is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

TrueBrit
It is not science which holds us back, but the politics which develop around it, usually at the expense of pure progress, and against the wishes of the inventors and scientists who make these intellectual leaps forward. Here is a great example.

INDEED. Well put.

The oligarchy has been masterful in commandeering and twisting the best science to its evil ends.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, famed as the creator of the World Wide Web, wanted data to be shared across the vast breadth of our planet. He wanted us to communicate with one another, to take away the limitations which prevent the free sharing of data between individuals, no matter where they might be from, or who they might be. He wanted to set data free, for all to share in, for all to learn from. Thusly, he created the web, and here we are enjoying his creation.

I haven't checked. I thought the military developed the web. Certainly military msg traffic traveled by a global web 40 years ago.

But it was not him, nor was it any person whose sole interest is the scientific advancement of our species, who began to abuse that creation for the amorphous and ambiguous purposes of the worlds various intelligence agencies. Their actions, politically motivated and uninterested in the scientific value of a free internet, the free sharing of ideas and data, are corrupting Sir Tim's brainchild as we speak. Ergo, computer science is not holding us back, but governments are. Just because chemical weapons are constructed, does not mean that all chemistry on the planet is holding us back. Just because a government uses atomic science to detonate nuclear weapons, does not mean that the entire field of physics is a weight about the neck of mankind. If a gun goes off, does the Newtonian idea of each action having an equal and opposite reaction, suddenly take on a sinister meaning? No.

INDEED. INDEED. Well put.

The thing that holds us back, as Bo Xian would put it, is politics, greed, megalomania among a very small demographic of people, who hold a majority of the wealth on this planet, and wish to remain in that lofty position at all costs.

Look at science the same way as you would look at a toolbox. With a full tool kit, you can fix a car, saw up wood to make a cupboard, or a shed, hammer nails into wood, put screws into joins between sections of a creation, measure the materials you would need to continue a project. With the same tool kit, you could torture a man for a month, and cause him great suffering, and eventually death.

The tools required to do these things are the same, but their intent is entirely different, the motivation behind them utterly opposed.

The crucial thing here, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. Well put. I thoroughly agree.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Do you preach your beliefs and philosophies inside of the classroom? By "preach", I mean expound at length about how right you are and how blind anyone who disagrees with you is. Brief and casual nonjudgmental and nonproselityzing discussion, for instance.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


How very slightly interesting that you seem to so easily and persistently

selectively perceive

and distort

my critical exhortations against the crud that hides under the label "Christian."

Cute.

Welllll, not really cute.

Perhaps malicious.

reply to post by AfterInfinity



It appears that you have a whole kennel of STRAW DOGS.

Do you breed them?

reply to post by BO XIAN


Well then, perhaps you can explain to us exactly how you feel "Scientism" is holding us back. What do you feel we need to learn or explore that science is effectively stonewalling us from?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I insured that all sides were presented and aired in my classroom.

Quite in contrast to your posts hereon.

BO XIAN


I haven't checked. I thought the military developed the web. Certainly military msg traffic traveled by a global web 40 years ago.

No, you are confusing the world wide web, with the internet, and the two things are not the same. Heres a quick fact file.

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by AfterInfinity



I'm skeptical that such a dialogue is possible with you.

I have seen no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis

that such a dialogue COULD occur or would be functional, profitable.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I'm skeptical that such a dialogue is possible with you.

I have seen no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis

that such a dialogue COULD occur or would be functional, profitable.

So in other words, you're refusing to engage in an intelligent and relevant discussion with me based on a flimsy pretext? Wouldn't be the first time I scared someone off. Just remember, it's you who is refusing to clarify your position and provide a convincing argument for it. I did ask, and you're refusing. So don't get upset when people continue to deride your stance, given that you're unwilling to give them an actual reason to take you seriously.

With that said, if and when you change your mind, we'll be here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

. . . scared someone off.

Evidently you have difficulty understanding the

DIFFERENCE

between

fear vs LACK OF SUFFICIENT REASON to bother.

You'd have to offer WAYYYY more substance to foster the latter.

Not being an idiot, I have no reason to go there with the pile of evidence on the table.

reply to post by TrueBrit



Thanks. I wasn't aware of or had forgotten that distinction. I now have a very faint memory trace of having read something about him years ago.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Evidently you have difficulty understanding the

DIFFERENCE

between

fear vs LACK OF SUFFICIENT REASON to bother.

You'd have to offer WAYYYY more substance to foster the latter.

Not being an idiot, I have no reason to go there with the pile of evidence on the table.

So you'd rather talk down to me than explain to me why you feel you have a reason to think what you do. Buddy, you're on the wrong site for that kind of nonsense.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Because they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I just wonder why Bo structures his posts like he does and to be honest there is no point trying to have a discussion with him, he is so far gone into his own ego and fantasy there is just no hope of even getting him to understand that he may be (oh and he is) wrong.
If you disagree with him he shouts that "Christians are being attacked again" even when people are not.
He can't accept other religions or ways of thought...he wonders why people attack Christianity when he throws around veiled threats about everyone burning just like the religious have done for hundreds of years.
He still can't understand the difference between faith and truth and frankly I am glad he doesn't teach anymore because he really has no idea.
Back to the OP No no no no....Religion is bondage, continued slavery and science can free us all from that and is doing so.
What I don't understand is religious leaders accept science but their sheep do not..

reply to post by boymonkey74


I would be more comfortable with the existence of such people if said existence didn't consistently undermine our attempts to establish a psychologically and emotionally beneficial process by which to understand our world to the fullest and more accurate degree available to our species.

Alas, you can't win them all. Not for lack of trying, unfortunately. And I say unfortunately because I often pick battles I know I can't win just to see if I might be wrong in one way or another. I usually turn out to be just as right as I'd feared. Someday, I hope to be proven wrong and walk away either educated or having educated. It does happen, but not nearly as often as would give me hope for the future of our species.

And no, that's not a religious mentality. That's a dream that one day, our complete understanding of the world will be self-perpetuating and as self-evident as gravity.

if you read about how dig sites are dated, you might be surprised to find they often don't bother dating artifacts that emerge from pre-dated digs. it is auto-assumed that if an item that has been considered to be only available in a different strata, shows up in another strata, it is contamination of the strata and is thrown out. no dating takes place. it's just assumed. this is faith in prior findings, to such a degree that it begs the question: what if they are even occassionally wrong? we won't know because they are that sure of the pre-dating and that sure of prior determinations regarding what should and shouldn't be in a particular strata. if you're a scientist, this should bug the hell out of ya.

I have recently found something interesting...

We have been brought up to believe that the mind is located inside the head. But there are good reasons for thinking that this view is too limited. Recent experimental results show that people can influence others at a distance just by looking at them, even if they look from behind and if all sensory clues are eliminated. And people's intentions can be detected by animals from miles away. The commonest kind of non-local interaction mental influence occurs in connection with telephone calls, where most people have had the experience of thinking of someone shortly before they ring. Controlled, randomized tests on telephone telepathy have given highly significant positive results. Research techniques have now been automated and experiments on telepathy are now being conducted through the internet and cell phones, enabling widespread participation.

Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than 75 technical papers and ten books, the most recent being The Sense of Being Stared At. He studied at Cambridge and Harvard Universities, was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge and a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. He is currently Director of the Perrott-Warrick project, funded from Trinity College Cambridge

www.youtube.com...

here is a rough summary of today's theories, www.youtube.com...

it gets really interesting after 28:30


something that we will never see, measure or be able to change. Strings
I could talk for hours about this, but I will not.
the reason is, it would take me more time than I have right now to put my thoughts in this language on the paper, so let me instead ask a question

are strings the last smallest thing ever?

he, at the very beginning told us, things can always be 'smashed' into smaller pieces

if so, what is next? what is smaller than stings and Planck constant?

or maybe this all is wrong at all ? mathematical confusion with no end ?
there are infinite numbers between the numbers as we know




I don't know how you judge this guy, I see he believes what he is saying, even if he admits not to know
RELIGION-like


PS: I know you can call it 'trust' and not believe, anyway, those are not FACTS but meanings
imagine if I say, he is wrong, into his face... he will probably block and say I'm stupid, I have no knowledge at all...
the same a priest does

PS2: LOL... about 31:30 " if you take a 2D plane and crawl it up..." you get 3D
2 + 1 dimension = 3
string theory needs 10 !!!
what is 10 + 1 ??? and + 1 and +1.................
to this theory there MUST be infinite dimensions... think!!

2 dimensions are 2 dimensions ! there is no crawling up unless you are in 3 dimensions !!!
what kind of logic is that ??
you have to ADD another dimension to even be able to crawl it, right? following this, 10 dimensions +1
infinite dimensions and no end...

reminds me of " God is everywhere"


PS3:
I have to add something more...
long time ago, the proof for God's existence was a mouse in a corn silo... God's creation
The silo was locked up, God has created a mouse inside, how over wise this mouse could get in?
( if anybody can follow... )

reply to post by AfterInfinity


. . . talk down to? . . . hmmmmmm

. . . evidently as though your fear slam was not talking down to those of my perspective.

Interesting.

I merely stated my perspective.

You are welcome to label it however suits your ego needs.

Attacking & blaming the messenger of a viewpoint you are hostile to is not a very SCIENTIFIC way to have a discussion.

reply to post by leostokes


I am not reading minds, I see religious people all over the world play this word game, from different religions. So I claim this based on inductive reasoning.


What is your explanation that many religious people play these disingeneous word games? Mine is that they are fooling themselves, as they feel their belies are threathened.

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.