Science
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- monospaced0
I believe a lot of religious people feel that scientific findings are an affront to their belief systems because they offer alternative, rational answers that threaten the very core foundation of what they believe. This explains their resistance and defensiveness to it, but it is not an excuse for saying that science isn't valid truth-finding.
- well written mono, i agree fully.prophetone
- bravo mono!utopian
- ESKEMA0
There's some kind of misconception going on here, at least for me..
There is a common view that some folks here have (Georges and Morning_star, etc) that if I say I believe in science, then everything else not accepted by the majority of the scientific community is false, incontestable or undebatable. That is not the case, at least for me.
I'm completely open to any theory (that makes any sense) that crushes all the facts and theories of the present (if they are better proved and tested). I'm open to aliens (but won't actually believe until real evidence is shown), I'm open to vortex math (because it just makes a lot of sense, needs to get more development in, and other dudes speaking because Rodin and Powell talk like idiots, and this discovery is well above themselves).
To me, alternative stuff like vortex math IS science. it is the very definition of science.What I think people are condoning is the "Church" of science, the institution, the powers that pseudo "control" it. In the end it's just Humans.
But science is not just that, it's the exploration of the imagination, the search for the undiscovered and the unexplained.
Institutions will always be more conservatives, they have to maintain some kind of balance, but ultimately, they are controlled by humans, who comes in all sorts of stupidity levels.
Science doesn't ban xy project research, humans with power do.- YEah it's really ideology not science that people are criticizing...ukit2
- I'll agree with that. :)Morning_star
- yeah, totally I couldn't care less about religions,GeorgesIV
- btw on rodin and powel, you confirm my point that you will not accept any other pov until some science guy comes and say so, how is that not a belief systemGeorgesIV
- how is that not a belief systemGeorgesIV
- GeorgesIV0
I don't want to live in a future dominated by the belief system that as long as it isn't scientifically proven it's just junk and should not be even taken seriously, I want to be able discuss what I think openly.
there was a time not too long ago when scientist all around the world agreed that other races except the white race were animals,
some here happily blame religious people for faith crime, but put it under the banner of science (eugenics, mic, smallpox blankets, baby formula, weapon of mass destruction, etc) it can be excused, because, you know, they were only searching for the truth or trying to make society better,
here's my questions, because no of us here are scientist after all..
will any of you be satisfied once the scientific theocracy has taken over the entire world?
do you think you'll be living in utopia once nobody disagrees with you? did you ever look at the origin of the fields you seem to adore ?when I research a subject, I like to see both side of it, I'll read the most outrageous papers just to have some kinda of balance, what I see here are people whose belief system in science doesn't allow them to see the negative side of it.
yeah I love my cellphone, but I'm kinda weary of the drones
- no = none,
ok fuck it bitches!!! :)GeorgesIV - baby formula?ukit2
- google: nestlè baby formula depopulation, here's a clear timeline from guardian, but there's more http://www.theguardi…
GeorgesIV - http://www.theguardi…GeorgesIV
- no = none,
- ukit20
I think what we are saying Morning_star is that the theoretical science you have a problem with is really just an extension of regular everyday science. It's all just trial and error and putting forward theories.
When you get far enough out to questions like how was the universe created, of course there is going to be some guesswork involved. No one is claiming the big bang theory is bulletproof...but it is a lot more likely than creationism which has nothing backing it up except religion.
As far as materialistic vs non materialistic goes, I never understand why people need these two different categories. Everything exists in the material world....there's no second, non-material reality that you can switch over to. The idea that there is material vs non-material is a trick your mind plays on you.
- Morning_star0
For what it's worth i'm not religious at all and do not subscribe to any particular spiritual belief system. What i do subscribe to is questioning authority and trying to think for myself. You want to project some kind of religiocity on to me, well then go ahead if it makes you feel better.
The everyday science and engineering you use as example is mundane and perfectly explainable with high-school physics and engineering. As for the medical / drug science, there's a whole can of worms we should keep closed for now.
The Big Bang theory is one example of where science/scientists seems to reject the occams razor approach. It is a big mess with theories that contravene the laws of the universal contants. How is that possible?
Consciousness is another area where science is so focused on a materialistic approach it rejects out of hand any theory with evidence that doesn't reflect it's dogma. I can go on.
This argument is about science not religion. Don't mistake my questioning of science as a rejection of it.
- doesnotexist0
i like carl sagan. just wanted to throw that out there.
does anyone else enjoy this fellow?
- Everyone likes him.
http://www.youtube.c…CygnusZero4 - immensely =) he was an early inspirationZOOP
- Everyone likes him.
- ESKEMA0
So If I understood correctly, the science problem with religious folks is only about the Big Bang, the THEORY of the creation of our / the universe (note that it is said theory, not absolute truth, see the difference?). So because it's just a theory, hence all science is stupid, because it doesn't have a definitive answer to the beginning of the universe. Awesome.
What about all the other scientific results in medicine and everything on the earth for that matter? I don't get it... Do you think your cell phone is real? How do you think it was invented? Was it perhaps science? Do you understand that in order for them to make your cell phone work they had to theorize on it first, then make experiments, fail a lot, refine improvements, until a functional result is reached. Before it worked, it was only a theory. Same with the Big Bang. It's a fuckin theory, and it's not even remotely the only one, it's just the most accepted. You only contradict the science that contradicts the beliefs of your religion, but accept everything else. That makes perfect sense.- < thismonospaced
- also because religious people take literature as universal fact, when it is usually hyperbole, allegory, or metaphor.doesnotexist
- engineering is v.different to theoretical physics.fadein11
- it's only different because it's been proved and approved.ESKEMA
- ZOOP0
Why is anyone injecting religion into a science thread?
There is already a thread for religion.
I already know your reply, so save it.
- monospaced0
Deepak and Dawkins discuss a lot of what's going on here. Recorded November 9th. Chopra gets the smackdown half way through.
- https://www.youtube.…monospaced
- 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
- ukit20
So who created the creator? Why did he just randomly decide to create the universe one day? It doesn't really answer anything.
- Morning_star0
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.
Morning_star - If you think they aren't looking at the cause, then you are just being ignorant.monospaced
- Show me who and where.Morning_star
- http://www.bbc.com/f…
http://phys.org/news…monospaced - 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
- ukit20
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.
- That's not what is being argued.Morning_star
- So it's only theoretical physics you have a problem with?ukit2
- set0
Mono-scientific-applism
- trying to make fun of me again, I see.. par for the course I guessmonospaced
- not tryingset
- fine, then you are... par for the cunt course ;)monospaced
- ZOOP0
^ 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
- entails.kingsteven
- kingsteven0
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
- monospaced0
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 ResultsWhere 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
