Is science a reliable source for truth?

Science does come up with new ideas. Like the digital age you live in now. The good thing about science is they want other epople to rip apart thwir ideas to make a more solid co clusion then apply any new ideas to it.

Ever challenged someone's religious belief. It don't go down to well

a reply to: bogdan9310

Science has the ability to measure objective truth but not subjective truth.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: bogdan9310

Depends . Do you Favor Theory or Conjecture ?

Its not the simple. You cannot scientifically prove that you are having a subjective experience and experiencing yourself. Yet I would guess you would consider yourself more than conjecture.

Understand its a tool and like all tools it has uses and limitations. What do you think the limitations of science might be.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Lol. Do you know that the electromagnetic spectrum is considered physical. Radio waves are considered physical, light is physical. They can all be measured and they can assert force on other objects.

Can you now give me an example of a nonphysical thing?

I don't dispute any of that.
I don't think that there can be examples of a nonphysical thing.

Just as someone's religious beliefs are a physical thing based on their neurons so is someone without religious beliefs.
But I'm probably jumping the gun here, what is the point you are trying to make?

a reply to: purplemer

You cannot scientifically prove that you are having a subjective experience and experiencing yourself.

This is a tool/measurement problem. If you have a tool that measure the quantum state in real time including all entanglements on every Planck point of creation you will get data on the subjective experience of all things within. This data is the objective truth.

Some strong empaths can even with only their body entangle themselves with loved ones and co-experience another beings experience.

"The problem in atheistic view is that many are materialist who cannot handle that consciousness can be delocalized from the brain. The bias of not accepting entanglement make the materialist unable to handle the reality that happens in experiment."

You're overthinking this. If materialism were a quality that runs counter to God's principles, how do you explain the abundance of gold, silver, and fine fabrics that adorn most altars? If it's supposed to represent the richness of heaven (the promised land), the concept of expecting a 'reward' for leading a Godly life is materialistic in itself.

From my perspective, it has nothing to do with materialism, delocalized consciousness, and entanglement.

It has to do with suspending rational belief and accepting irrational beliefs as truth. It's as clear to me as when I was six years old and understood there's no possible way Santa Claus can land on every rooftop on earth and deliver presents to everyone in a single evening.

I am not stating religion/faith is a bad thing. People deal with life as they need to in order to make it through this adventure on our little round blue spaceship, and every little bit helps. If that process includes religion for a person, by all means--have at it--I hope it makes their life better.

My point is people are different, and they should be permitted to have their own beliefs without being subjected to criticism and arrogance of others that have differing beliefs. That's the only gripe I have about most religions: they expect their membership to staunchly peddle their philosophy because it is The One True Faith. Which it cannot be for everyone.

Cheers and peace to all.

Science is very good at parsing things out, figuring out how things relate to each other, and giving them names. If you care to believe them, we're all made up of stuff built by a complex, molecule they call "DNA." WHY it replicates is a philosophical question.

Most of the answers science has for "why" are along the lines of "random chance," "chemical interactions," "small particles do things," or "there is no reason why." Which, obviously, don't really answer the question.

originally posted by: bogdan9310
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But science only analyzes existing concepts, it is widely known that philosophy is the art of concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it.

Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on.

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.

And the problem I want to point out, is that a lot of people treat it like religion. They bring up science in conversations to back up their arguments like the science is settled and can never be proven wrong.

Logic is the foundation of reasoning. Reasoning is the process by which we judge and arrive at the truth. Logic is how we derive Truth.

For an argument to be considered sound, the argument must meet two fundamental criteria.

1. Is the premise True
2. Is the reasoning valid

Ex;
1. Sandy is has red hair, therefore 2. Sandy is not a blonde.

A logical argument can be distilled down to it's fundamental elements as a mathematical equation.

Some truths are inexorable.

~ 1+1=2
~ For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Verifiable, repeatable and reproducible results)

Science is the study of the physical world around us, it's structure and behavior. It is inherently uncertain but some conclusions (truths) have been established as such beyond a reasonable doubt. Some experiments produce different results which can lead to differing conclusions.

Induction is a part of the scientific method that leads to uncertainty. The meaning of Induction is the act of bringing forward or adducing something (such as facts or particulars). Part of the problem is that experimental results can be open to interpretation. Another problematic aspect is that it's not always possible to eliminate or account for all of the factors involved in the outcome of an experiment.

Science isn't religion, but it's the best method we currently have to analyze and describe our physical world and the mechanisms that govern it.

Science..... is only as reliable as the person funding it..... Sad, but it is tue. The vast majority of important information, is owned by "The Company".....and everyone else owns a copy of a nondisclosure agreement listing the terrible things that will happen to you if you squeal.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Depends what you mean by 'science'.
The scientific method is as reliable as we can really hope for.

This. Whenever it fails it's because the scientific method has not been followed properly

a reply to: ErosA433

Im a particle physicist... Am I wealthy? Nope not really, I'm getting paid an average salary compared to the country, and yet, because large numbers get batted around in terms of the research grants we get, people equate it to some kind of award say for a sportsman... "This experiment got 2billion" As though we get the 2billion and divvy it up between people who work on the experiment. This is further from the truth, as that money will mostly go to buy equipment, engineering and training of people.

For a long time now, I have hoped to bump into a particle physicist. The information included in the PDF has scarcely seen the light of day for thousands of years. This is what I believe, and to me there is no better explanation. Please study it and digest it, and feel very empowered when you are hit with the truth. It will not feel subjective to you I promise.

This framework was designed by Pythagorus to be used as the basis for all science in the future and it has been buried for centuries.

Let's see if your bias allows you to explore it. It will challenge your understanding.

Pythagorean Hylozoics - Henry T Laurency

Was Ptolemy wrong when he used epicycles to explain retrograde motion in an Earth-centered universe?

It explained the observations and even provided a predictable model.

Was Copernicus wrong when he replaced the existing model with a Heliocentric one?

Kepler refined the orbits from circles to eclipses, so maybe Copernicus could be considered wrong.

How about later, when the model was refined to include the varying speed of the planets as they drew toward perihelion?

Now we include relativistic factors into observations of the solar system. Was every scientific model that came before wrong?

Obviously, astronomy is an example where science is additive, building upon existing knowledge in a cumulative manner. Science is "correct" for it's time period.

The other model of the progress of science to consider is one of revolution. This is more like how medicine advances, like germ theory, DNA. antibiotics, imaging, anesthetics and such will "revolutionize" medicine were old theories are completely replaced.

Something to consider.

a reply to: kennyb72

Nice, I've never looked into this.
There's far too many PDF's that have been ignored for thousands of years.

Moreover, it has thought that the absence of logical contradictions was a criterion of truth.
And all this for want of facts

I liked this part, relates back to the OP brilliantly.
It's a clever way to dismiss science and make people think they're "opening their minds".

Unforunately it's all undone with their explanations of esoterics...

it is rational and does not present any contradictions

and its explanations without contradictions

by its freedom from inner contradictions,

It seems my lack of evolution is keeping me back from truly understanding.
That was a good read though.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It seems my lack of evolution is keeping me back from truly understanding.
That was a good read though.

Hats off to you!, it took me nearly 7 months to absorb this information and several years to fully digest.

I hope you explore it a little further than that, it's probably the most valuable information you will ever be privy to.

I liked this part, relates back to the OP brilliantly.
It's a clever way to dismiss science and make people think they're "opening their minds".

Unforunately it's all undone with their explanations of esoterics...

Moreover, it has thought that the absence of logical contradictions was a criterion of truth.
And all this for want of facts

Basic reading comprehension is invaluable when attempting to understand anything, in other words when you have all of the information, then you can decide if any of your information contradicts itself. The modern scientific method cannot reveal the truth because it lacks the methods necessary and will not reveal itself through normal enquiry

"There's far too many PDF's that have been ignored for thousands of years."

lol funny

Science is a constantly moving target but we can't travel north by heading west - if you punch steel your hand will break - if you vote democrat you are a demon - there's a possibility that Trump is not the return of Jesus but only because we can explain away his miracles so far.

a reply to: circuitsports
What direction do you travel when traversing the Panama canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

a reply to: Phage

Trick question - it doesn't connect to the Atlantic, it connects to the Caribbean Sea #science

What kind of heathen uses the canal anyway? - I fly over it on my way to visit the pope at the south pole, duh

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: circuitsports

it doesn't connect to the Atlantic, it connects to the Caribbean Sea

Incorrect.

media1.britannica.com...

The Gulf of Panama (Spanish: Golfo de Panamá) is a gulf in the Pacific Ocean, near the southern coast of Panama. It has a maximum width of 250 kilometres (160 mi), a maximum depth of 220 metres (720 ft) and the size of 2,400 square kilometres (930 sq mi).[1] The Panama Canal connects the Gulf of Panama with the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The Panamanian capital Panama City is the main urban centre on the gulf shore.

www.google.com...@10.2258792,-79.7547213,7.01z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8c05740f2d973079:0x74e7300c2d25f9bc!8m2!3d14.5401107!4 d-74.9676365