Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
The Limitations of Science
    #2249295 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249322 -

Science can not expierience. Science maybe be able to tell us what love is, but love needs to be expiercned.


--------------------
get it all together get like birds of a feather

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249337 -

I don't know. this seems kinda silly.
saying that science is "limited" because it can't tell us what's good or evil is like saying biology is "limited" because it doesn't deal with the properties of metals.

I don't see those as "limitations"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249343 -

Science cannot tell us who God is and whether He exists.

Science cannot explain karma.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Edited by Frog (01/17/04 09:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249405 -

1.  Science cannot illuminate that which cannot be tested.

Funny story:

From my experience, the gen pop knows very little about the scientific method and is somewhat intimidated by the notion...'


Earlier this fall, we were building simple circuits in my electromechanical systems class.  An older student, to whom I will refer to as Frank, had a question about an edison base fuse.

"Instructor, I'm not sure if this fuse is in working order, how can I find out?" asked Frank.

"Screw it in and grab the hot wire, you will find out."  offered the teacher.

"That's not very scientific!" Frank protested.

"Of course it is, the instructor offered a sure fire way of testing your hypothesis.  What do you think science is?"  I asked.

It strikes my funny bone because some people demonize science by conjuring up images of Einstein looking mofo's scampering about labs furnished with impressive looking equipment.  If such is not involved, it cannot be science. :lol:


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2249440 -

science is power, it is a tangible area which grants us mastery over our physical surroundings. Science is incredible power. But science in itself cannot control its own power. For example, science can give us the power of the atom, but not give us the wisdom not to make an A bomb

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: PHARMAKOS]
    #2249459 -

Quote:
For example, science can give us the power of the atom, but not give us the wisdom not to make an A bomb 



True, science only allows us to test our hypothesis and interpret the resuslts.  The question, however, is as Robert Pirsig so aptly put it, "Where does the hypothesis come from?"

Thinking about that makes me wanna drop the F bomb. :lol:


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2249501 -

science cannot explain what life is or its meaning for that matter.


--------------------
shrug dot aboleo dot net

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2249514 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249517 -

Philosophy becomes Science if and WHEN  we can solve it. :smile:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2249527 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249539 -

From Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance...

"The formation of hypotheses is the most mysterious of all the categories of scientific method. Where they come from, no one knows. A person is sitting somewhere, minding his own business, and suddenly...flash!...he understands something he didn't understand before. Until it's tested the hypothesis isn't truth. For the tests aren't its source. Its source is somewhere else.

Einstein had said:


Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it -- .He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience -- .The supreme task -- is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them -- .


Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for the origin of scientific knowledge.

A lesser scientist than Einstein might have said, "But scientific knowledge comes from nature. Nature provides the hypotheses." But Einstein understood that nature does not. Nature provides only experimental data.

A lesser mind might then have said, "Well then, man provides the hypotheses." But Einstein denied this too. "Nobody," he said, "who has really gone into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles."

Ph?drus' break occurred when, as a result of laboratory experience, he became interested in hypotheses as entities in themselves. He had noticed again and again in his lab work that what might seem

to be the hardest part of scientific work, thinking up the hypotheses, was invariably the easiest. The act of formally writing everything down precisely and clearly seemed to suggest them. As he was testing hypothesis number one by experimental method a flood of other hypotheses would come to mind, and as he was testing these, some more came to mind, and as he was testing these, still more came to mind until it became painfully evident that as he continued testing hypotheses and eliminating them or confirming them their number did not decrease. It actually increased as he went along.

At first he found it amusing. He coined a law intended to have the humor of a Parkinson's law that "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite." It pleased him never to run out of hypotheses. Even when his experimental work seemed dead-end in every conceivable way, he knew that if he just sat down and muddled about it long enough, sure enough, another hypothesis would come along. And it always did. It was only months after he had coined the law that he began to have some doubts about the humor or benefits of it.

If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!

If the purpose of scientific method is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishing proven knowledge.

About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," and let it go at that. But to Ph?drus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase "at any given moment" really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science!

But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The time spans of permanence seemed completely random he could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else.

He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal condition. It looked as though the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the intensity of scientific effort. Thus the scientific truths of the twentieth century seem to have a much shorter life-span than those of the last century because scientific activity is now much greater. If, in the next century, scientific activity increases tenfold, then the life expectancy of any scientific truth can be expected to drop to perhaps one-tenth as long as now. What shortens the life-span of the existing truth is the volume of hypotheses offered to replace it; the more the hypotheses, the shorter the time span of the truth. And what seems to be causing the number of hypotheses to grow in recent decades seems to be nothing other than scientific method itself. The more you look, the more you see. Instead of selecting one truth from a multitude you are increasing the multitude. What this means logically is that as you try to move toward unchanging truth through the application of scientific method, you actually do not move toward it at all. You move away from it! It is your application of scientific method that is causing it to change!

What Ph?drus observed on a personal level was a phenomenon, profoundly characteristic of the history of science, which has been swept under the carpet for years. The predicted results of scientific enquiry and the actual results of scientific enquiry are diametrically opposed here, and no one seems to pay too much attention to the fact. The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypothetical truths. That, more than anything else, is what science is all about. But historically science has done exactly the opposite. Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself. And what Ph?drus saw in the isolation of his own laboratory work years ago is now seen everywhere in the technological world today. Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos"


I am intuiting that this may figure into your immaterial soul arguement.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249551 -

Quote:
2. Science cannot tell us what is beautiful.


Maybe not in a more abstract way, but science has found patterns in what we tend to consider physically beautiful. For example, the more facial symmetry a person has, the more attractive they usually appear.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249580 -

science is only observation of things, and then manipulation of them. no scientist can tell u anything about what matter/energy actually is comprised of. they can only watch how the aperently magical unseen forces interact.


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: silversoul7]
    #2249603 -

Quote:
Maybe not in a more abstract way, but science has found patterns in what we tend to consider physically beautiful. For example, the more facial symmetry a person has, the more attractive they usually appear.



Your point is good, but the experience of beauty is far deeper than aesthetics.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: BleaK]
    #2249604 -

"no scientist can tell u anything about what matter/energy actually is comprised of."


You just answered that yourself actually,:) matter and energy are the same.

Read about quantum physics and you will see that science , philosophy and even religon(eastern ones :smile:) are VERY similar.


Strange I know......but true :smile:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2249640 -

ok maybe we should define a couple of terms, thought you would have done that MM :wink:

science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world (dictionary).  it is simply knowledge gained from study (ala taking down data) and trying to see patterns.

philosophy:  the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being (again from the dictionary)

limitation: a limiting condition: a weakness or inability. (last time, dictionary)


whew *wipes forehead*

 
sweet...now I think there are a lot of loopholes in science itself (that is trying to explain what is happening in the "physical world"). the evidence is right there in front of us. what is this evidence? easy, blackholes, this supposed "dark matter" that doesn't really fit with a lot of "laws" that are supposed to be governing this planet. 

because it can't explain everything, science that is, doesn't necessarily mean sceince itself is limited, but that we are.  this is a sure indication of why we need philosophy as well :smile:

science by itself can't stand up to everything, just as philosophy can't.. in other words I believe that most of our attempts to explain what is and what isn't is limited. and I mean really, who would want to think from one point of view anyways?   

who would have the audacity to say that one point of view is the end all of questions?

what I find limiting of science is that they take the "best" outcome and try to apply math to it, in order to make a "proof."  Now sure equations can explain a lot, but most of the time when I'm doing a project (ie taking data down) I never get the correct answer (based on the proof).  I'll get close, but not even that close.

Another thing I'll say that I find limiting is that even if something doesn't match all the way (such as string theory) the theory is still tested over and over.  some may see this as a weakness, after all, this theory in the future could be meaningless. 

and you see that a lot too.  one theory a long time ago that was debunked as a crackpot, is now being reconsidered.  and the reverse happpens.  And that's the thing, many people who study in this field treat prinicples and theories as if they were true for all cases. 

hehe words limit science because science has it's own definitions (which is why I made that energy post :wink:) there's lots of limitations

but I'll attribute most of this limitation again to myself, because of the measuring tools I use (and how I used them), and because of the fact that events in the real world follows chance, and math (which is the tool used by science for "proofs") really sucks at that.  whether it's how many electrons are really in the atom, or if there's any oxygene in the petri dish, the outcome will be different for everyone.

again the limitations I see come from us.


now about god, no science can't explain that, but then again it doesn't try to.  poeple try to, not science itself.  you have people who try to intermingle philosophy and science, and they are the ones trying to dig out this "proof" on god (or extra terrestials).  science tries to explain how things work in the physcial world.


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: kaiowas]
    #2249955 -

I made a thread a few months ago in which I said:

"Science will stall at many fronts as it does not speak the language of God"

I believe that science can discover God and science can observe karma, but you need to expierience these things. Consiosness expierences these things. I used to look at science as something that has limited our spiritual growth, or posibly something that has distracted us from our spiritual past. Now I see science as something that can back up spiritual claims.


--------------------
get it all together get like birds of a feather

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2250025 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: kaiowas]
    #2250027 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2250137 -

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

Science does not create Meaning...


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: silversoul7]
    #2250151 -

Quote:
Maybe not in a more abstract way, but science has found patterns in what we tend to consider physically beautiful. For example, the more facial symmetry a person has, the more attractive they usually appear.


actually, the degree of attractiveness is really about averages.

At my school, they are the leader in these experiments: They take a bunch of regular faces and they use a computer to make a composite face out of all the faces. Then they ask students to rate the faces (both composite and non) . The composites all ways score the highest. The more faces that went into a composite, the higher it scores.

theory says that this is an evolved mechanism in our hormonal/ arousal system. The more average a face is, the more it is a genetically "safe bet".

But greek statues are pretty though. I suspect Michaelangelo knew about face compositing, at least intuitively.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2250228 -

"1. Science cannot tell us what is good or evil.
2. Science cannot tell us what is beautiful. "

There is no evidence that science will never be able to explain these things. The fact that these things are not understood, in fact, has nothing to do whatsoever with a limitation of the scientific process. This is akin to saying that science is flawed because we don't understand exactly how a black hole is created. Just because we haven't yet been able to explain something using science does not mean that science is unable to do so. Even if we're never able to explain these things using science, that's not a flaw in the scientific process, it simply means that we've been unable to use science to explain these things.

These are ideas driven by emotions.

For instance, if I look at a sunset and think it's beautiful, it's not a property of the sunset, it's an emotional reaction on my part.

We can study the properties of things humans find beautiful and attempt to design a system for quantifying beauty, but it would be impossible to make it completely universal, as humans all have different perceptions of what beauty is.

This doesn't mean, however, that we'll never fully understand the mechanisms of the mind relating to beauty. We cannot fully understand why something is perceived as beautiful without understanding how the mind works.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: trendal]
    #2250254 -

"Science does not create Meaning..."

Then again, meaning is also a property created by humans. Pondering ideas like meaning, beauty, and morality can give us great insight into the ways we think, but will not necessarily give us any insight outside of our own interpretation of the world.

In other words, if you tell me that you think a certain scene is beautiful, or that you believe a certain act to be immoral tells me something about the way you think, but does not offer any real information about the scene or the act you're discussing, as opinions and perception can vary greatly.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2250281 -

Science cannot explain the origins of the Universe.
By the laws of science, our universe should not exist, because "Where did it come from?" By the laws of science, something never comes from nothing, so where did the universe come from? And once you figure that out, then ask, "Where did THAT come from?" Using science, you will never arrive at the necessary "First Cause" to explain the origin of the universe.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2250293 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250299 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2250310 -

All this said, I do think that thinking about and discussing ideas such as morality, ethics, and beauty is extremely important, as it creating art and trying to express our emotions and perceptions.

The goal in science is to document the evidence we have, and to map out the world around us, while the exploration of beauty and morality is an exploration of ourselves, and how we can explore our perceptions and cultivate inner peace and contentment. This has no bearing on universal facts or truths, other than our own emotions and perceptions.

We even use a system of observation, not unlike the scientific process, to cultivate what many refer to as our spiritual growth.

For instance, by observing a lack of inner peace, and by observing the fact that many claim to have acheived tranquility and contemplativness through meditiation, we may devise the hypothesis that meditation could be the answer we're looking for. So we research the idea, and experiment with meditation, observe the results we've achieved and then come to a conclusion as to whether or not we feel that meditation has worked for us, and brought about the desired results. Then we'll choose to adopt it as a regular practice or not.

Another thought:

It may be that it is necessary to completely abandon the search for real observable truth in order to acheive certain mental "spiritual" states.

A fakhir, for instance, may need to abandon the knowledge of how the mind actually works, and replace it with a simplified mystical version (such as the idea of 'chi') in order to achieve the faith and mind state necessary to slow his breathing and heart rate to a level that would allow him to be buried underground in a box for a week. This does not mean that 'chi' is a more accurate explanation whatsoever, it simply means that a more rational and informed understanding might foster doubts about ones own abilities, preventing the full realization of these abilities.

(This isn't necessarily true, it could be perfectly possible to achieve a meditative state such as this without altering one's view in such a way. I'm just exploring the idea of abandoning truth in order to achieve other goals.)

So it kind of comes down to a balance between the search for contentment, and the search for truth. Many people seem to assume that if they've found one, they've found the other but for some, achieving both may not even be possible.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2250331 -

That was an excellent read, Ed. Thanks for posting it.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2250339 -

It should also be noted that there isn't anything that CAN accurately explain ideas such as beauty or good and evil.

Philosophy can be used to explore ideas surrounding them, or to devise explanations which, if testable, could be a scientific hypothesis, but are not necessarily accurate, or even close to accurate.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250347 -

Hey Froggy! :grin:

I hacked into your account.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2250376 -

These posts were the result of a post acid trip burst of energy... I think I'll fluff this out into a full essay or something combined with some of the ideas from my skepticism post.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250538 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Hey Froggy! :grin:

I hacked into your account.


Um, and what that mean, Skorpivo?  Did you get the numbers I stored there to all my off-shore accounts?  To my credit cards?  :eyemouth:


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250549 -

NO, but I see you got some interesting pics here.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250555 -

Sigh. What am I supposed to do now? Sue you? I'm really glad I deleted the nudes of me last night. Someone warned me that there were people good at hacking personal accounts. So I took appropriate measures.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250557 -

lolol

it was all too easy.

:devil:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250596 -

*scratches head*

I don't know whether to laugh at you or call you an asshole.

:grin:


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250599 -

And you're just way too fuckin' proud of yourself...


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250622 -

I know...I know...

And the cool thing is.... they're technically supposed to ban me for conducting such espionage..

But, as you can see, I'm still here, even after having being all blatant about it...

And I'll still be here tomorrow...and the next day...and so on...unbanned. :grin:

Do you know why? :wink:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250626 -

Please do tell.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250654 -

Cuz I da man.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250655 -

hehe. I wonder if that's a new 'feature' on the Shroomery...
was it always like that or was there a unique URL for each account?
...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250658 -

lol

Well, you make it awfully difficult for me to hate you. 

Do I have to explain all those Christmas pictures? :grin:


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2250659 -

I doubt it's new... but I could be wrong.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250681 -

LoL...Nobody saw your pictures. :wink:

Did you already figure it out and just playing along?  


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250707 -

I think that no one can see these posts but you and me right now, somehow. It must have changed when you started this, and I noticed my response to your first post on this issue is in red. I wasn't sure, actually. But this is a pretty good trick. How do you make it stop?

I really am gullible, ya know.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250712 -

I think that no one can see these posts but you and me right now, somehow.

exactly. We shifted out of phase.
It started right after the glitch, after your 'red' post.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250718 -

What about infidelGOD's post. How come he posted what he posted? Can't he see what we're writing? Or is he only responding to your first post saying that you hacked my account? And how did you do it? Never mind. I don't want to know.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250738 -

Frog, do you realize we're in the Twilight Zone?


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250773 -

Well, I do now, of course. It's kind of cool. But there's a part of me that thinks this might just be another joke, and everyone can read what I'm posting to you right now. So I'm going to be vewy, vewy careful.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250777 -

Look behind you, and you'll see the evidence that it's NOT a joke.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250863 -

Frog, he pulled a fast one on you. That link isn't for "Frog's" home, it is for whoever is logged on. When I followed it, it took me to my home.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2250887 -

That's okay. I will be filing a complaint for emotional distress in federal court tomorrow.

"Frog v. SkorpivoMusterion"

How's that for an attention-grabber?

(*Sigh* I'm so easy to fuck with. *Double sigh*)

(Now everyone knows how gullible I am. *More sighs*)


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250896 -

I had done so well, so far, covering up for how gullible I am.

Thanks, Skorpivo.



"You can believe anything you want. However, the Universe is not obliged to keep a straight face."

(And now you can see why I make a good criminal attorney.)


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Edited by Frog (01/18/04 04:42 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2250902 -

Thread hijackers. :rolleyes:


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2250913 -

First Amended Complaint:

FROG, an individual, and PHLUCK, an individual,

v.

SKORPIVOMUSTERION, an intolerable asswipe, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.

:grin:


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2250937 -

"I think that no one can see these posts but you and me right now, somehow. It must have changed when you started this, and I noticed my response to your first post on this issue is in red. I wasn't sure, actually. But this is a pretty good trick. How do you make it stop?

I really am gullible, ya know."

if you think that you're gullable does that mean that you are??? btw, you should know by now, someone's ALWAYS watching  :evil:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2251033 -

"There are many people, some even post here, that have that kind of curious blend of hubris/ignorance when it comes to science.

you and you big words and your....small.....difficult words :wink:

hubris: excessive pride, arrogance

maybe, but I think to a certain extent that it's good that some people talk about it.  it only works though if the other person is open-minded enough to see that one point of view doesn't hold up for everything. my only real gripe actually, is that people think scientists don't get philisophical.  this is really far from the truth.

"I disgree. Science is a tool and every tool has limits."

agreed.  hey we can combine our efforts here then MM.  the tools have the limitation, as well as the ones using them :smile:

"People who are only familiar with one view. Science is the easy stuff imo. If you want to think and be challenged try philosophy."


science, easy????  hehe I need you to help me to solve for the mass in a sprin mass ssytem, "I don't know the spring constant, damnit!"

really though easy in what way???


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2251195 -

The scientific method cannot lead to truth, in the sense that a proposition is either true or false- After testing a hypothesis, evidence consistent with the hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis. To conclude so would be fallicious and is called "affirming the consequent:"

If p(hypothesis), then q(predicted outcome)
q
Therefore p INVALID

However, we can rule out hypotheses. Modus Ponens:

If p, then q
Not q
Therefore not p VALID

What are the limitations of science? In addition to a lot of what others said, it can't "prove" anything really. Over time it allows us to find the theories that best account for the data- the theories that have been retained after others have been validly rejected. BUUUTTTT... even these theories are not the "truth" in any absolute sense (as many are so ready to believe). "Degrees of truth" is a more useful convention I think. Even theories for which there has been found no exception should not be taken as absolutely true- they are just conventions, maps, fingers pointing to the moon. Mistaking ideas for reality = poor mental health according to Buddhism (and other spiritual schools) and I think this is Big Wisdom. Adopt the idea of "conventional truth" rather than "absolute truth." Ooops... I guess this might all belong in another thread. What are the limitations of science? Way more than the average "scientific naturalist" (the new buzzword for atheists who look to science to answer typically religious questions) thinks. Good thread.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: buttonion]
    #2251348 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: buttonion]
    #2251863 -

" In addition to a lot of what others said, it can't "prove" anything really"


it doesn't try to.  the proof is in the math, not the science. the calculus was invented for science.  and what is math?? numbers?? numbers are a concept.  they don't exist, but it is USEFUL.

science doesn't prove yes, but it does work.  I'm typing on a keyboard right now.  each of these keys is like a capacitor (stores charge) and everytime we press a key the charge gets released as a signal and so on.  it's really complex actually and without science it wouldn't be here. 

I am beginning to see many hidden assumptions in the method, but hey, it works doesn't it?  I guess one jsut needs to keep in mind the science isn't the answer to every question.  :smile:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2252163 -

Science is the eternal search for why things they are. I believe philosophy is verry much alike science. I am damn sure the next step in science is in the spiritual direction and thats when most of our questions will be answered.


--------------------
Magic mushrooms are not addictive, the shroomery is!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2252167 -

Frog said:
Science cannot explain karma.


Oh yes it can.  Karma is justification right.  Karma is just "you reap what you sow", you get what you give which is simple logics in reality.  The whole law of nature is run on karma, a tree that drops a seed will cause a new tree to grow... there's a law that all of nature runs by.  People seem to forget that we are a part of nature all the time which is really sad, but we cant cut eachother from natures law anyway, we will allways be run by natures justification (or karma as you call it), science can explain this.  I could try to explain it but I dont have the words to even start (neither the patience).
PS.  Read my signature :wink:


--------------------
Magic mushrooms are not addictive, the shroomery is!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: filthysock]
    #2252341 -

Well, I kind of thought that if I was wrong, someone would point it out.

Thanks,  filthy sock.  :wink:


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2252362 -

Holy shit, I'm laughing so hard at you guys right now! I'd seen that first post about you hacking into Frog's account, but then I kept getting SQL errors & didn't see the rest of it. If I hadn't already, I'd give you 5 shrooms just for this.

And, I have to ask - Did you know Frog was this gullible or was that a lucky (and very entertaining) coincidence?


--------------------
I'm just see-through faded, super jaded, and out of my mind. - R.I.P. Layne

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Renegade8]
    #2252369 -

Renegade, I was kind of glad that the whole thing was deleted.

Can we not discuss my "gullibility" any futher?


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Frog]
    #2252384 -

Frog said:
Renegade, I was kind of glad that the whole thing was deleted.

Can we not discuss my "gullibility" any futher?


Ummm...hate to break it to ya, but it wasn't deleted.


--------------------
I'm just see-through faded, super jaded, and out of my mind. - R.I.P. Layne

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Renegade8]
    #2252396 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2252413 -

I was on the wrong thread. Never mind.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2252434 -

Mr Mushrooms, I apologize. When Phluck popped in with his "thread-jackers" comment, I thought he created the thread. However, I now realize my error, and I have amended the complaint yet again.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2252435 -

Mr_Mushrooms said:
Ahem, ladies, if you please, could we please stick to the topic?

:lol:


I know, I know...but I missed out on all the fun yesterday.  :frown:

A day late and a dollar short, as usual.


--------------------
I'm just see-through faded, super jaded, and out of my mind. - R.I.P. Layne

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Renegade8]
    #2252458 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2252515 -

Hey, stop making me laugh so much at work.  I'm gonna get busted!  :lol:

I really do feel bad for posting on this thread without at least adding something, but I don't seem have anything to say on this topic.


--------------------
I'm just see-through faded, super jaded, and out of my mind. - R.I.P. Layne

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Renegade8]
    #2252543 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2253097 -

"Axiom #398: Science cannot understand humor. They can show causation but they cannot explain why anything has to be funny"

Is it supposed to? I think that argument is kinda lame because while science doesn't focus on humor, a lot of scientist do.


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: kaiowas]
    #2253166 -

"They can show causation but they cannot explain why anything has to be funny"

Evolutionary reasons for humour could be speculated upon, but again, simply because science has not yet offered a well researched explanation of humour, does not mean it is unable to.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2253191 -

"Evolutionary reasons for humour could be speculated upon, but again, simply because science has not yet offered a well researched explanation of humour, does not mean it is unable to. "

this is true.  I'm jsut kinda confused about humor though because I thought humor was just the connection your mind makes with a certain situation.  someone who mainly operates from a perverted standpoint would see a lot of different things that are funn than opposed to those who don't normally think that way. 

why ask why is something funny?? can we find out the mechanics of humor as well?  if so how??

I don't think humor could be taught (though I am open for suggestion :wink:)  I think humor is like an attribute of the person based on their experiences.  like they could have esperienced an event in the pass and something simple as a cat getting run over would remind them of that situation and thus they'll laugh.

others might not think so about our dead puss.


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2253306 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2253453 -


"But I didn't say science was flawed. I said it was limited. Just because you cannot change a flat tire with a fly swatter doesn't mean the fly swatter isn't a good tool. It is a good tool, for swatting flies."
that was such a good quote i just thought id make everyone read it again  :tongue2:

As for humour perhaps the inability of science to fully understand the emotional comes from the degree of seperation between the real and observed world that weve been talking about in the what is real? thread. How can science hope to explain what is funny if no two people have the same sense of humour? humous lacks existance in the objective world and is then outside the 'real of science'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: PHARMAKOS]
    #2253470 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2253497 -

"I disagree. Humor, and other portions of "mind" are off-limits to science and their study would reside inside philosophy."

That's true only if you make the assumption that the mind is part of a magical "other realm"... which is nothing more than an assumption.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2253502 -

so what if there was a study in whihc 1000 people in one city are shown 10 jokes, and then people rate them, here we have data. something that could be observed perhaps?? and here we could say something to the effect of, most people in this city enjoy this type of humor the most.

hehe


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2253839 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2255251 -

It is MUCH too late to delete all those off topic posts now, right, Mr. Mushrooms? :shocked:

*looks at Kaiowas and smirks, sort of like this: :smirk:*

Good thread, twas a very interesting read. The only thing I have to add is about "tools"... they evolve with us. What is limited now is limited by us... or something. Will science ever encompass all? I think that depends on how far we evolve science.... :laugh: I think the complete picture will come from looking at the whole fucking tree, not just one or two limbs...
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2260749 -

the overall lack of knowledge is mastery of self [spirit, body, soul] and the understanding of the relationship between materialism (which all derived from Mother earth --> Universe) and Nature.

its overall powerful abilities are [attempt to] practicalism, illumination and manifestation of the material plane. ie: computers, cars

offtopic
Science is just a cover definition for Magick. hehe for instance, theoretical physics like Quantum Cosmology is very much like Divinatory magick without the traditional components.  the ward-robe, the staff, bat poo, merlin-like scientists blabbing incoherently. :smile:

what are the tools? Mathematics of numbers, letters, symbols, and combinations.  And lastly, curiosity and imagination.

Science itself serves a purpose.  it'll have its strengths and weaknesses.

Edited by Keyannki (01/21/04 06:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Limitations of Science [Re: ]
    #2261686 -

The limitations of science is apparent.

to me science, is nothing but
a reference to the unknown that is forever
manifesting itself, logged and preached
by people trying to understand it.

example, when people discover and
master certain paranormal aspects (i'm sure
this will happen) a log will be created.
this log is science itself, it is a reference to
the unknown therefore inferior.

but what if science one day catches up
with all the mysteries of the unknown?

would this mean God?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Einstein on Acid
( 1 2 all )		 NiamhNyx 3,939 20 01/20/04 08:50 AM
by bert
* Is Science a form of Mythology?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Adamist 4,693 52 01/23/03 01:21 PM
by Anonymous
* Albert Einstein
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Swami 7,918 95 12/11/04 06:53 AM
by Annom
* Einstein: Religion and Science trendalM 1,705 13 01/25/04 09:15 AM
by trendal
* The Gaia Hypothesis...
( 1 2 all )		 AbstractHarmonix 5,411 31 08/31/09 01:19 PM
by Cubers
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,282 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid
* Science phi1618 1,526 19 11/09/04 01:28 PM
by psyka
* science, religion, and philosophy Huehuecoyotl 1,688 15 01/28/05 10:05 AM
by Droz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,426 topic views. 2 members, 985 guests and 77 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.051 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.