How can you honestly believe in Science?

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
Sorry, but I don't need faith to know that 2 plus 2 always equals 4.

No, but you might need some help because you are confusing science with mathematics. Understand that mathematics is the language of science, it is not one and the same as science.

I stand corrected.

I should have said "I don't need faith to know 1.008 will always be the atomic weight of hydrogen."

[edit on 10-8-2007 by ModernDystopia]

PS,

Math is considered a formal science, rather than an empirical science.

Still a science, nonetheless.

Originally posted by ModernDystopia

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
Sorry, but I don't need faith to know that 2 plus 2 always equals 4.

No, but you might need some help because you are confusing science with mathematics. Understand that mathematics is the language of science, it is not one and the same as science.

I stand corrected.

I should have said "I don't need faith to know 1.008 will always be the atomic weight of hydrogen."

[edit on 10-8-2007 by ModernDystopia]

Actually that is relative to the mass in the local system.

Originally posted by Quazga
LOL! Dude... when the Roman empire left Western Europe and went o Byzantium, it was the Church that kept the infrastructure going in and around Italy. The Church had nothing to do with the dark ages, other than being another player. It had more to do with Moors, and Vikings, and Lombards, etc. The Church wasn't even a real power player during most of it.

Let's see, the crusades, the black death, the inquisition, galileo, suppression of knowledge, feudal system. Yeah that's a dark age all right, and it's not the vikings fault.

Scientists know how to "use" electricity, they don't know what makes it work though. Electrons are a word we have come up with to describe a discreet point in a wave equation. Don't be so blind as to confuse the map with the territory.

I'm sure the reverend knows better

[edit on 10-8-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by ModernDystopia

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
Sorry, but I don't need faith to know that 2 plus 2 always equals 4.

No, but you might need some help because you are confusing science with mathematics. Understand that mathematics is the language of science, it is not one and the same as science.

I stand corrected.

I should have said "I don't need faith to know 1.008 will always be the atomic weight of hydrogen."

[edit on 10-8-2007 by ModernDystopia]

Actually that is relative to the mass in the local system.

Fact of the matter is, faith and science are not as closely related as you seem to believe. Whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by Quazga
LOL! Dude... when the Roman empire left Western Europe and went o Byzantium, it was the Church that kept the infrastructure going in and around Italy. The Church had nothing to do with the dark ages, other than being another player. It had more to do with Moors, and Vikings, and Lombards, etc. The Church wasn't even a real power player during most of it.

Let's see, the crusades, the black death, the inquisition, galileo, suppression of knowledge, feudal system. Yeah that's a dark age all right, and it's not the vikings fault.

Scientists know how to "use" electricity, they don't know what makes it work though. Electrons are a word we have come up with to describe a discreet point in a wave equation. Don't be so blind as to confuse the map with the territory.

I'm sure the reverend knows better

[edit on 10-8-2007 by DarkSide]

Actually the Dark Ages are accepted to be up to about 1000, Everything else you mentioned comes after that.

You really should use google at least once before you post.

Originally posted by junglejake
For the most part. I was watching "This Elegant Universe" and they continually stated that if a theory can't be tested, it stops being science and becomes philosophy. Yet, there are a couple scientific theories that can't be tested that some claim as true science, often very passionately. I won't name the theories, but they're out there

One of the problems is that people people confuse the definitions of "theory" and "law". A theory is an idea that either cannot or has not been proven. When a theory is proven then it becomes a law. Sometimes, with advances in technology, laws are disproven and then revert back to theories.

As far as the Church and the Dark ages are concerned, read about the trial of Galileo Galilei.

I do have to agree, though, the church had nothing to do with the onset of the Dark Age.

You have several factors to account for:

-The fall of Rome
-Volcanic activity
-Plagues
-Possible comet/asteroid activity

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by LuapLet me illustrate. I've woken up thousands of times over my life, and each time, the sun rose (I bet some of you are familiar with this demonstration in skepticism). By using my past experiences, I can "logically" deduce that tomorrow morning, the sun will rise again. This is false, however. Just because I haven't gotten in a car accident following the thousands of times I woke up doesn't mean I won't get in one today.[edit on 9-8-2007 by Luap]

That really is a very poor analogy. There is no cause and effect, and science is very big on both. Waking up does not cause car accidents, although falling asleep at the wheel usually does. Do you drive? Have you been in an accident? Well, if you have, you would have been far less likely to have survived it 50 years ago. Do you know why? Because car design has improved. The science has got better. The physics of the collision, and the way the materials react to it, is better understood.

For someone who knows nothing about science at all faith is an issue, as they must take someone else's word on what that science entails. The whole point of science is that something is only considered true (proven) when anybody replicating an experiment will achieve the same results.

The big problem with science is that the world it talks about is only ever an approximation, a simplification, of the real world. The only successful experiments are those in which every variable can be controlled or accounted for. This cannot happen in the real world. However, this being said, it does a very good job of representing the real world.

Where is the deity? The morality? If you think science is a religion then you are confusing religion with philosophy. What we call science could also be decribed as Western empiricism.

It is quite entertaining to think of the various scientific disciplines as cults though.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Karilla]

You're right about the analogy. I really spit out the post quickly and could have articulated myself better.

My point still stands, though, about science being faith-based. Melatonin summed it up better when he said that science makes one epistemological assumption--that an objective reality exists, and I would posit also that our perceptions of that reality are reliable. To not accept that axiom though results essentially in nihilism, which IMO is far too frightening of a world view to accept. I like how "The Big Lebowski" portrays nihilists.

Originally posted by melatonin
Looks like someone done Philosophy 101, heh.

Solipsism - the last refuge of the faith-based. Which is the extreme of this line of thought. And a type of relativistic idea that science is as good as faith is an essential component of 'anything goes' postmodernism nihilistic thinking.

But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?

Richard Dawkins

Science produces reliable results. That is why it is successful. Many philosophers despise it, because essentially we produce reliable knowledge, much better than sitting around a table engaging in philosophical masturbation determining whether ze table really exists.

Science - the successful bastard child of philosophy.

Science is not about absolute truth. Religion is. Science is about gaining reliable understanding of the universe. It produces tentative models that change with evidence, faith-based approaches do no such thing, as evidence need not apply. Science is about gaining a peek up coy mother nature's petticoat.

If science does not represent a degree of reality, then nothing does. And the evidence of its success suggests it does. Faith? Bleh...

Science requires one epistemological assumption. That axiom is that objective reality exists. If this wrong, then who cares? We might be a computer simulation, or a brain in vat, we might all exist in your mind. In which case, we are testing the 'reality' of the nature of the computer system, other simulated universe, or your imagination. However, we will never be able to prove it so. It is a waste of the brain glucose that doesn't really exist. Even if we are in a simulation, it is then still the reality in which we play, and science is still practical approach to gaining knowledge.

Cogito, ergo sum.

So, whatever this reality is, science is the optimal method of knowing and understanding it. In fact, I would suggest it is the only reliable way of knowing.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

You made the point of the thread better than I did--that science makes that epistemological assumption. Though the little kids that continuously ask "Why?" may not know it, their annoying questioning eventually points to that assumption at the basis of our ability to know. I consider myself a practical person, and my point in this thread was not to challenge science as a method of understanding. If fact, I'm indebted to science and all of its progress.

My real aim with this I suppose was at those that ridicule a belief in a higher being (or beings).

Originally posted by Quazga
Please do not delete...

i was talking about my individual post. i was going to add to this thread then decided against it. therefore, i deleted/erased my commentary and asked the mod to delete my blank entry.

Originally posted by DarkSide
You think that living things being made of cells being "very likely"? I've seen my own cells with my own eyes which are also made of cells.

Yes, nearly beyond any doubt. But it's not. There's a chance that each measurement made by every person who's looked at a cell was wrong or misinterpreted. The chances of that are astronomically low, therefore negligible, but there is always a state of doubt. Nothing is certain. Instead, things are only, to you (and to me, and to someone else, all individually), more likely or less likely to be the truth.

Originally posted by Quazga

LOL! Dude... when the Roman empire left Western Europe and went o Byzantium, it was the Church that kept the infrastructure going in and around Italy. The Church had nothing to do with the dark ages, other than being another player. It had more to do with Moors, and Vikings, and Lombards, etc. The Church wasn't even a real power player during most of it.

Actually, the Moors helped to preserve culture, learning, etc. They had nothing to do with the Dark Ages. And the Church had already consolidated its power and was more powerful than any monarchy by 1,000 A.D. It had been this way for at least 4 or 5 centuries by 1,000. The Church was the sole holder of knowledge and learning at that time and didn't distribute it to the masses. As early as 313, the Council of Nicea rewrote the Bible and withheld the original information that had been in it. That is suppression of knowledge.

Anyway, back to the topic. Science is not based on faith, but on facts, observations and experimentation. Religion is more like mythology than anything else and one certainly wouldn't compare myth to science. Science is based on what is there, religion is based on what isn't there and has not one shred of evidence to back it up as being correct. Religion is also closer to theory, and theories are not conclusive, but scientific facts are. Science is based on trying to find out how the real world operates, while religion often rejects science and facts, based on "faith".

"How can you honestly believe in Science?"

because i'm on a computer that's operation would only work if the general precepts of scientific analysis had worked, using a network that was created using science, in a house that was created with science, and i've survived disease that would have killed me if i lacked the aid of medical science.

science is a method, a tool. i don't believe in it, i use it. i believe in science as much as i believe in a wrench.

Science is the quest for the explainations to the universe and world around us. So the question becomes How can I honestly believe in the quest for the explanations to the universe and world around us. I think the answer to that is easy. It is our nature to try to find out the world around us, and we would not have anything that we have now if we were not like that.

I believe that the quest for the explanations to the universe and world around us (science) is actually the reason for most religions being started. Anything we could not explain had an easy explanation in religion (a higher power).

My only issue is how one someone with some authority, scientific or relgiious says something, there are those who take it as absolute truth, when in fact both religion and science is just what we know "thus far".

Originally posted by Quazga
My only issue is how one someone with some authority, scientific or relgiious says something, there are those who take it as absolute truth, when in fact both religion and science is just what we know "thus far".

How is religion considered anything close to knowledge? The very idea of knowledge requires some basis of proof...faith discluded. Science doesn't take faith. It just takes a common language with agreed upon definitions for terms.

Originally posted by ninthaxis

Originally posted by Quazga
My only issue is how one someone with some authority, scientific or relgiious says something, there are those who take it as absolute truth, when in fact both religion and science is just what we know "thus far".

How is religion considered anything close to knowledge? The very idea of knowledge requires some basis of proof...faith discluded. Science doesn't take faith. It just takes a common language with agreed upon definitions for terms.

Knowledge only requires experience. Proof isn't required. For instance, when a man "has known" a woman, it doesn't mean anything about proof. It means he experienced her sexually.

Science does take faith however. Sure experiments can show repeated results, but that doesn't mean that the theory for those results is accurate. Even Einsteins said that when we look at the universe we can only assume what is making things work they way we do. No matter how well our predictions turn out, we are still using guesswork to better understand the universe.

For instance, even today the debate rages as to whether gravity is merely a force or if it actually travels like a wave. No one is going to say that on this earth Gravity doesn't exist, but science isn't required to to have knowledge of gravity, only experience.

I deny the false god called Gravity, and now I can fly, weeeee!
I disbelieve in electricty and now I can run my entire house off of prayer.
I defy the laws of physics and no wall or "theory" like time and space can stand in my way.

Yeah science is a blind faith like that.

Sarcasm aside.

Science is tested, over and over to see how things work.
When some experiment or theory comes out, other scientists test those theories.

Religion doesn't work that way.
People either believe or don't believe in it, and it makes absolutely no
difference, it changes nothing.

It does not heal anyone, science tried to find some connection to prayer
and healing and there was no connection. Because there was no healing.

Prayer doesn't change the outcome of anything.

You think prayer could pull off a Hiroshima or power a hundred cities?

Does prayer heat your home in the winter?

What does religion tell us about geometry, geology, meterology, engineering, oh the list goes on and on where religion leaves the masses ignorant of how to do things.

Find me a chapter and verse that explains how to build highways, levees, and hyrdoelectric dams, aircraft, and space stations.


[edit on 12-8-2007 by Legalizer]

Originally posted by Legalizer
I deny the false god called Gravity, and now I can fly, weeeee!
I disbelieve in electricty and now I can run my entire house off of prayer.
I defy the laws of physics and no wall or "theory" like time and space can stand in my way.

Yeah science is a blind faith like that.

Sarcasm aside.

Not sure if you misread my post, but I specifically said that the experience of gravity does not need proof. However there is a debate as to the mechanics behind it.

Science is tested, over and over to see how things work.
When some experiment or theory comes out, other scientists test those theories.

Religion doesn't work that way.

Sure it does.. it's called rituals and sacraments. Someone performs a ritual, a particular result follows, and so the association in the brain is now formed. They will then write their incantations down and give it to someone else who is encouraged to try it when they need the same results.

Now that might not pass in your eyes as trial and error, but to the practitioners of that belief, it does. And they are convinced of their method as you are of the scientific method.

Once again, I'm not saying either method is right, I'm just saying they end up with what they call a workable model.

People either believe or don't believe in it, and it makes absolutely no
difference, it changes nothing.

It doesn not heal anyone, science tried to find some connection to prayer
and healing and there was no connection.

Actually I Believe you are talking about this study:
www.foxnews.com...

Odd how other studies found other results

/2a2xm2


Well I guess science isn't perfect. But that was my point all along.

While we're at it, heres a study that shows being a do-gooder is helpful

www.columbusdispatch.com...

Prayer doesn't change the outcome of anything.

You think prayer could pull off a Hiroshima or power a hundred cities?

You do realize that the key element in any quantum physics experiment in the observer don't you? The experiment might work the same way 100 times when I do it, and different when you do it because of where we looked for the data.

Not to digress, but Einstiens theories hepled to make that giant bomb. His theories came from what he called "Thought Experiments" and he made giant leaps of faith in very unorthodox ways to even form an hypothesis, so even indirectly the power of meditation had a part in the bomb.

Does prayer heat your home in the winter?

Actually, if you check out the Shaolin Monks, yes Prayer does keep them warm in the winter...

www.hno.harvard.edu...

Don't assume that prayer is somehow not based in science, just because those who practice it today typically deny science.

See, surprises await us around every corner. If anything, science as taught us that.

Now I'm not saying we don't use science to build highways. But we also have used religion and prayer in the past to conquer civilizations. Read Sun Tzu and you will find that of all the factors which guarantee success in the battlefield, the actual strength of the army is number 5.

Top of the list? How morally correct the leader is seen in the eyes of his troops.

Science guides.... it does not determine. Come to think of it, thats the same for religion.



[edit on 12-8-2007 by Quazga]

[edit on 12-8-2007 by Quazga]

[edit on 12-8-2007 by Quazga]