It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: greyer

Use a few more exclamation points. I don't think enough people realize that you are mad yet.




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein

Don't worry about it. He won't get in the White House.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Either keep your pitiful thoughts that stem from the pitiful essence of your spiritual immaturity directed away from me, or just don't think, the latter might benefit both of us, but I guess that means it would not be your option since giving anything of value to anybody or anything including a conversation is not part of your will, meaning that you are not just unmotivated to do anything of truth and purity, but you reject everything in the name of good because of a stubborn egotistical obnoxious attitude. You want to be like people so much, you look up to them so much, you need their approval so much, and that is your excuse - pathetic, truly pathetic...
edit on 11Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:07:21 -0500America/Chicago15America/ChicagoSun, 29 Mar 2015 23:07:21 -0500 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
As long as you're willing to put them both to the test. Science doesn't hold up to a scientific standard. You can't prove, scientifically, that the basic principles upon which science works actually work. They're just assumptions.

Say what? Are you able to give some examples of science that doesn't hold up to the "scientific standard"?



Without endorsing Mr. Carson's perspective, what's so far-fetched about this? If religious beliefs can be used to control people, what about scientific ones? Back in the day, "scientific" beliefs about race were used to control people.


Race equality wasn't based on science! There is no actual science that suggests one race of human is better than another. It didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. Just because this view was believed by many people, does not make it scientific. Similarly many religious folks claim that the earth being flat was a scientific view. It wasn't. It was a view, but not rooted in scientific experiment.

The far fetched part of this is that religion doesn't prove anything, it is faith based. So how can you use it to interpret science? That doesn't even make sense. It sounds like this guy wants scientists to inject god or religious concepts in every unknown part of science. Unfortunately that isn't how science works, and with that stance, he will NEVER get elected.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs



Say what? Are you able to give some examples of science that doesn't hold up to the "scientific standard"?


Not examples of science. Science itself. You cannot prove to me, scientifically, that the scientific method works.



Race equality wasn't based on science! There is no actual science that suggests one race of human is better than another. It didn't exist then and doesn't exist now.


Easy to say that now that it's the popular view.



The far fetched part of this is that religion doesn't prove anything, it is faith based.


Science is faith based as well. It's based on the faith of inductive reasoning. I've heard that some (I haven't done the research to evaluate the claim) believe that religious thought in Europe paved the way for science directly because it offered reasons to believe that inductive reasoning would work. (Something along those lines anyhow.) Interesting, no?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Not examples of science. Science itself. You cannot prove to me, scientifically, that the scientific method works.


First, that doesn't even make sense and 2nd, yes I can. The fact that I am typing this message to you is evidence that the scientific method works. In fact all technology reinforces it, along with modern medicine, the numerous fields of earth science and much much more. Asking for an experiment that proves that experiment works, is beyond silly when we see it working in action every day in society.


Easy to say that now that it's the popular view.


It's easy to say it now that we know it's true. Popular view is irrelevant and does not affect the validity of science. The bottom line is that you were wrong calling racism and inequality in the past a scientific position. That is simply false. Don't get me wrong, people have falsely claimed science suggests this, but it is actually more about propaganda and it is far from a scientific position.


Science is faith based as well. It's based on the faith of inductive reasoning.

False. Science is not even close to faith based. It follows evidence. You don't need faith to believe that if an experiment shows that the earth rotates on an axis, that it actually does. You don't need faith when science is implemented in our daily lives and works. Do you consider gravity to be faith based as well as the earth's revolution around the sun and the tilt of our axis causing the seasons on earth? Maybe you aren't aware of how the scientific method actually works.

chemistry.about.com...

Here's a link to help you understand. It is about understanding objective reality and learning how things work. If it was an invalid method it wouldn't be implemented in our society on the level that it is. Things like refrigeration, nuclear power plants, automobiles, computers, airplanes, rocket ships capable of space travel, smart phones, etc etc all work because science has helped us figure out how. You seem to be looking at it in the wrong way.

Leave science alone. I never understood the need for others to attack it. Would you be willing to give up every benefit that science has given you in your life to maintain that viewpoint? I doubt it, and honestly it's downright hypocritical to use your computer to communicate with me, a product that was created using knowledge gained from science, and at the same time claim that it's faith based. Is your computer working or not? Do you take it on faith that your message will post or that your computer will connect to the internet? I could understand if you have a old or cheap computer that barely runs, but the science behind it is solid.
edit on 16-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
He keeps saying weird little things like this.

Definitely don't want him as president. Next.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



First, that doesn't even make sense and 2nd, yes I can.


Can't have it both ways...



The fact that I am typing this message to you is evidence that the scientific method works. In fact all technology reinforces it, along with modern medicine, the numerous fields of earth science and much much more. Asking for an experiment that proves that experiment works, is beyond silly when we see it working in action every day in society.


"Asking for proof that God exists is beyond silly when we see Him in action every day." See how unconvincing that is?
The truth is that science is founded on certain philosophical presuppositions about the way that the universe works.



Popular view is irrelevant and does not affect the validity of science.

It just affects people, and people do science.



The bottom line is that you were wrong calling racism and inequality in the past a scientific position. That is simply false. Don't get me wrong, people have falsely claimed science suggests this, but it is actually more about propaganda and it is far from a scientific position.


When I said that racism was the scientific position, that is what I was referring to. Scientists believed that racial inequality was a fact.



False. Science is not even close to faith based. It follows evidence.


Which is based on faith.



You don't need faith to believe that if an experiment shows that the earth rotates on an axis, that it actually does.


I do, actually. But, more to the point, science doesn't just claim that the earth once rotated on an axis. It claims that it will do so tomorrow because it did yesterday. That is the basis of inductive reasoning, and the only reason we have to believe that inductive reasoning works is because inductive reasoning...that is, more inductive reasoning. Which is circular reasoning, and that is a fallacy.



You don't need faith when science is implemented in our daily lives and works. Do you consider gravity to be faith based as well as the earth's revolution around the sun and the tilt of our axis causing the seasons on earth? Maybe you aren't aware of how the scientific method actually works.


I am aware of how the scientific method works. You appear to be unaware that it is based on certain philosophical presuppositions, presuppositions that scientists take on faith.


You seem to be looking at it in the wrong way.


On the contrary, I am looking at it the right way. Science is great, and I have a lot of respect for the discipline. But it is grounded in philosophy. Somehow, over the last few centuries, the links between the two have been severed, and few have any idea of the connection.



Leave science alone. I never understood the need for others to attack it.


I'm not attacking it. I'm attacking this foolish "sola sciencia" idea that science is the be-all end-all. It's not.



Would you be willing to give up every benefit that science has given you in your life to maintain that viewpoint?


What viewpoint?



I doubt it, and honestly it's downright hypocritical to use your computer to communicate with me, a product that was created using knowledge gained from science, and at the same time claim that it's faith based.


Ah, but how do I know that I am communicating with you? How do I even know I have a computer?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
"Asking for proof that God exists is beyond silly when we see Him in action every day." See how unconvincing that is?
The truth is that science is founded on certain philosophical presuppositions about the way that the universe works.


I didn't ask for proof of god, so your point is moot. Do you seriously deny that information technology works? Do you deny it is based on science? Saying that you see god in action is false, because you do not see god in action. You guess that he is responsible for what you do see. Science can be tested and verified. God cannot.



It just affects people, and people do science.

Which is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about and is huge simplification of how it really works. Science is not a person, it's a method and has nothing to do with popular views. It is based on evidence.



When I said that racism was the scientific position, that is what I was referring to. Scientists believed that racial inequality was a fact.


Give me some names of these "scientists" and the research they used to support this claim. A view can only be scientific if it is based on scientific research and experiments. Scientist opinions are not facts. Research and experimental conclusions is what matters in science.



Which is based on faith.

Nope.



I do, actually. But, more to the point, science doesn't just claim that the earth once rotated on an axis. It claims that it will do so tomorrow because it did yesterday. That is the basis of inductive reasoning, and the only reason we have to believe that inductive reasoning works is because inductive reasoning...that is, more inductive reasoning. Which is circular reasoning, and that is a fallacy.

Yeah, just like I suspected you know nothing about science. Science doesn't claim that it will do so tomorrow. A rogue planet or unseen asteroid could hit the earth today and stop it. What scientists can accurately predict, is that if all the current factors involved with the earth's revolution, rotation, speed and mass/gravity stay the same, that it will continue to do so. Science doesn't claim it will rotate forever. There are numerous things that could change that fact, but until that happens, it is a scientific fact.



I am aware of how the scientific method works. You appear to be unaware that it is based on certain philosophical presuppositions, presuppositions that scientists take on faith.

Science is great, and I have a lot of respect for the discipline. But it is grounded in philosophy. Somehow, over the last few centuries, the links between the two have been severed, and few have any idea of the connection.


Clearly, you aren't aware of how it works. We are more scientifically advanced than we have ever been in our known history. The scientific method tests hypotheses. Scientists don't just dream stuff up and make it a fact. It has to be tested first. That is the key prerequisite to suggesting any view is scientific. Testing, observing, experimenting, falsifiability, peer review and ability to make accurate predictions are how fact is separated from fiction in science. It goes way beyond simple philosophy.


I'm not attacking it. I'm attacking this foolish "sola sciencia" idea that science is the be-all end-all. It's not.


You are attacking it. You claimed that it is faith based. Nobody claims science is the be-all-end-all except for people that don't understand how it works. Science evolves as new data and facts are discovered.


What viewpoint?

Your viewpoint that science is faith based as you have clearly argue for in your last 3 posts.


Ah, but how do I know that I am communicating with you? How do I even know I have a computer?


Computer, smart phone, tablet, whatever internet ready device you have is a product of science unless you are sending these posts via the force, and if that's the case I'd love to learn how it works.
edit on 16-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent


I didn't ask for proof of god, so your point is moot.


I'm aware of that. My point was rhetorical in nature.



Do you seriously deny that information technology works?

No.



Do you deny it is based on science?

No.



Saying that you see god in action is false, because you do not see god in action.


How do you know?



You guess that he is responsible for what you do see. Science can be tested and verified. God cannot.


How do you know?



Which is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about and is huge simplification of how it really works. Science is not a person, it's a method and has nothing to do with popular views. It is based on evidence.


Yup. Which can be interpreted different ways.



Give me some names of these "scientists" and the research they used to support this claim.

You could have just Googled...
But this disciple of Darwin's is a good start.



A view can only be scientific if it is based on scientific research and experiments. Scientist opinions are not facts. Research and experimental conclusions is what matters in science.


Yup.



Nope.


Yes, actually, it is. I will explain why briefly. Suffice to say you are missing my point




A rogue planet or unseen asteroid could hit the earth today and stop it.


Obviously, yes



What scientists can accurately predict, is that if all the current factors involved with the earth's revolution, rotation, speed and mass/gravity stay the same, that it will continue to do so.


Yes. Why do they think that?


Science doesn't claim it will rotate forever.


Quite the opposite.



Clearly, you aren't aware of how it works. We are more scientifically advanced than we have ever been in our known history. The scientific method tests hypotheses. Scientists don't just dream stuff up and make it a fact. It has to be tested first. That is the key prerequisite to suggesting any view is scientific. Testing, observing, experimenting, falsifiability, peer review and ability to make accurate predictions are how fact is separated from fiction in science.

Trust me, I know how it works.




It goes way beyond simple philosophy.


"Simple" philosophy?



You are attacking it. You claimed that it is faith based.


Because it is. Science is based on the faith that the world we perceive, the material, tangible things our senses detect, is in fact real and measurable, and that we can make meaningful statements about it. Furthermore, it makes the fundamental assumption that inductive reasoning reasoning works.



Nobody claims science is the be-all-end-all except for people that don't understand how it works.


Like yourself?




Science evolves as new data and facts are discovered.


Sure.




Computer, smart phone, tablet, whatever internet ready device you have is a product of science unless you are sending these posts via the force, and if that's the case I'd love to learn how it works.


But how do you even know I exist?



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Something is propaganda but it's not science.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

You grossly misunderstand the nature of science. Okay, you can argue that nothing actually exists, but can you prove that view? No, you can't. Science is objectively real and it works in this realm of existence whether you deny reality or not. I looked up your racism claims and they are based on nothing tangible. Social Darwinism isn't scientific and actually has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Pundits who misinterpret science to promote a worldview are doing exactly that. They aren't referencing real science, they are loosely basing their ego driven guess on a few cherry picked concepts. They are actually ignoring a large amount of evidence by doing this. Racism was never a scientific viewpoint, it was an egotistical one.

Science > philosophy when it comes to objective reality. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is. But like I said, if you think science is fake, then give it up and stop benefiting from it. Remove all devices and technology from your life that are the result of scientific knowledge, and we'll see how that goes. It is hypocrisy to the extreme to actively preach against science while benefiting from it in your daily life. It's 2015! Denial of science in this day and age is downright silly.

Also if you think reality is just a figment of your imagination, why would you post on a message board if you are talking to a hallucination?


edit on 17-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: StalkerSolent


You grossly misunderstand the nature of science.


No, I don't.



Okay, you can argue that nothing actually exists, but can you prove that view? No, you can't.


Obviously I can't, but the kicker is that science cannot prove that anything actually exists. Isn't that great?




Science is objectively real and it works in this realm of existence whether you deny reality or not.


This is a philosophical statement you are making, not a scientific one. And you have provided no evidence for your claims. How unscientific of you.


I looked up your racism claims and they are based on nothing tangible.


Except history.


Social Darwinism isn't scientific and actually has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.


Social Darwinism is (was) a socio-economic posture. What you're looking for is scientific racism.



Pundits who misinterpret science to promote a worldview are doing exactly that. They aren't referencing real science, they are loosely basing their ego driven guess on a few cherry picked concepts. They are actually ignoring a large amount of evidence by doing this.


So...no real scientist would ever say something unscientific?

Sorry to break it to you, but scientists mess up. Theories get promoted, and accepted, and later refuted. That's science. And there's no way to except human ego and guesswork from the process.


Racism was never a scientific viewpoint, it was an egotistical one.


Some people say that about evolution.



Science > philosophy when it comes to objective reality.


Uh, no...science cannot prove objective reality exists. Philosophy attempts to do that. Science doesn't. That's why metaphysics is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one.



Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.


Another baseless claim.



But like I said, if you think science is fake, then give it up and stop benefiting from it.


I don't think science is "fake." I think it rests on certain philosophical presuppositions and in faith in a certain nature of reality.



Remove all devices and technology from your life that are the result of scientific knowledge, and we'll see how that goes. It is hypocrisy to the extreme to actively preach against science while benefiting from it in your daily life. It's 2015! Denial of science in this day and age is downright silly.


Reread what I am saying. I'm not "denying science." I'm putting it in its proper place. Back in the day, science was called "natural philosophy" because it was one tool among many others for the discovery of truth.



Also if you think reality is just a figment of your imagination, why would you post on a message board if you are talking to a hallucination?


I don't think that. But I have no infallible way of proving otherwise. Anyway, what else would you expect me to do if I was hallucinating?



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Obviously I can't, but the kicker is that science cannot prove that anything actually exists. Isn't that great?


Science can prove things within this realm of existence and that's the only thing that it has ever claimed. If it turns out all of this reality is fake and you are computer simulation rather than a real person, then it won't affect science at all. The science will still work within this realm of existence. Your argument is irrelevant and doesn't get us anywhere. You are postulating a "what if" statement to argue against science. Sorry but you can't do that. Science is based on what we CAN determine, not what ifs. Science works and it has influenced pretty much every single piece of technology we have.


This is a philosophical statement you are making, not a scientific one. And you have provided no evidence for your claims. How unscientific of you.

No, it's not philosophical. It is based on what we currently know about this reality based on objective experiment. You are the one that is making philosophical statements, not me.

What claims did I make that you need me to back up?



Except history.


You have to do better than dropping argumentative one liners that prove nothing. Link me to the peer reviewed scientific research papers that suggests one race of human is better than another. If you can't do that, then you can't claim it is a scientific view. The end. Even Darwin was against that idea.


Social Darwinism is (was) a socio-economic posture. What you're looking for is scientific racism.


You must not have read the whole thing, because none of that is based on the conclusions of scientific research papers, they are examples of people who tried to push an agenda by cherry picking. I don't get how you can call somebody a "disciple of Darwin" when their claims about race directly conflict with his view. Just because a scientist says something, does not make it a scientific view. It makes it the personal opinion of a scientist.


Sorry to break it to you, but scientists mess up. Theories get promoted, and accepted, and later refuted. That's science. And there's no way to except human ego and guesswork from the process.

Sorry to break it to you, but nobody claims scientists don't make mistakes or that science is perfect. Can you give me an example of an actual scientific theory that was accepted and later refuted? Well substantiated theories don't just completely vanish, they update their data when new discoveries are made. I don't think you even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science. Please name an actual scientific theory that this has happened to. Again, I'm not looking for hypotheses or concepts that were misunderstood or that changed over time. All science changes over time. Drop me the name of the exact theory where this has happened.


Some people say that about evolution.


Who cares? Some people say the moon is made of cheese.

How many non sequiturs are you going to post?


Uh, no...science cannot prove objective reality exists. Philosophy attempts to do that. Science doesn't. That's why metaphysics is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one.


That's also why there isn't a shred of objective evidence in support of metaphysics or anything like that. It's 100% guesswork, unlike science, which is based on what we can observe and prove. What ifs do not go against science, for the last time. If you want to deny reality and claim you can't prove it's real that's fine. Go promote your faith and sing it on the mountains. I will stick with science until it one day discovers this or discovers a creator.


Another baseless claim.


Why would you separate this from the previous quote, just to post another irrelevant one liner? You seem to have trouble understanding where the points begin and where they end. In this world, science proves things and holds more weight than philosophy. That isn't baseless it's a fact. Philosophy is 100% subjective. I am talking about objective reality.


I don't think science is "fake." I think it rests on certain philosophical presuppositions and in faith in a certain nature of reality.


Welp, you are simply wrong in that assumption and I've already explained it multiple times.


Reread what I am saying. I'm not "denying science." I'm putting it in its proper place. Back in the day, science was called "natural philosophy" because it was one tool among many others for the discovery of truth.


Science is about objective reality. Philosophy is about subjective reality. You can't mix the 2 or claim science doesn't hold as much weight as pure guesswork LMAO. Labeling science faith or suggesting it is equally valid is denying science regardless of you sugar coating it.

edit on 17-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Just to add on and explain more clearly:

Science ignores anything that is not objectively verified. For example, the question of whether god exists or does not exist. Since science cannot answer that question one way or the other, the idea/concept of god is left out of the scientific process. Similarly, if science cannot prove that objective reality is "real" or a simulation, it doesn't add those concepts to any of the science. Science determines how things work on this planet and in this universe. The second you start talking about simulation hypothesis and that reality might not be real, you are leaving the realm of science and going into philosophy, which doesn't hold as much weight as science in reference to objective reality.

Besides, saying that reality might not be real is a huge cop out and would pretty much mean that nothing is real, not even you. Please explain how science could even logically prove that 'reality is real'. Dip your hand in a pot with boiling water. If it's not real, no big deal right? Cause and effect is a very real process. Every action has a consequence.
edit on 17-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Science can prove things within this realm of existence and that's the only thing that it has ever claimed. If it turns out all of this reality is fake and you are computer simulation rather than a real person, then it won't affect science at all. The science will still work within this realm of existence.


Well, maybe. Or maybe next week gravity will work slightly differently.



Your argument is irrelevant and doesn't get us anywhere. You are postulating a "what if" statement to argue against science.


How am I arguing against science?



Sorry but you can't do that.

I just did.



Science is based on what we CAN determine, not what ifs.


Really? I thought it was all about bold discovery.



No, it's not philosophical. It is based on what we currently know about this reality based on objective experiment. You are the one that is making philosophical statements, not me.


Sure.



You have to do better than dropping argumentative one liners that prove nothing. Link me to the peer reviewed scientific research papers that suggests one race of human is better than another. If you can't do that, then you can't claim it is a scientific view. The end. Even Darwin was against that idea.


Wait, so science didn't exist before peer review????
Are you sure you understand how science works?



You must not have read the whole thing, because none of that is based on the conclusions of scientific research papers, they are examples of people who tried to push an agenda by cherry picking.


You do realize that was before "scientific research papers" in their present form existed, right? According to the Wiki peer review has only become *commonplace* in the last hundred years or so. Anyway, if you read the article on scientific racism, you'll find lots of examples of scientific (or, if you prefer, "scientific") articles that were written that promoted racist ideas. They were wrong.



I don't get how you can call somebody a "disciple of Darwin" when their claims about race directly conflict with his view.


Because he was. He may not have agreed with Darwin on everything.



Just because a scientist says something, does not make it a scientific view. It makes it the personal opinion of a scientist.


Yup.



Sorry to break it to you, but nobody claims scientists don't make mistakes or that science is perfect. Can you give me an example of an actual scientific theory that was accepted and later refuted?


Newtonian physics is a good place to start. Or heliocentricism.


Well substantiated theories don't just completely vanish, they update their data when new discoveries are made.


Sure. When science gets something wrong, it updates itself. I'd agree to that.



I don't think you even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science. Please name an actual scientific theory that this has happened to. Again, I'm not looking for hypotheses or concepts that were misunderstood or that changed over time. All science changes over time. Drop me the name of the exact theory where this has happened.


You're literally saying, "tell me where science was wrong, but I'm not looking for science that was wrong." Or perhaps you're using science differently than I am. I'm using it to refer to the process humans use to come to conclusions about our universe. Sometimes it is wrong because of incomplete or missing or mistaken data. Scientists once thought that the world was the center of the universe, or that Newtonian physics was the be-all end-all of physics. In that sense, "science" said so. But they were mistaken. From that perspective, "science" was wrong, and may be wrong in the future.



Who cares? Some people say the moon is made of cheese.


My point exactly. Why should I care what you say unless you back it up with proof?




That's also why there isn't a shred of objective evidence in support of metaphysics or anything like that.


WHAT?!
That's like saying "there's not even a shred of objective evidence in support of dentistry or anything like that." Metaphysics is a field of study, not a theory.



It's 100% guesswork, unlike science, which is based on what we can observe and prove.


If metaphysics is 100% guesswork, than so is science, because metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality.
In fact, if you will read the link I posted, you will see that science was once metaphysics.



What ifs do not go against science, for the last time.


What do you mean?


I will stick with science until it one day discovers this or discovers a creator.


What does this mean?



Why would you separate this from the previous quote, just to post another irrelevant one liner?


Because that's fun!

Besides, I like addressing people on a point-by-point basis.


In this world, science proves things and holds more weight than philosophy.


According to what authority? Do you have a peer reviewed article on this subject? Has science proven this? Or are you making stuff up?



That isn't baseless it's a fact.


Then prove it to me, please.



Philosophy is 100% subjective. I am talking about objective reality.


But does objective reality exist? We all perceive everything subjectively, from our own point of view. So what does "objective reality" mean?




Welp, you are simply wrong in that assumption and I've already explained it multiple times.


Actually, you've just said that I was wrong




Science is about objective reality. Philosophy is about subjective reality.


And all objective reality rests on subjective reality, because everyone perceives the world from their own point of view, i.e. subjectively.



You can't mix the 2 or claim science doesn't hold as much weight as pure guesswork LMAO.

I'm not the one mixing the two. They were originally mixed, back when science started. Science as we know it today would not exist were it not for philosophy.



Labeling science faith or suggesting it is equally valid is denying science regardless of you sugar coating it.


What does "denying science" mean? It makes about as much sense as saying that I am "denying car." What about science am I denying?

Perhaps I need to reexplain my position. Let's give it a go:

Science is based on subjective observations. By use of our individual subjective observations, we discover what we call "laws of nature," that we label things like "gravity." We assume that these laws of nature will not randomly fluctuate because they have not been observed to fluctuate. That's inductive reasoning, and we take it on faith (because the only reason we have to believe that inductive reasoning works is inductive reasoning, and that's circular reasoning, which is a fallacy.)
edit on 17-4-2015 by StalkerSolent because: ] not [



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Barcs



Just to add on and explain more clearly:


Just now saw this, sorry!


The second you start talking about simulation hypothesis and that reality might not be real, you are leaving the realm of science and going into philosophy, which doesn't hold as much weight as science in reference to objective reality.


What makes you say that? All of life is built on philosophy. Ultimately, science and philosophy both have the same goal, which is the discovery of the truth. Science just handles the more mundane part of that quest.



Besides, saying that reality might not be real is a huge cop out and would pretty much mean that nothing is real, not even you.

Yup. quite possibly. Hence Descartes and "I think, therefore I am." Descartes' line of reasoning reasoned upwards abstractly to a good Creator, and from there downwards to the certainty that reality is real. (IIRC.) But it was all philosophy up until that point. Personally, I think his line of reason was good, but not infallible.



Please explain how science could even logically prove that 'reality is real'.


It (almost certainly) can't. That's my point. We have to depend on philosophy to argue about reality, the nature of being, and the meaning of life.



Dip your hand in a pot with boiling water. If it's not real, no big deal right?


Unreal things can still cause you pain. Ever dreamed you were falling/drowning/burning alive?



Cause and effect is a very real process. Every action has a consequence.


Ah, yes, cause and effect. But was the cause predestined, or freely chosen?
Because of the whole "ignoring things that cannot be objectively verified" bit, science (or, if you prefer, some scientists think that science) *indicates* that all of human behavior is merely chemical reactions. This poses a real problem: should we punish criminals for their actions if they are not in fact responsible, and there is, in fact, no free will?

Interesting question. What do you think should hold more weight in answering this question. Science, or philosophy?



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Well, maybe. Or maybe next week gravity will work slightly differently.


No. Gravity is a law and a constant and is directly proportionate to the mass of the object in question. The EFFECT of gravity could change if the mass of the earth changed, but the laws of physics are called laws for a reason. They don't change and gravity won't suddenly change the way it works. If you wish to suggest this, then explain how this could happen and use science to demonstrate it.


How am I arguing against science?


I have already answered this. You claimed science was faith based, therefor you are arguing against its validity. I'm still waiting for a valid reason why.


Wait, so science didn't exist before peer review????
Are you sure you understand how science works?


By science, I am referring to the scientific method as it currently stands. Right now, peer review is a big part of the process. It's not JUST about experiments, it's about the ability of others to scrutinize them by duplicating them and double checking their work. I'm talking about modern science, not archaic science where somebody could just arbitrarily make a statement and claim it is scientific because he has that background. Obviously this kind of thing can lead to corruption, payoffs and agendas being pushed. This is why peer review is extremely important. Your paragraph about "scientific" racism backs me up on this.


Because he was.


Superb reasoning and logic in this statement. Thanks for clarifying!

So 99% of biologists are disciples of Darwin. Gotcha. I think you should keep the religious terms away from science. They don't go together.


Newtonian physics is a good place to start. Or heliocentricism.


I asked for scientific theories. Heliocentricism is accurate. Geocentrism wasn't an official scientific theory and is actually a prime example of why the scientific method has changed. Instead of examining the evidence to see where it led, they started with the assumption that geocentrism is true and then forced whatever they felt like into it to make it work. It was more of a religious view. They couldn't test any of it. Assumptions built on top of assumptions. Remember I'm talking modern science, which is much more scrutinized.

"Newtonian physics" isn't a scientific theory either, and they didn't end up being false, they ended up being a smaller part of the picture. Newtons ideas were expanded on by Einstein, they weren't replaced. Newton's law of gravity, and Newtons laws of motion still hold true today. That's a terrible example.


My point exactly. Why should I care what you say unless you back it up with proof?


You still haven't told me what you want me to back up. You made a silly blanket statement about evolution. I didn't see you back that up. You are making my points for me. I appreciate that. You have demonstrated perfectly how science holds more weight than philosophy or random statements made on the internet.


WHAT?!
That's like saying "there's not even a shred of objective evidence in support of dentistry or anything like that." Metaphysics is a field of study, not a theory.


Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not a scientific field of study.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is entirely theoretical (and not in the scientific meaning of the word). It is pretty much making educated guesses. There are no experiments to test any of it.


Besides, I like addressing people on a point-by-point basis.

You didn't address me point for point. You addressed me line for line. Many of my points were broken up which changed the context.


According to what authority? Do you have a peer reviewed article on this subject? Has science proven this? Or are you making stuff up?


Now this is getting kind of funny. Do you have a peer reviewed article on peer reviewed articles? But wait, if that's the case, who is going to write one for the peer review of the peer reviewed article on peer review? LOL. Science objectively proves things and the knowledge is used to make technology, improve modern medicine, provide food to people on a massive scale, allow instant global communications, etc etc. That is direct evidence that it works and is not based on faith. I don't understand how you fail to see this. You broke down all my other posts line for line, yet somehow mysteriously didn't even address that main point. Objective evidence means that it can be verified via experiment and scientific observation. It is the basis of the scientific method.


And all objective reality rests on subjective reality, because everyone perceives the world from their own point of view, i.e. subjectively.


How you perceive the world does not change the objective scientific experiments that show how things work. You keep equating philosophy to science. They are not the same thing. Something that is not objectively verified is considered unknown in science. Science draws conclusions from what can be verified. Philosophy attempts to make conclusions based on what we do not know. It is night and day. Science is NOT based on subjectivity. It doesn't matter that it evolved from philosophy originally or that educated guesses based on facts are made to create hypotheses to test. Science, as it stands today, is a great method of fact discovery. It is much more reliable today than it was a couple centuries ago, for sure.


It (almost certainly) can't. That's my point. We have to depend on philosophy to argue about reality, the nature of being, and the meaning of life.


We don't "rely" on philosophy to determine anything tangible. It is just interesting to think about the possibilities and what we can learn from them. The problem with philosophy is that it is based on assumptions. They basically say, "IF X is true, then XYZ123". It relies on IFs and maybes. It is not on equal grounds with science, please stop pretending that it is. Philosophy does not objectively prove anything. Science does, and it's results directly affects our progression as a society.


Unreal things can still cause you pain. Ever dreamed you were falling/drowning/burning alive?


Your subconscious mind is a real thing and since the brain controls how you feel pain, that's kind of a no-brainer, pardon the pun. And no I've never felt pain in a dream, though I've been shot, stabbed, burned, fallen off cliffs, blown up, you name it. Oddly enough whenever I am drowning in a dream I just start breathing under water and I'm fine. I'm sure people can experience pain in dreams, however. I do personally believe that "pain" from drowning occurs because we often instinctively hold our breaths in real life when we become submerged in a dream. Obviously that's a subjective guess.

edit on 19-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

I'm sure people can experience pain in dreams, however.


So am I, because I have. I've also seen the future in dreams and watched it come true in waking. So I'm going to make an educated metaphysical guess. Consciousness can and does transcend spacetime. Humanity is psychic.

So, to the extent that any given scientific community opposes my metaphysic, I oppose them. To the extent they oppose the dissemination of parapsychological evidence, I oppose them.

👣


edit on 762SundayuAmerica/ChicagoApruSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

I'm sure people can experience pain in dreams, however.


So am I, because I have. I've also seen the future in dreams. So I'm going to make an educated metaphysical guess. Consciousness can and does transcend spacetime. Humanity is psychic.

So, to the extent that any given scientific community opposes my metaphysic, I oppose them. To the extent they oppose the dissemination of parapsychological evidence, I oppose them.


Science doesn't oppose metaphysics. It just has no comment, because you can't verify any of it with direct observations and experiments. Humanity might be evolving to that point, and I've had similar experiences as well, but it is subjective, nonetheless. It could be pure coincidence, especially when you consider the amount of our dreams that do not predict the future. This is where faith comes in.

Anybody can say anything. If you can't prove it, it doesn't have a place in science.... YET. It's very possible that certain elements of metaphysics may be proven one day. Science works in baby steps. The knowledge continues to evolve. The first step is proving that other dimensions exist outside of time. I think we will eventually get there. I just strongly disagree when folks claim that science is based on faith. I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in metaphysical concepts at all.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join