philosophy of science" are probably much less ignorant of these things than most scientists themselves.
I suppose they don't need to know science neccesarily, but it would seem difficult to be compotent at a doctoral level in many positions without some idea, as any research, publication, and so on would tend to rely on such things.
Writing a scientific report requires knowledge of what you proved, if anything, and this requires an understanding of science, generally. Using equipment and producing a useful result, let alone one that answers a particular question, is a distinction that requires some scientific understanding.
Quote:
Kickle said:
It doesn't appear you've provided even a single example or aspect of buddhism, nor alternatives, that are superior to science in any aspect.
Of course. You're the one who keeps using science as the standard that others must rise to, not me
Then what was the point of your post where you stated buddhism was of similar efficacy to science, if you were not "using science as the standard that others must rise to"? What was the relevance of the post where you take issue with my claim that science is the best methodology and claim that is questionable and that other satisfactory methodologies exist?
For taking issue with my endorsement of science, you've not made a case that an alternative even exists, let alone one superior in any respect, ever.
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
You neglected the following sentence which put forth much the same point diecommie did, but science can detect dark matter, which is how we know of it.
It doesn't necessarily need to be dark matter. There are other hypotheses like modified newtonian dynamics or scalar–tensor–vector gravity which also try to explain the galaxy rotation problem. I don't necessarily believe in any of those hypotheses, but I am not so convinced of the dark matter hypothesis either.
Yes, I know it doesn't need to be dark matter- this is why I asked for an example of any phenomena that could exist and not be scientificialy accesible. The examples you mention are obervable in the same ways dark matter is, and these don't represent something science can't detect (along with ESP, telepathy, chi, and so forth)
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: johnm214]
#15802315 - 02/13/12 09:27 AM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Then what was the point of your post where you stated buddhism was of similar efficacy to science, if you were not "using science as the standard that others must rise to"? What was the relevance of the post where you take issue with my claim that science is the best methodology and claim that is questionable and that other satisfactory methodologies exist?
For taking issue with my endorsement of science, you've not made a case that an alternative even exists, let alone one superior in any respect, ever.
No point I guess
It seems we're talking at odds without even trying to
|
Jwlst
Stranger
Registered: 02/24/05
Posts: 1,037
Last seen: 7 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Kickle] 1
#15804998 - 02/13/12 06:36 PM (3 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
What I find really interesting is that the classic flood myth has wormed it's way into science under the guise of climate change, however strangely as a future event instead of a past event.
|
dkmonk
Psychonaut Lover
Registered: 10/24/11
Posts: 321
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Science being a religion to people. [Re: Jwlst]
#15805399 - 02/13/12 07:43 PM (3 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Sorry to have vanished my internet got shut off. I will try to catch up on my own thread, but I am glad it is still going!
--------------------
First Grow Golden Teacher Koh Samui - in progress
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15330714
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
