- Last post
- 869 Responses
Obviously there are going to be religious people who will constantly point out that since science doesn't offer the final answers, that their religious origin stories still reigns supreme. I can't change that, and I accept it, on Earth as I do on QBN. Ultimately, I prefer to view my reality, this reality, as one that is rational and that exists in its current form due to the processes found in the name of scientific process, not from a dogmatic, ungrounded and mythical source. That is all.
I want to add also that the science introduced into the public is mostly acceptable for your consumption. nobody is going to give up the power if they knew the secrets that would empower you and upset the social status qua.. it assumed what ever is classified is about 50-100 years ahead. Your getting repackaged water down fluff. similar to the people who you religion to keep you in check and mass consumption.
- at least science makes sensemonospaced
- you get your answers from a book written by some romans over 2000 years ago, have funmonospaced
- This is conspiracy theory nonsense. What secrets do you think are hidden from you? lolukit2
- Exactly, scientists don't hide behind some conspiracy. They publish works publicly.monospaced
both of you science created paragraph,
use them, lol
Eskema - "they didn't invent it, they theorize that it should exist"
Could you tell me what the difference is? Because the way i understand it is that the current theories in particle physics couldn't account for the mass and gravitational influence that some galaxies were exhibiting so a new state of matter 'Dark Matter' was INVENTED - essentially to plug the hole in existing theories. It has been the intention of experiments like the LHC to find evidence for this. They haven't.
- Of course when you get to the limits of knowledge theories are required. Why does it bother you?ukit2
- I find it frustrating that most people blindly follow science without question. It isn't the empirical bastion of hard fact and evidence that it claims to be.Morning_star
- Most people don't even think about such experimental topics as dark matter.ukit2
- evidence it claims to be. It is dogmatic and flawed.Morning_star
- why without questions? Are you nuts? Science IS questions.. And ultimately a lot of questions about establishedESKEMA
- I believe you're wrong. The universal constants fluctuate and change. There's a committee that averages and publishes them annually.Morning_star
- them annually. Much like the Council of Nicaea ;)Morning_star
- You can try all you want to say science is as mythical as a "belief system" but it only makes you look more stupid.monospaced
- Because no matter what, it's not as ludicrous as gods and miracles and praying. That shit is bonkers stupid.monospaced
- Why do you always revert to religion. 'It may be stupid but not as stupid as...' statement is weak and powerless.Morning_star
- tru. very tru.Morning_star
- I know he wrote 'belief system' in the OP, but we all know he's comparing it to religion. That's the WHOLE POINT of this.monospaced
Science created the keyboard you are typing on and the internet used to send it, you ungrateful fucks ;)
But yeah blabla "science is just another belief system"
Science is the way forward but is painfully ignorant and arrogant. Science once thought the sun revolved around the earth and I'm sure in the future they'll be laughing at a lot of the 'scientific' beliefs we have now.
- That possibility is what makes it so great!monospaced
- takes them 100s of years to correct themselves though - slows our development down.fadein11
- that's not true in the slightestmonospaced
- okay mono - you are right again.fadein11
- oh c'mon, the progress in physics alone shows that the theories are being refined regularly.monospaced
- what took hundreds of years to correct? most modern scientific progress has happened only within the last two centuries alonemonospaced
- yep you are right - after reading many science books though - scientists who are proved wrong often die without admitting defeatfadein11
- defeat - but thats a problem with the individuals I guess - which is who I was moaning about. often v.closed off people - tunnel visionfadein11
- tunnel vision can be a strength and a weakness in science. and often is.fadein11
- Fair enoughmonospaced
- again, says more about human motivation than science.kingsteven
That's probably true set, but how can a discipline be ignorant and arrogant? Science is just the search for knowledge through empiricism, nothing more nothing less. To get mad at science because there are theoretical ideas people have come up with about how the universe works at a fundamental level is kind of silly. If those ideas are proven wrong, science will accept it and move on. Just like when it was shown that the Earth revolved around the Sun...it was religion that was unable to accept this idea not science.
- Science subcomes to inertia, just like religion, just like gov't. You can be thrown in jail for disagreeing with the establishmentmonNom
- ...establishment. Refering to 'science', as it is practiced by humans, not the 'scientific method' as a theoretical ideal.monNom
mono is God and science all rolled into one (with an apple logo on back).
It IS the fact that science is a process of updating and refining knowledge (aka progress) that makes it not a belief system.
- yes we know that mono - chill out.fadein11
- some people don'tmonospaced
- The 'belief' is that science can explain the universe.Morning_star
- < yep true and along with that comes arrogance - why would a minor species like us have the capability to begin to fathom itfadein11
- The fact is that science does explain most of the universe, and does so more every day, and will continue to.monospaced
- So sure... I believe in that process of refinement. Beats the hell out of giving up and saying god did it.monospaced
- for the record I do not think God did it. But we understand a tiny amount of the universe...fadein11
- 2 examples - 1. DNA - we understand a tiny fraction of it - the rest scientists call junk DNA.fadein11
- 2. Dark energy/matter
the vast majority of material in the universe is a total mystery to scientists.fadein11
- Right. We can measure the mass of the universe and know that a majority is uncounted for. That's a hypothesis.monospaced
- I mean, dark matter is a hypothesis based on the scientific method... doesn't require belief, it's based on evidence.monospaced
- based on evidence only.monospaced
- yep i think we agree on most things.fadein11
many scientists are religious - never got that one.
Oh and Dawkins is an arrogant narrow-minded buffoon.
But I like Hawkings.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Where in that process does one require blind faith?
- you are discussing the science process - we all know that. not relevant to the discussion.fadein11
- "do you love your father? prove it"drgs
- I disagree. The scientific method is the basis for all science. It is all that is relevant to this discussion.monospaced
- Without it it would resemble something like a belief system. Thank goodness the 'method' is there to keep that from happening.monospaced
- from happening.monospaced
- Even feelings of love can be explained through physiological processes. Look it up.monospaced
- Worst, movie-based, argument ever.monospaced
- i hope you don't express your feelings to your loved ones through equations mono - you will die lonely.fadein11
- Of course I don't. And I'm about to be engaged to a beautiful, smart woman who I love very much.monospaced
- that is the basis for research, not necessarily "science." science is observable fact.doesnotexist
- There is no science without the scientific method.monospaced
- science is research, dude, it is the process itselfmonospaced
my very non scientific view on belief is that folks either believe in themselves or something external. folks that put their faith in religion or science are actually embracing the same AAA idea of an unfaltering and all powerful force. Of course, anybody with a scientific mind would rather put their faith in a supernatural deity than a constantly fluctuating mass of unrelated theories.
- except that your last sentence is the exact opposite of the truthmonospaced
- fluctuation is only scary to people afraid to adapt to new knowledge. i'd rather learn new things and grow than sit and festerscarabin
- fester in ignorancescarabin
- all i'm saying someone who follows scientific methods is more likely to believe in a god than believe a theoretical argument against its existence.kingsteven
- proposition that there isn't one.kingsteven
^ dafuq ^
- must have pulled that conclusion right out of your assholeZOOP
- unrelated? you must be jokingZOOP
- the application of scientific theory != the body of knowledge it has created.kingsteven
- folks that put their faith in theories are not putting their faith in science.kingsteven
- but you're right 'unrelated' wasn't the best choice of wording.kingsteven
- dude, scientific theories are based on the method, thus based on facts and evidence, not faithmonospaced
- yes but i'm saying they're not mutually exclusive. you don't have to 'believe' in science to 'believe' evolution.kingsteven
- oh... yes you domonospaced
- yes, I'm saying that hypothetically. i was just wondering if the op thought that's what a believing in science entailedkingsteven
OK, all you who are so skeptical of science...what exactly are you suggesting as an alternative? What's the alternative to gathering evidence and testing it?
Here's an idea...try giving up your computer, phone, car, electricity, music, refrigeration, sewage systems, etc, and go live in the woods. Congratulations..you are free now from the corrupting influence of science.
Science and scientists regularly ignore The First Cause/Prime Mover issues and many of the problems associated with The Big Bang - the 'something from nothing' conundrum. Should science claim, as it regularly does, that there is no creator?
- probability + time = "something from nothing" as you put itZOOP
- Now who's talking about religion? ;)monospaced
- There was no 'time' before the big bang.Morning_star
- Also, scientists are doing everything except ignore it. They are constantly, relentlessly, testing it.monospaced
- Not me Mono. I said creator not god.Morning_star
- Billions of dollars and the best minds on the planet are dedicated to trying to (dis)prove the big bang theorymonospaced
- god, creator, c'mon, we know that they're the same. It doesn't matter what word you choosemonospaced
- Testing what Mono? You'll hear scientist claim things about millionths of a second after the big bang.Morning_star
- Nothing about the cause.
- If you think they aren't looking at the cause, then you are just being ignorant.monospaced
- Show me who and where.Morning_star
- The BBC link doesn't work and the other one supports the many universes hypothesis. It doesn't address the First Cause issue.Morning_star
- The link works fine, and both are trying to address the issue. Sigh.monospaced
- I can't view the BBC one as the link is international, sorry. Hust watching the Dawkins Deepak thing, very interesting, thanksMorning_star
So who created the creator? Why did he just randomly decide to create the universe one day? It doesn't really answer anything.
Deepak and Dawkins discuss a lot of what's going on here. Recorded November 9th. Chopra gets the smackdown half way through.
- can't you find anyone less biased, like getting jaques dutroux to explain pedophilia?GeorgesIV
- They are philosophical opposites, comparing biases. It's also current and relevant to both sides of the argument.monospaced
- They are both extreme and biased individuals, but that leads to a great discussion.monospaced
Why is anyone injecting religion into a science thread?
There is already a thread for religion.
I already know your reply, so save it.