[itistoday]

Just curious to what you guys think of science/scientists.

Edit: In reference to the poll options here's a quote from bellow that reflects the reasoning of their phrasing:

The poll options reflect how many people I know feel. The sad thing is that some people view "science" as just another belief system. This poll is phrased in the way I've heard people speak about science.

[Nicko]

Science. What has it ever done for me?

[shabbasuraj]

Science is not to be trusted as it can be utilized as a tool as it can be influenced by policy initiatives, personal bias, and perhaps most importantly institutional frameworks.

Unfortunately much of scociety believes pure ans applied 'science' per se, can provide all the answers that humans require, and as time progresses it is becoming more apparent that this is simply untrue.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Your poll is a wee bit lop-sided. Your options range from "Science is always right" to "Its tripe because it doesn't agree with my views".


Science can't be "wrong" or "right". Its just a method. Thats like saying writing is "wrong" because the book you just read is inaccurate.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
Science is not to be trusted as it can be utilized as a tool as it can be influenced by policy initiatives, personal bias, and perhaps most importantly institutional frameworks.

Unfortunately much of scociety believes pure ans applied 'science' per se, can provide all the answers that humans require, and as time progresses it is becoming more apparent that this is simply untrue.

Um... I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. However, the reason, I think, that people think like this, is because they were just not educated about science when they were children, and instead taken to church every Sunday and brainwashed with lies.

Science is a tool, yes, but it is not influenced by "bias". Obviously you don't understand how the scientific community operates. If an experiment is done, it has research behind it that proves its conclusions. Then, in turn, there are many other such experiments done one the same subject, and they can either prove or disprove the findings of another experiment.

Many people simply don't know what an experiment is. Here is an example of a real experiment that you can try right now:

Question: If I take a knife and stab myself in the arm, will it hurt?
Hypothesis: Yes.
Experiment: Take knife and stab self, record results.
Conclusion: Yes, it does hurt, continue on to do more experiments to find the reason of why it hurts (hint: It's not because God says it hurts)

Now, other people will try this experiment and record their findings as well. Sometimes, a discrepancy occurs. Scientist Joe found that when he stabbed himself it did not hurt him. Scientist Joe then declares that the other experiments are wrong. Research is done to find out why scientist Joe has the discrepancy, and it is found that scientist Joe lost his arm in the war, and now has a fake arm.

Studies continue to mount, and it is shown that those who have functional arms, are not under the influence, and do not have some sort of genetic disease, do experience pain. This guess, or hypothesis, turns from hypothesis, to theory, to law (something that can be proven to be true all the time).

And so you see, science is not "biased". When a study is done, its findings are always checked and re-checked by different scientists all over the world, that could have different beliefs and "biases".

Eventually theories form and laws are created. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS A THEORY DOES NOT MEAN IT IS UNRELIABLE. The theory of general relativity is used to accurately predict the behaviors of planets and large objects today, with correct results. The Electrical theory is used to create electrical appliances. Evolutionary theory can be seen in the creation of new breeds of dogs. These dogs were not created by God, but instead were created by man.

It seriously depresses me how many people do not understand this. This misunderstanding has resulted in millions of murders. Back in the day, before you were born, to declare that the Earth revolved around the sun was heresy, and you would be burned for saying such things. And it does not disturb anyone today that fossils have been found that date back to times before the Bible predicted the earth was formed.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Your poll is a wee bit lop-sided. Your options range from "Science is always right" to "Its tripe because it doesn't agree with my views".


Science can't be "wrong" or "right". Its just a method. Thats like saying writing is "wrong" because the book you just read is inaccurate.

I think I covered the different viewpoints well enough. See the second option. And none of the options say that science is either always right, or always wrong.

[ambush]

I think you need to go back to school and take Philo. classes.

Science/Philosophy/Religion are NOT the same thing

Science and Philo share rationality ...

[itistoday]

Originally posted by ambush:
I think you need to go back to school and take Philo. classes.

Science/Philosophy/Religion are NOT the same thing

Science and Philo share rationality ...

I know they are not. I'm not saying they are. The poll options reflect how many people I know feel. The sad thing is that some people view "science" as just another belief system. This poll is phrased in the way I've heard people speak about science.

[Zimphire]

It's a fun hobby that can produce some nice side effects. And some bad ones as well.

[Captain Obvious]

Those are the worst choices I have seen in a while.

I vote:
The creator of this poll is not capable of discerning the real attitudes of the issue with this thread. He would rather pit science against religion as if the two are exclusively dependent each other. He does not realize that many people in the world can incorporate the two into their general belief system with very little trouble. I do not believe he is a capable scientist or thinker but rather a some dorky undergrad who halfway through a 200 level philosophy class as part of his BS course requirements.
He can not incorporate the necessity of both in the world because he hasn't yet taken the sociology, psychology, and philosophy classes that would expose him to the reasons why the two can coexist in society and still thrive.
He was probably stoned off his ass when he formed the thought process that led to this thread and is most likely a biology or chem major with not much of a social life.

I just don't see that poll option

[Nicko]

Science DOES have all the answers. Science DOES provide us with all solutions.

Science by itself does not harm us. It is only when people get involved that there are...complications.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Science DOES have all the answers. Science DOES provide us with all solutions.

True. But you have to find those answers. And we don't have a great track record of finding them. Most of the time we say we know were they are from educated guesses. Only to be proven wrong sadly.

Science by itself does not harms. Its only when people get involved that there are...complications.

Correct.

Well one could say Volcanos is "Science"

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Those are the worst choices I have seen in a while.

I vote:
The creator of this poll is not capable of discerning the real attitudes of the issue with this thread. He would rather pit science against religion as if the two are exclusively dependent each other. He does not realize that many people in the world can incorporate the two into their general belief system with very little trouble. I do not believe he is a capable scientist or thinker but rather a some dorky undergrad who halfway through a 200 level philosophy class as part of his BS course requirements.
He can not incorporate the necessity of both in the world because he hasn't yet taken the sociology, psychology, and philosophy classes that would expose him to the reasons why the two can coexist in society and still thrive.
He was probably stoned off his ass when he formed the thought process that led to this thread and is most likely a biology or chem major with not much of a social life.

I just don't see that poll option

Hehe... These are all wrong.

Man you sure are angry...

[ambush]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I know they are not. I'm not saying they are. The poll options reflect how many people I know feel. The sad thing is that some people view "science" as just another belief system. This poll is phrased in the way I've heard people speak about science.

Science is 'the answer' and needs to be supported, enforced, taught, and respected over religion.

Science alone cannot be 'the answer' as it CANNOT answer to questions of WHY are we on earth. It will (probably) be able to tell us HOW we came to exist but not why. What is the meaning of life, why are we here, etc. are question that only Religion and Philosophy can answer.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Hehe... These are all wrong.

In your opinion. You don't have all the answers. No one does. If someone did, the questions would no longer be asked.

Man you sure are angry...

I didn't see any anger in that. More honest truth than anger.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by ambush:
Science alone cannot be 'the answer' as it CANNOT answer to questions of WHY are we on earth. It will (probably) be able to tell us HOW we came to exist but not why. What is the meaning of life, why are we here, etc. are question that only Religion and Philosophy can answer.

Yeah, I agree with all this. I think, however, that most people will be able to choose one of the options. No poll is perfect.

[itistoday]

BTW, Zimphire, remember we had a huge argument in the past and I put you on my ignore list? You still are, so sorry, I just don't want to duel it out with you. Forgive me if I don't reply to your comments, because there would never be an end to the bickering.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by ambush:
Science alone cannot be 'the answer' as it CANNOT answer to questions of WHY are we on earth. It will (probably) be able to tell us HOW we came to exist but not why. What is the meaning of life, why are we here, etc. are question that only Religion and Philosophy can answer.

Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. Science will eventually explain how our brain works down to the atomic level, at which time we will be able to answer conclusively why we think the way we do. Once we get to that point, we will know the answers to all the 'why' questions. The answer will probably be something like 42, or 'because its there', or something equally silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itistoday:
BTW, Zimphire, remember we had a huge argument in the past and I put you on my ignore list?

Nope, can't say I do.

You still are, so sorry, I just don't want to duel it out with you. Forgive me if I don't reply to your comments, because there would never be an end to the bickering.

Yeah I wouldn't have wanted to respond if I was you either. You really made an ass out of yourself.

But since you knew I responded to you, you read it anyhow I see.

So much for that ignore list.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Um... I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. However, the reason, I think, that people think like this, is because they were just not educated about science when they were children, and instead taken to church every Sunday and brainwashed with lies.

Science is a tool, yes, but it is not influenced by "bias". Obviously you don't understand how the scientific community operates. If an experiment is done, it has research behind it that proves its conclusions. Then, in turn, there are many other such experiments done one the same subject, and they can either prove or disprove the findings of another experiment.

Many people simply don't know what an experiment is. Here is an example of a real experiment that you can try right now:

Now, other people will try this experiment and record their findings as well. Sometimes, a discrepancy occurs. Scientist Joe found that when he stabbed himself it did not hurt him. Scientist Joe then declares that the other experiments are wrong. Research is done to find out why scientist Joe has the discrepancy, and it is found that scientist Joe lost his arm in the war, and now has a fake arm.

Studies continue to mount, and it is shown that those who have functional arms, are not under the influence, and do not have some sort of genetic disease, do experience pain. This guess, or hypothesis, turns from hypothesis, to theory, to law.

And so you see, science is not "biased". When a study is done, its findings are always checked and re-checked by different scientists all over the world, that could have different beliefs and "biases".

Eventually theories form and laws are created. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS A THEORY DOES NOT MEAN IT IS UNRELIABLE. The theory of general relativity is used to accurately predict the behaviors of planets and large objects today, with correct results. The Electrical theory is used to create electrical appliances. Evolutionary theory can be seen in the creation of new breeds of dogs. These dogs were not created by God, but instead were created by man.

It seriously depresses me how many people do not understand this. This misunderstanding has resulted in millions of murders. Back in the day, before you were born, to declare that the Earth revolved around the sun was heresy, and you would be burned for saying such things. And it does not disturb anyone today that fossils have been found that date back to times before the Bible predicted the earth was formed.

I am not sure if we are discussing the same things here, but here is more on what I was trying to mention.

I understand quite well how the scientific community operates. I am sorry you do not agree with me but I strongly believe that 'science' can be a tool and in all of my research it is not immune to personal bias, especially in regards to risk assessment with a special emphasis on environmental assessments. (Fischer 1990)

My perspective lies in environmental studies, where science is continually being challenged, politicized, and scrutinized.

In addition, individuals may be influenced by institional frameworks and any overarching political economy that may be present. i.e., Bjorn Lomborg's case he presented in the "Skeptical Environmentalist" sure he used statistics, and science per se, but he did present an overwhelmingly solid case for industry in general not to be overly concerned with 'climate change', be aware that this individual had a background in welfare economics. (Fuller 2004)

The case of the Canada's East Coast cod fisheries, which is still in under a moratorium is another example, of science striking out at all levels. Federal scientists continued to make recommendations on their results thinking that they understood the ecology of the populations of cod, but they didn't, and the relative state of this industry is proof of this. No cod. No industry, and what do you have? Struggling communities, alll over the east coast. Rising welfare, communites that are aging as younger people leave for larger urban centres. End result, a rich culture that is in trouble of fading away by the scientific ( smile) mismanagement of this historically significant fishery.

Sure there is more to this story than this, but here again, science was limited in its scope, as it failed to recognize other factors such as global la nina effects, rising ocean temperatures, and perhaps most importantly, the potential social ramifications of a culture which has for centuries relied on such a resource.

Sure this is not the case in all accounts, as much of science has checks and balances in it to stay objective. (or in some cases subjective). i.e., peer review etc... I guess one can say that 'true' science' should be free from all personal accounts, but I am not sure this is possible. Humans are fallable, and personally I beleive humans can rationalize any action. (jab, jab, invading Iraq.) However, I do know that the results of science can be utilized for forwarding a particular agenda. But to say that science is not biased is also incorrect. As witnessed by the all the authors have written extensively on this exact topic before me.

Well that is all for now, again maybe I should have been more clear in my first post as to my stance. (If there are any typos, sorry in advance.)

References.

Lomborg, B. The Sceptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press, Milton Keyness, 200.

Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 13-39.

Fuller, S. 2004. The future of scientific justice: the case of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Futures 36: 631-636.

[OreoCookie]

Science and spirituality complement each other perfectly. You shouldn't mix them, though.

Bending science till it conforms with religion has done a lot of harm ...

[Jaey]

Originally posted by ambush:
Science alone cannot be 'the answer' as it CANNOT answer to questions of WHY are we on earth. It will (probably) be able to tell us HOW we came to exist but not why. What is the meaning of life, why are we here, etc. are question that only Religion and Philosophy can answer.

Maybe there is no 'why'

[itistoday]

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
I am not sure if we are discussing the same things here, but here is more on what I was trying to mention.

Yes I don't think we are...

I understand quite well how the scientific community operates. I am sorry you do not agree with me but I strongly believe that 'science' can be a tool and in all of my research it is not immune to personal bias, especially in regards to risk assessment with a special emphasis on environmental assessments. (Fischer 1990)

I said in my previous post that I agreed, science is a tool. Yes, some research is made under biased intentions.

My perspective lies in environmental studies, where science is continually being challenged, politicized, and scrutinized.

In addition, individuals may be influenced by institional frameworks and any overarching political economy that may be present. i.e., Bjorn Lomborg's case he presented in the "Skeptical Environmentalist" sure he used statistics, and science per se, but he did present an overwhelmingly solid case for industry in general not to be overly concerned with 'climate change', be aware that this individual had a background in welfare economics. (Fuller 2004)

The case of the Canada's East Coast cod fisheries, which is still in under a moratorium is another example, of science striking out at all levels. Federal scientists continued to make recommendations on their results thinking that they understood the ecology of the populations of cod, but they didn't, and the relative state of this industry is proof of this. No cod. No industry, and what do you have? Struggling communities, alll over the east coast. Rising welfare, communites that are aging as younger people leave for larger urban centres. End result, a rich culture that is in trouble of fading away by the scientific ( smile) mismanagement of this historically significant fishery.

Sure there is more to this story than this, but here again, science was limited in its scope, as it failed to recognize other factors such as global la nina effects, rising ocean temperatures, and perhaps most importantly, the potential social ramifications of a culture which has for centuries relied on such a resource.

Sure this is not the case in all accounts, as much of science has checks and balances in it to stay objective. (or in some cases subjective). i.e., peer review etc... I guess one can say that 'true' science' should be free from all personal accounts, but I am not sure this is possible. Humans are fallable, and personally I beleive humans can rationalize any action. (jab, jab, invading Iraq.) However, I do know that the results of science can be utilized for forwarding a particular agenda. But to say that science is not biased is also incorrect. As witnessed by the all the authors have written extensively on this exact topic before me.

Well that is all for now, again maybe I should have been more clear in my first post as to my stance. (If there are any typos, sorry in advance.)

Yes, we definitely are talking about different things. When I say "science", I don't mean the research of individual scientists, but rather the concept as a whole.

I never said that all experiments are conducted by unbiased researchers whose results are always right. And as you say, science does have a "system of checks and balances" that I illustrated in my reply to your original post. It works the majority of the time, but when a theory is disproved there is usually little squabble in the scientific community if the findings are correct (something that is impossible to do in the religious community).

However, the point of this poll had nothing to do with this. I think the misunderstanding comes from the phrasing of the first option where it says, "Science is 'the answer'". Again, this is just a viewpoint some people have, and I was curious to see how many people have it.

Edit: Wait a second... I'm looking over your original post and now I see why I went off like that: "Science is not to be trusted..." Yeah. I whole-heartedly disagree with that. Just because a few scientists are sometimes wrong doesn't mean "Science" is not to be trusted no matter how you slice it.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Well one could say Volcanos is "Science" [/B]

One would also be wrong if one said that.

[Luca Rescigno]

For once I agree with Captain Obvious.

Science is a means of obtaining information and knowledge of our world. But it's not the ONLY way of obtaining knowledge. Ethics, philosophy, and religion all have their place. Personally I am not religious at all and I think religious beliefs taken too far are a dangerous thing. But science can be dangerous as well.

Look at it this way. If science held ALL the answers, then why not have a technocracy? Why not have our president and congress consist entirely of scientists and engineers? It's because you can't scientifically determine the best action to take in every situation.

I think that one of the greatest strengths of science is its fallibility. I believe in the scientific method and in the ideals the scientists hold themselves to, but it's very important that science is not infallible.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
For once I agree with Captain Obvious.

Science is a means of obtaining information and knowledge of our world. But it's not the ONLY way of obtaining knowledge. Ethics, philosophy, and religion all have their place. Personally I am not religious at all and I think religious beliefs taken too far are a dangerous thing. But science can be dangerous as well.

Look at it this way. If science held ALL the answers, then why not have a technocracy? Why not have our president and congress consist entirely of scientists and engineers? It's because you can't scientifically determine the best action to take in every situation.

I think that one of the greatest strengths of science is its fallibility. I believe in the scientific method and in the ideals the scientists hold themselves to, but it's very important that science is not infallible.

I understand what you mean. However, it's just a semantics issue. "Science" doesn't make mistakes, "scientists" do. Science is just a process, as you said, a method of obtaining information and knowledge of our world. So Science isn't wrong, it's the scientists who make faulty experiments and conclusions that are wrong.

So when you pick an option, consider Science as what it is, a method, and not any individual thing.

[wolfen]

I did not see a poll option I felt comfortable with.

I appreciate science (as a method, community, and cultural influence) AND its limitations. Beyond those limitations I employ a less scientific mindset in my approach to life, consciousness, and other science-eluding phenomena.

A life of scientific and non-scientific realities does not have to be contradictory, and I encourage the thread starter to be a bit more flexible in his cognitive inclinations.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by wolfen:
I did not see a poll option I felt comfortable with.

I appreciate science (as a method, community, and cultural influence) AND its limitations. Beyond those limitations I employ a less scientific mindset in my approach to life, consciousness, and other science-eluding phenomena.

A life of scientific and non-scientific realities does not have to be contradictory, and I encourage the thread starter to be a bit more flexible in his cognitive inclinations.

I just had a rather long arguement about this with a friend of mine. Would you have prefered something like the option, "God started the universe, and science explains it" or something to that effect?

Well, if so, then the reason it's not there is because... I forgot Sorry!

[Rolling Bones]

He Blinded Me With Science

It’s poetry in motion
He turned his tender eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
But he blinded me with science
He blinded me with science
And failed me in biology, ye-ah, ye-ah

When I’m dancing close to him
Blinded me with science (Science, uh huh, science)

I can smell the chemicals (Chemicals)
Blinded me with science (Science)

But it’s poetry in motion (‘Tion, ‘tion)
And when he turned his eyes to me
(When he turned his eyes to me)
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
He blinded me with science
He blinded me with science (With science)
And failed me in geometry

When he’s dancing next to me
Blinded me with science (Science)

I can hear machinery
Blinded me with science (Science)

But he blinded me with science
He blinded me with science
And hit me with technology (Uh huh, uh huh)

Good heavens, Jimmy
You saved the day
I don’t believe it
There he goes again
He’s tidied up now I
Can’t find anything
Oh, my tubes and wires
And careful notes
And antiquated motions

It’s poetry in motion
He turned his tender eyes to me
(When he turned his eyes to me)
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
He blinded me with science
(He blinded me with science)
He blinded me with
(huh huh huh huh huh huh ho, oh)

[awcopus]

Originally posted by ambush:
Science alone cannot be 'the answer' as it CANNOT answer to questions of WHY are we on earth. It will (probably) be able to tell us HOW we came to exist but not why. What is the meaning of life, why are we here, etc. are question that only Religion and Philosophy can answer.

You need to check your premises. The reason that you ask the question "Why" about human beings coming into existence is because the scientific explanation of how increasingly complex life forms come to be is not satisfactory to you... not because it's false but because you have these irrational assumptions about there having to be a purpose behind humans coming to be.

We have purpose in our lives, because it is our nature to seek goals. Most fundamentally we need to achieve goals regularly in order to stay alive. But "purpose because of the way our minds work" is not a signal or in any way evidence that there is a purpose in the universe itself.

When one is beyond the bounds of evidence, one is definitely in the literally unbounded realm of faith and religion. I happen to think that philosophy and science ought to be consistent with one another. Philosophy that is not evidence-based is religion, for all practical purposes.

This conversation crops up from time to time and I'm always glad that it does. There is a terrific new book by Sam Harris called, "The End of Faith" that I think everybody should read. It's a well-written and well-reasoned indictment of faith itself. Check it out at Amazon.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by itistoday:
The theory of general relativity is used to accurately predict the behaviors of planets and large objects today, with correct results. The Electrical theory is used to create electrical appliances. Evolutionary theory can be seen in the creation of new breeds of dogs. These dogs were not created by God, but instead were created by man.

This is where you lost me. Well, you never really had me. But here is where I draw the line.

You don't quite understand the difference between a scientific law and scientific theory yourself. A theory is like a law, only more complex. It is used to interconnect a lot of different hypotheses using broad language, whereas a law describes a single action. Both are used to predict results and both are generally accepted as truth in the scientific community.

Now, as for relativity: it is not used to predict planetary action. We can use Newtonian Physics to describe anything bigger than an atom and smaller than an object less than 6 million times the mass of our sun.

I have to go now, I'll be back to post later tonight.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I understand what you mean. However, it's just a semantics issue. "Science" doesn't make mistakes, "scientists" do. Science is just a process, as you said, a method of obtaining information and knowledge of our world. So Science isn't wrong, it's the scientists who make faulty experiments and conclusions that are wrong.

So when you pick an option, consider Science as what it is, a method, and not any individual thing.

This is why the majority of scientists publish in peer-reviewed publications. This way their methods and conclusions can be scrutinized and confirmed independently.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
This is where you lost me. Well, you never really had me. But here is where I draw the line.

You don't quite understand the difference between a scientific law and scientific theory yourself. A theory is like a law, only more complex. It is used to interconnect a lot of different hypotheses using broad language, whereas a law describes a single action. Both are used to predict results and both are generally accepted as truth in the scientific community.

Now, as for relativity: it is not used to predict planetary action. We can use Newtonian Physics to describe anything bigger than an atom and smaller than an object less than 6 million times the mass of our sun.

I have to go now, I'll be back to post later tonight.

Well, I understand that general relativity is used to predict "large objects". Exactly how large I wasn't so sure but my point was there.

A theory is not "like a law". It is just a really well proven hypothesis that is true in virtually all cases, but hasn't been proved to be true in 100% of cases. A law is a theory that has been proven to be true in 100% of situations. What you mean by "a single action" I don't really know. Yes, both a used to predict things, but only a law is accepted as definite truth in the scientific community, while a theory is accepted as "almost the truth", or "the truth that can't be proven" (this is highly different from faith however, because faith you can't even test, whereas a theory is tested all the time).

So an example for those who don't quite understand theory can be drawn using an analogy to nicotine. Many people back in the day felt that nicotine was addictive, and may have even been addicted to it, however, it wasn't proven scientifically to be addictive until recently. Likewise, if experiments are based on theories and not on laws, then their results are not accepted as conclusive and definite but, "rather true".

[wolfen]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Would you have prefered something like the option, "God started the universe, and science explains it" or something to that effect?

Looser than that.

Whether or not there is a God, there are things science cannot (and was never intended to) explain. Therefore, there are dimensions to life which are both non-religious and non-scientific. These are the ideas to which I am most devoted.

Secondary to that is my distaste for the use of "religious" in the context of the poll. For example, if I believed in reincarnation...why would someone require that to be a religious belief? Only because it is not scientifically verifiable -- but such a thing could simultaneously be true and unscientific. This demonstrates the problem with the poll for me.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Science. What has it ever done for me?

Polio vaccine, insulin, combustion engine, air travel, modern medicine, space exploration, antibiotics, plastic, television, etc....

The better question is what science has NOT done for you.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Looser than that.

Whether or not there is a God, there are things science cannot (and was never intended to) explain. Therefore, there are dimensions to life which are both non-religious and non-scientific. These are the ideas to which I am most devoted.

Secondary to that is my distaste for the use of "religious" in the context of the poll. For example, if I believed in reincarnation...why would someone require that to be a religious belief? Only because it is not scientifically verifiable -- but such a thing could simultaneously be true and unscientific. This demonstrates the problem with the poll for me.

Alright, I see what you mean. In fact, virtually all philosophy could fall under that. However, this poll did pit religion and science against one another. Are you saying that you wanted me to add philosophy into the mix? I couldn't because philosophy doesn't disagree with science or religion. Science and Religion, however, disagree on many things, and so it's reasonable to put them against one another since if you can't "believe" in both (except of course deism). I don't know of a single religion that agrees with all scientific findings. (Buddhism, Hinduism and the like are more philosophically inclined than most religions and could even be called philosophies).

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ambush:
I think you need to go back to school and take Philo. classes.

Science/Philosophy/Religion are NOT the same thing

Science and Philo share rationality ...

They're all tautologies anyway...

So why bother?

[i_rooster]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
They're all tautologies anyway...

tau·tol·o·gies

1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
2. An instance of such repetition.

Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

- dictionary.com

[i_rooster]

evolution works

[Synotic]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Well, I understand that general relativity is used to predict "large objects". Exactly how large I wasn't so sure but my point was there.

A theory is not "like a law". It is just a really well proven hypothesis that is true in virtually all cases, but hasn't been proved to be true in 100% of cases. A law is a theory that has been proven to be true in 100% of situations. What you mean by "a single action" I don't really know. Yes, both a used to predict things, but only a law is accepted as definite truth in the scientific community, while a theory is accepted as "almost the truth", or "the truth that can't be proven" (this is highly different from faith however, because faith you can't even test, whereas a theory is tested all the time).

So an example for those who don't quite understand theory can be drawn using an analogy to nicotine. Many people back in the day felt that nicotine was addictive, and may have even been addicted to it, however, it wasn't proven scientifically to be addictive until recently. Likewise, if experiments are based on theories and not on laws, then their results are not accepted as conclusive and definite but, "rather true".

I was just doing some googling and it seems that this seems to coincide with most of his ideas. I always learned it as a law describes what happens and a theory describes why it happens but it seems more complex than that, :shrug:

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Synotic:
I was just doing some googling and it seems that this seems to coincide with most of his ideas. I always learned it as a law describes what happens and a theory describes why it happens but it seems more complex than that, :shrug:

Yeah, those are basically what I'm trying to say, but better than my "homemade" definitions.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Science and Religion, however, disagree on many things, and so it's reasonable to put them against one another since if you can't "believe" in both. I don't know of a single religion that agrees with all scientific findings. (Buddhism, Hinduism and the like are more philosophically inclined than most religions and could even be called philosophies).

Consider this: Scientific facts are discovered daily which turn contemporary scientific understanding on its head. And yet, all of science does not acknowledge the "new reality" for years -- until everyone tests the results. And yet, truth is truth regardless of this delayed verification. In time the scientific community changes...slowly.

At an even slower pace, religious concerns acknowledge and even accept scientific discovery. It takes them longer to integrate the new ideas into systems that predate the scientific method, itself. Nevertheless they change...slowly.

The fact that that fundamentalists refuse change regardless of facts and time to integrate them is what many misconstrue as the standard position of religion, in general. But history does not support this view. The majority of religions eventually accept scientific research, and absorb its findings into their system of belief. Likewise, scientific fundamentalists reject all things non-science, but that is no better and does not accurately represent the scientific perspective.

It's true that some people hold scientifically unverifiable beliefs -- but this is not a condemnation of science as a whole. Neither does it need to be a vote for religion. It is merely belief confronting science's limitations - and legitimate science has nothing to say about it unless and until it develops the tools necessary to address the insubstantial, the aphysical.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by Synotic:
I was just doing some googling and it seems that this seems to coincide with most of his ideas.

By "his" do you mean me? Because that web site says exactly what I was saying...

Any way, as for evolution. A new dog breed isn't speciation, it's hybridization.

What we know as "dog" today is a result of speciation (evolution). Think of a breeds and races as the same thing: would you consider people of African decent to be a different species than people of European decent? Just because two dog breeds have a different phenotype doesn't mean that one evolved from the other.

I guess I can accept your "electrical theory" analogy. Upon further reflection, my only complaint is one of semantics.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Science DOES have all the answers. Science DOES provide us with all solutions.

Science by itself does not harm us. It is only when people get involved that there are...complications.

Isn't that true with pretty much everything? Even the dirty topic: religion.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by wolfen:
For example, if I believed in reincarnation...why would someone require that to be a religious belief? Only because it is not scientifically verifiable -- but such a thing could simultaneously be true and unscientific. This demonstrates the problem with the poll for me.

Subjecting words like "true" and "verifiable" to intellectually dishonest butchery is all the rage these days.

There is no such thing as verifiability independent of a scientific method. Because words have meaning, it is also wrong-headed to consider that a phrase like "such a thing could simultaneously be true and unscientific" is anything more than an exercise in the tolerability of nonsense among your listeners.

Is it simultaneously true and unscientific that I love my wife? No. Romantic love is a shared response to another person that can be verified over time. Only throwing this out to preempt the exhausted claim that emotions are beyond science, examples of a transcendent faculty of human beings... bs.

The claim that an unscientific thing is true is a faith-based claim, no more than an assertion. You're trying to make a point, but you're talking nonsense. Still crazy, after all these threads.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Maybe there is no 'why'

Yeah. 'Why' is a great question, though for most things it's the wrong one.

J

[wdlove]

My religious faith comes first. So far there really isn't much disagreement with science, the Bible is still relevant. All of life is so amazing that it could only have been made by the great creator, God.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wdlove:
My religious faith comes first. So far there really isn't much disagreement with science, the Bible is still relevant. All of life is so amazing that it could only have been made by the great creator, God.

[Twilly Spree]

I couldn't vote in your poll because I don't see religion and science as mutually exclusive. In fact I think they work admirably together. It's all about how you see it of course. Only if science becomes your religion will there be conflict. Real scientists don't believe in science. It is a tool that they use.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by awcopus:
There is no such thing as verifiability independent of a scientific method. Because words have meaning, it is also wrong-headed to consider that a phrase like "such a thing could simultaneously be true and unscientific" is anything more than an exercise in the tolerability of nonsense among your listeners.

The fact that scientific fundamentalists (like yourself) reject that there can be things undiscoverable by empirical means is our core difference. There is nothing nonsensical about either position.

Don't start with your self righteous indignation. There are many legitimate scientists (WHICH YOU ARE NOT) who argue that the fundamentalist track is not the standard by which a rational person must view the world. To believe all of existence and consciousness is certifiable as true via a scientific experiment is an extreme position.