* ENLIGHTENED *.....by.....* SCIENCE *

shawn

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,085
Points
0
Location
No longer here
We see through a glass dimly it has been written.

None of us has the last word or the totally clear picture, which is why it is so completely stupid to get all personal about defending any one point of view.
They are all suspect.
All religions, all science, everything everyone holds dear.
(Which has been a common point of mine for hundreds of posts)


But rather we see an "oh, my precious, you mustn't dis the precious, my precious theory, my precious religion,etc."

Just throw a wild card on the table and expect people to take it personal and attack the one so brazen to dare to question their precious.

I see such irrational sentimentalism as petty and immature.
But such is life on Earth, a fine lunatic asylum.
(And , no I do not consider myself to be the sane one and all others insane, we are all in the same boat, to one degree or another)
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Points
0
They are all suspect. All religions, all science, everything everyone holds dear.

Sorry... I'll cast my vote for science... with an understanding of its role.


Want to know how many parts per billion of C02 is in the atmosphere?

Science. The invisible man in the sky can't tell you.


Want to send a rocket to intercept a comet traveling through space?

Science again.


Want to build a computer... invent refrigeration... harness electricity?

Science. Science. Science.


Want to explain what happens after you die?

Oops... science can't... but neither can that invisible man in the sky.
 

shawn

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,085
Points
0
Location
No longer here
Sorry... I'll cast my vote for science... with an understanding of its role.


Want to know how many parts per billion of C02 is in the atmosphere?

Science. The invisible man in the sky can't tell you.


Want to send a rocket to intercept a comet traveling through space?

Science again.


Want to build a computer... invent refrigeration... harness electricity?

Science. Science. Science.


Want to explain what happens after you die?

Oops... science can't... but neither can that invisible man in the sky.
Can't please anyone it seems, everyone reads what they want to see.
Of course science is a logical and reasonable thing.
That is what I was talking about for a while now, but then I get attacked for pissing on someones sacred cow, which I didn't really do, but people seem inclined to take everything the wrong way, hence the post you quoted, which was better than the one I was going to post.
I am getting tired of this issue with these forums.
Time to move on.
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Points
0
... but then I get attacked for pissing on someones sacred cow, which I didn't really do, but people seem inclined to take everything the wrong way...

The point that I've seen people try to make time and time again is how science and religion are somehow equally bound in magic.

And this I think is just ridiculous.

Who here would drink a glass of water from a fetid stream if a holy man simply blessed it?

The obvious choice is to drink the water that had run through filters that removed contaminants, bacteria, etc.

The very notion that we know about contaminants and bacteria is a product of science.

Yet somebody is always ready to say, "Science is just as grounded in faith as religion..."

Puh-leaze!
 

Diagoras

Interfaith Forums
Messages
58
Points
0
"Science is just as grounded in faith as religion..." A last desperate attempt when all else has failed to drag science down into the hole religion has dug for itself. The self-administration of a cognitive placebo for those who subconsciously know the argument is lost but who cannot yet face the truth. It never fails to amaze me that the internet is teeming with those who say science is "just theories not facts" on machines that were so obviously conjured into existence by God. ;)
 

Saltmeister

The Dangerous Dinner
Messages
2,130
Points
36
Location
Australia
Science is about being objective and objectivity is about a reality in which we can all agree and come to a consensus. Identifying concepts that can be measured and defined without ambiguity is one of the keys to objectivity and therefore, science. Apart from identifying, measuring and defining things, science is also about how things work, what happens and what happened in the past. One of the most important goals of science is to develop theories that can help us make predictions. If a theory fails to correctly predict something, we need new theories, or a revision of existing theories.

One thing that people will never be able to prove with "science" and "scientific method" is whether the reality we see and observe is "all there is." We can never be sure if there is nothing else out there or if the reality we see around us is really what it is. How do we know if life as we know it isn't just a prank played on us by some cosmic juggernaut outside of the system? If there is some intelligent, cosmic being out there who created the universe, then what we see around us is not all that there is.

The word "faith" is a poor choice of a word. A better word is "assumptions." People have to make assumptions when developing their theories about the universe. You can find a good reason to think or believe something, but very often you arrive at a particular view-point subconsciously by making assumptions. You may not be aware of all the reasons why you have that belief.

Science itself does not make claims and nor does it make assumptions. Science is a peer-reviewed tradition. It is people who make claims and call it "science." Whatever assumptions "science" may involve, it is put there by people.

One of the most crucial assumptions people make on behalf of "science" is that the universe is a giant state machine. Every instant in time is a state of the universe. The universe transitions from its present state to the next state on a continuous scale in a predictable manner that never changes. As long as events in the universe are predictable and follow unchanging rules, science is absolutely objective. The assumption here is the unchanging predictability of the universe where this giant state machine constantly transitions to the next state according to the same rules for eternity.

The underlying philosophy and methodology of science involves the assumption that this continuous cycle of state transitions has never been interrupted.

If reality as we see it is not what it seems or is not all there is, this diminishes the scope of validity of "science." If reality as we know it is based on observed and observable state transitions and/or a small segment of this continuous cycle that supposedly extends to eternity, then the universe could have sprung to existence five seconds ago and we would not know.

The infinitesimal instant of time in which we now exist is a state. The universe can exist without a past or future. It could every well exist as a space in a single, infinitesimal instant of time. The infinitesimal instant of time in which we now exist could be "all there is" in the universe. We are simply living in this state.

We simply assume that that isn't the case.
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Points
0
.
Since Shawn has already abandoned his position (even if he tries to resurrect it now, it won't matter) I won't bother with him.


@ CZ

The point that I've seen people try to make time and time again is how science and religion are somehow equally bound in magic.

And this
I thinkis just ridiculous.

Who here would drink a glass of water from a fetid stream if a holy man simply blessed it?

The obvious choice is to drink the water that had run through filters that removed contaminants, bacteria, etc.


The very notion that we know about contaminants and bacteria is a product of science.

Yet somebody is always ready to say, "Science is just as grounded in faith as religion..."

Puh-leaze!


You're a cute character CZ. Let me highlight what you
have been trying to do for the past week or so:

#1: Don't engage anyone in the debate directly.

#2: Once the main argument has subsided, enter the fray.

#3: Reduce the opposition's position into a caricature

#4: Then argue against that caricature in a patronizing tone

#5: Punctuate the entire discussion with your own "puh-leaze"

#6: Hope that no one notices what you actually did.


good one.



"Science is just as grounded in faith as religion..." A last desperate attempt when all else has failed to drag science down into the hole religion has dug for itself. The self-administration of a cognitive placebo for those who subconsciously know the argument is lost but who cannot yet face the truth. It never fails to amaze me that the internet is teeming with those who say science is "just theories not facts" on machines that were so obviously conjured into existence by God. ;)

Yea, don't bother to read/understand what we actually wrote. Just pretend we wrote what you say we wrote and then laugh at us and praise your own brilliance. Good plan.




Here's some advice for you and CZ:

Why don't you quote anything from your opposition and try to refute it, directly?
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Points
0
Science is about being objective and objectivity is about a reality in which we can all agree and come to a consensus.

Let me know when that happens. We'll have to have a celebration. :D


One thing that people will never be able to prove with "science" and "scientific method" is whether the reality we see and observe is "all there is."

And never have I ever heard any scientist claim "That's all there is."


We can never be sure if there is nothing else out there or if the reality we see around us is really what it is. How do we know if life as we know it isn't just a prank played on us by some cosmic juggernaut outside of the system? If there is some intelligent, cosmic being out there who created the universe, then what we see around us is not all that there is.

Doesn't religion suffer from this same handicap?


One of the most crucial assumptions people make on behalf of "science" is that the universe is a giant state machine. Every instant in time is a state of the universe. The universe transitions from its present state to the next state on a continuous scale in a predictable manner that never changes. As long as events in the universe are predictable and follow unchanging rules, science is absolutely objective. The assumption here is the unchanging predictability of the universe where this giant state machine constantly transitions to the next state according to the same rules for eternity.

Who are the people making that assumption? Are you sure that it's just not you who thinks that?


The underlying philosophy and methodology of science involves the assumption that this continuous cycle of state transitions has never been interrupted.

Source please.


If reality as we see it is not what it seems or is not all there is, this diminishes the scope of validity of "science." If reality as we know it is based on observed and observable state transitions and/or a small segment of this continuous cycle that supposedly extends to eternity, then the universe could have sprung to existence five seconds ago and we would not know.

You know, they told you that stuff would cause "flashbacks". :D


The infinitesimal instant of time in which we now exist is a state. The universe can exist without a past or future. It could every well exist as a space in a single, infinitesimal instant of time. The infinitesimal instant of time in which we now exist could be "all there is" in the universe. We are simply living in this state.

I smell a Nobel Prize in your future!
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Points
0
One of the most crucial assumptions people make on behalf of "science" is that the universe is a giant state machine. Every instant in time is a state of the universe. The universe transitions from its present state to the next state on a continuous scale in a predictable manner that never changes. As long as events in the universe are predictable and follow unchanging rules, science is absolutely objective. The assumption here is the unchanging predictability of the universe where this giant state machine constantly transitions to the next state according to the same rules for eternity.

The underlying philosophy and methodology of science involves the assumption that this continuous cycle of state transitions has never been interrupted.

I wanted to touch on this a bit more... in a less flippant manner than before.

This view of how science sees the universe almost as a clicking clock is quaint and passé. I haven't read anything in the last ten years that describes the universe even remotely in these terms.

Take the Big Bang as an example. It is not seen as a steady at all. Instead of matter expanding in a predictable manner it appears that the universe "inflated" at an incredible rate for a very brief period time before settling into a more steady rate.

That's just one of the many ways science is finding the universe to be behaving unpredictably and unexpectedly. I think it's time you updated your understanding about how science sees the universe.

citizenzen-albums-moresillystuff-picture1248-inflation.jpg
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Points
0
Take the Big Bang as an example.It is not seen as a steady at all. Instead of matter expanding in a predictable manner it appears that the universe "inflated" at an incredible rate for a very brief period time before settling into a more steady rate.

You've misunderstood what Salty said. He pointed out (correctly) that all the scientific conceptions of the universe assume that the physical "laws" which govern the universe have remained constant throughout its history.

The following is the key sentence in Salty's post: "As long as events in the universe are predictable and follow unchanging rules, science is absolutely objective." - Salty, post 106, paragraph 5

Now you can debate whether or not this is a fair assumption on the part of science or a valid critique of it. But before you start arguing, try to understand what you're getting yourself into.
 

Saltmeister

The Dangerous Dinner
Messages
2,130
Points
36
Location
Australia
Doesn't religion suffer from this same handicap?

Every thought system suffers from the same handicap: that of having to explain reality.

Source please.

(I was just assuming . . . making an educated guess.:D)

Ok, so what happens if scientists discover that the universe suffers from "discontinuities" in its behaviour and doesn't always "follow the rules?" Does that mean that scientists will now throw away their assumptions about the universe "following rules" throughout space and time? I think not. The interruption of the cycle of state transitions might itself be part of a bigger process, whose behaviour could be predicted by another set of rules. Scientists could be looking at only part of the system, so they will jump straight back in and try to discover the boundaries of that system.

Take the Big Bang as an example. It is not seen as a steady at all. Instead of matter expanding in a predictable manner it appears that the universe "inflated" at an incredible rate for a very brief period time before settling into a more steady rate.

It's not a question of whether it's steady. A process can be random, but if there is a pattern to the randomness, it can still be modelled. For example if a particular process has a certain mean value, standard deviation, variance, if it has a Poisson, Gaussian, binomial, normal distribution, etc., you can predict the values it is likely to take next. If it's not deterministic you can use probability theory.

What are the curves? Is it a scale wave, triangular wave, sinusoidal, logarithmic or exponential?

That's just one of the many ways science is finding the universe to be behaving unpredictably and unexpectedly. I think it's time you updated your understanding about how science sees the universe.

The point of science is to be able to model, predict and "explain" things, very often to "explain things away." The modeling and prediction aspect of science is what makes it most useful. The models and predictive methods are then used in an attempt to come up with explanations for what happened in the past, what is happening now and what will happen in the future.

If science can't predict something then obviously it has reached its limits and scientists are just sitting in their observatories watching the stars or their laboratories performing forensic analysis or experimenting with new materials. They may be learning things and making discoveries, but they are unlikely to be gaining any new knowledge on the rules that govern the workings of the universe. There is no new understanding in the fundamental laws of physics.

Science would be useful in developing theories to solve the mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle or to determine whether there was a conspiracy behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks where people deliberately set up the towers to collapse.

But the question remains whether what we have seen and known is all there is......
 

OAT

Where is the TAO?
Messages
284
Points
0
Location
If I only knew
But the question remains whether what we have seen and known is all there is......
Most people would tend to try and fill the gap of the unknown with God. But that gap has been narrowing over time with the progress of science (Stephen Hawking comes to mind here).
 

Diagoras

Interfaith Forums
Messages
58
Points
0
If there is some intelligent, cosmic being out there who created the universe, then what we see around us is not all that there is.
"If". And a huge big "If" at that. My problem with religions is they sell that "If" as a certainty. And then denigrate science when it points out the flaws in their sales pitch. Science like no other field of human thought embraces and welcomes criticism, it only demands that criticism be substantiated by actual evidence.




One of the most crucial assumptions people make on behalf of "science" is that the universe is a giant state machine. Every instant in time is a state of the universe. The universe transitions from its present state to the next state on a continuous scale in a predictable manner that never changes.
As Zen pointed out this is not an accurate description of the view of the Standard Model I see explained by cosmologists. It maybe represent the perception of a partially educated public, but such people are not engaged in the science and so it can in no way be claimed as our current theory.
The underlying philosophy and methodology of science involves the assumption that this continuous cycle of state transitions has never been interrupted.
It does? That is news to me. The Holographic Principle, Dark Flow, 2 and 1 dimensional as well as String Theory's 10 or 11 dimensional models are all being vigorously studied. None of them include the "assumption" you claim of them. So while I do see where you are coming from and appreciate where you are trying to go I also see that you are transferring your own assumptions onto the body of science itself.

If reality as we see it is not what it seems or is not all there is, this diminishes the scope of validity of "science."
Ermmm..... I think not! Science is a dynamic process, not a dogma. If there is evidence for reality being other than our current models then science will not only quickly move to study the new evidence it will quite happily reject all previous ideas if that new data requires it. Far from diminishing science it demonstrates that science is only interested in the truth of things as revealed by evidence.

If reality as we know it is based on observed and observable state transitions and/or a small segment of this continuous cycle that supposedly extends to eternity, then the universe could have sprung to existence five seconds ago and we would not know.
Your reliance on these enormous big "If's" is a bit perplexing to me. What IF we are just the topping on an enormous pizza? It just has no meaningful contribution.

The infinitesimal instant of time in which we now exist is a state. The universe can exist without a past or future. It could every well exist as a space in a single, infinitesimal instant of time. The infinitesimal instant of time in which we now exist could be "all there is" in the universe. We are simply living in this state.

We simply assume that that isn't the case.

No. We OBSERVE that is not the case. To the best of my knowledge the dimension of time is included as a part of even the most far fetched theories. Even in the most bizarre one dimensional holographic model the projection of a time line is still an actual phenomena.
 

Diagoras

Interfaith Forums
Messages
58
Points
0
.




Yea, don't bother to read/understand what we actually wrote. Just pretend we wrote what you say we wrote and then laugh at us and praise your own brilliance. Good plan.




Here's some advice for you and CZ:

Why don't you quote anything from your opposition and try to refute it, directly?

Oh dear. I must have touched a nerve!
If you read again the post was a comment on Zen's post and was not directed at anyone else. It is true I made a generalisation in it, a valid one too, but it was not directed at anyone here in particular. As for where, when, why and what I post that is a matter for me to decide, not you.
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Points
0
As for where, when, why and what I post that is a matter for me to decide, not you.

"Oh dear. I must have touched a nerve!"

It does? That is news to me. The Holographic Principle, Dark Flow, 2 and 1 dimensional as well as String Theory's 10 or 11 dimensional models are all being vigorously studied. None of them include the "assumption" you claim of them. So while I do see where you are coming from and appreciate where you are trying to go I also see that you are transferring your own assumptions onto the body of science itself.

---

To the best of my knowledge the dimension of time is included as a part of even the most far fetched theories. Even in the most bizarre one dimensional holographic model the projection of a time line is still an actual phenomena.
Like CZ you have misunderstood the issue entirely. What Salty was actually saying is that all scientific understanding (including the alternative hypotheses that you mentioned) assume "physical constants," i.e. continuity without interruption in "existence." In multiverse (which is not even considered "scientific" by some critics, by the way) those constants might be different in some parallel universe theories (e.g. Chaotic Inflation Theory), but they still exist. As for string theory, it bases the possibility of extra dimensions as a consequence of the (discrepancies) in physics which govern our own universe. This does not mean it posits an interruption in the physical constants of the the 3rd or any higher dimension.

And just to be certain, this is in fact an "assumption" and a problematic one at that. Last month, an article in the Economist called it a "taboo" while noting that these "constants" might not even be "constant" in our own universe.

"But if and when such confirmation comes, it will break one of physics’s greatest taboos, the assumption that physical laws are the same everywhere and everywhen."

The fine-structure constant and the nature of the universe: Ye cannae change the laws of physics | The Economist

But that is not even the real issue, as far as I'm concerned. As the problems for science go beyond this. Since we have no understanding of what the mechanics behind these "constants" actually are, this makes any attempt to formulate "laws" based on them dogmatic by definition.

Ermmm..... I think not! Science is a dynamic process, not a dogma.
Yes, actually, the way science is actually used, it is indeed dogmatic:

"Western physics is by its inward form dogmatic... The force dogma is the one and only theme of Faustian physics." -Oswald Spengler.

The whole idea of this very thread proves the dogmatic application/abuse of science. The result of all of this has been people like Sam Harris, who use science to extract morality, efforts which usually result in technocratic governments (i.e. national socialism aka Nazism, Stalinism etc.) Whenever you give people illusion of "objectivity" and infallibility the same oppression occurs.

No. We OBSERVE that is not the case.
It is impossible to objectively measure anything, let alone "time", which we already know is relative.

I read an article months ago about the newest atomic clock they just put together. What they are finding is that when you get down to that level of "accuracy" there really isn't anything at all to measure. All scientific attempts to measure time, just like matter, have failed.

My problem with religions is they sell that "If" as a certainty.

At least true religion is honest and unapologetic about it, unlike today's science-dogmatist. I know that what I believe is based on faith. Others who worship modern science and its products, have no idea they are just as religious/dogmatic/blind as me, and consider themselves so superior.

And by the way, it has been argued that it was exactly that certainty that made civilization possible. I posted an article from the Science Daily some time ago about this. And since you already know that science sprang from civilization, it is exactly that certainty which gets the credit for science.

Is it any wonder then that Nietzsche saw modern science as the child of religion?
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Points
0
From c0de...

Here's some advice for you and CZ: Why don't you quote anything from your opposition and try to refute it, directly?

Perhaps you missed these posts...



But thanks for the advice.
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Points
38
Location
Scotland
In the meantine, let's keep focused on the discussions, not posters, please. It's getting a bit tiring that I have to keep repeating that.

Now, back to the thread topic...
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Points
0
Perhaps you missed these posts...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why are you not responding to the rebuttals of your "argument" that me and Salty posted? Instead you have posted twice without responding to the issue itself. If you have given up the argument after realizing you were mistaken, then why are you still posting here on this thread?

As for your list of posts: there are only two posts in this list which deal with science itself, the last two posts which came after I called you on beating around the bush. Unfortunately for you, both of those posts only showcased how you misunderstood the topic. Now, do you have anything of importance to say or contribute, or just more (self admitted) "flippant" remarks?

btw, I liked your picture of the big bang (cute ; )
 
Top