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.

 

Limitations of Science

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

There so many versions of the Free will vs Fate in the theme of Adam and Eve. Satan was said to have the first idea of free will since he was in the garden convincing eve to bite the apple, to the Muslims story of Eden saying he wouldn't bow out of his free will since Satan believed man didn't deserve to be at the feet of their creator. Where God would of probably predicted Satan would convince Eve to touch the fruit that from a giant tree in the middle of the garden.

Then you got stories of God creating free will, and Satan was more or less autonomous, or bound to fate in a reverse arc.

Meh, it all fun and games.
edit on 30-3-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Specimen

Personally i subscribe to doing as i please as long as its not at to much an expense or trouble to others.


If the big dudes not happy with that then possibly he/she/it should not have build me the way i am.
edit on 30-3-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




If there is a hell it will be of our own creation and most lightly be on Earth. I just cannot imagine any God that created us consigning our souls to oblivion for carrying out what apparently is his plan in the first place.


Yes for some life can be a "Hell on Earth" ... Religious persecution can do that... but to tie this into the thread ... Science when mis used can do the same



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

Buddy most notions or constructs when taken to the extreme seldom have desirable results.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Science IS knowledge, it's methodology is the 'Scientific Method'.

I prefer that things are studied and knowledge revealed, preferably by professional academic standards rather than either not studied or studied unprofessionally to undefined standards.

Thanks to science we have the internet, medicine, machines etc. I bet you wouldn't be without those.

www.vocabulary.com...


science
Science is the field of study concerned with discovering and describing the world around us by observing and experimenting. Biology, chemistry, and physics are all branches of science.

Science is an "empirical" field, that is, it develops a body of knowledge by observing things and performing experiments. The meticulous process of gathering and analyzing data is called the "scientific method," and we sometimes use science to describe the knowledge we already have. Science is also what's involved in the performance of something complicated: "the science of making a perfect soufflé."

edit on 30-3-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

But Netking BlueMule I., is right. Science is the collection of data, we cut the cat in pieces, when we want to find out how it works. But just because we know how the organs and all that operated, we still don't know why this kitty was so precsious.
That's maybe not the best metaphor, but I try to say, data without interpretation is next to useless and we analyse, but don't cross-connect, yet. We're starting to, but so far bio-IT is fairly new and phylosophy of mathematics are pretty new and kind of the first steps towards connecting the dots.
Sure Science collects empirical data and states facts, like "the placebo effect works", but the answer to the why, won't be answered just by looking at figures on a screen.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


My own example of the limitations of the scientific method are illustrated in the following example. Let's imagine I had a vivid dream last night involving a hovercraft, dragons and large ocean waves. While I am certain I had this experience, I have no way of proving or accurately replicating such a dream. There is no way (for other people) to test whether my experience took place or not. How can the most subjective of experiences be viewed in an objective manner?


The "subjective" and "experience" within your question is you. I can watch you think by simply looking at you, I can review your brain imaging scans, I can ask you questions, or I can infer from behaviour. But because I am not you, and not your body, I am unable to view yourself thinking from your point of view, from your eyes, from your organs.

The mistake here is not on the objective view of you, but the subjective view of you, which is extremely limited by the fact you cannot objectively view what is occurring in your brain, body etc. when you think or experience, and you are only able to sort of feel what is going on in your mind indirectly, like someone feeling around for lost keys in the dark. So though you think you may have experienced dragons, an objective view will see and conclude you experienced nothing but your own brain. Which you accept to be true is up to you.
edit on 30-3-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: BlueMule

Science IS knowledge, it's methodology is the 'Scientific Method'.

I prefer that things are studied and knowledge revealed, preferably by professional academic standards rather than either not studied or studied unprofessionally to undefined standards.


But the problem is, science can't stop professional academics from having double-standards. It can't stop a professional scientist from taking off her science hat, putting on her amateur philosopher hat, and then acting and speaking with all the authority of science.

Science is just like anything else. It is abused and manipulated. The more that science apologists engage in polemics, the more vulnerable we are to people and institutions who abuse it.

If people distrust science, we aren't going to hurt its feelings. It doesn't have any. It's just a method of gathering data. It's people that get their feelings hurt when other people distrust science, which perhaps means there is too much emotional investment going on.


Thanks to science we have the internet, medicine, machines etc. I bet you wouldn't be without those.


If it wasn't for Divine Grace, I wouldn't be here. Science gets no credit, and science doesn't mind if I give it no credit. Some people might mind, but that's their problem.

👣


edit on 974MondayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruMondayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


Science is the acquisition of knowledge, rather than data collection or a collection of people.

If you want to bemoan institutions and individuals then that again is another matter.

The professional integrity of academia is also another matter.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Well given your example, if a group can confirm the same dream than it's true. Results through repetition. Science can already infer alot of what you see during dreaming and now even thinking. Only a matter of time before this is mastered...remember at one time it was thought impossible for humans to travel at 20+mph...Yay science
edit on 30-3-2015 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: BlueMule


Science is the acquisition of knowledge, rather than data collection or a collection of people.

If you want to bemoan institutions and individuals then that again is another matter.

The professional integrity of academia is also another matter.



I don't agree. I think you are trying to disentangle science from the messy human realm, elevate it, and declare it pure and above criticism.

Science is as science does, and what it does is impure because the people doing it are weak.

👣



edit on 991Monday000000America/ChicagoMar000000MondayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I'd say science cures. Looking around I see a lot of people that shouldn't exist if science only corrupted. Hell, two diabetics and three severe cancer survivors are right outside my office atm
edit on 30-3-2015 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

You are talking about humanity's flaws rather than Science.

Individuals, Academic establishments etc are not science and it is those you are calling names.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: BlueMule

I'd say science cures. Looking around I see a lot if people that shouldn't exist if science only corrupted. He'll, two diabetics and three severe cancer survivors are right outside my office atm


So thanks to the industrial revolution and science, we have mass consumerism and unhealthy lifestyles that make it very easy to get diabetes. Thanks, science.

"Once termed “the kings’ disease,” gout used to be a problem primarily for wealthy people and royalty who lounged around drinking wine and eating rich food. But today, an estimated 68% of American adults are either overweight or obese. As a result, gout and type 2 diabetes -- two diseases that can result from an unhealthy lifestyle -- are sharply on the rise."

As for cancer, we wouldn't have as much if it weren't for all the crap the industrialized world churns out. Thanks, science.

We don't need modern medicine and corrupt pharmaceutical companies. We can cure things with our own psychic ability and natural medicine. There's just one thing standing in the way. The corruption of science by materialism, pseudo-skepticism, money, politics.

👣


edit on 000MondayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruMondayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: BlueMule

You are talking about humanity's flaws rather than Science.

Individuals, Academic establishments etc are not science and it is those you are calling names.


Put science in a vacuum, and what do you have? A vacuum.

👣



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Science saves more then it kills. If you aren't aware of that I'd hit the books and study. Enjoy a life where reaching forty and not being considered on your death bed was obtained by science. It's not science that makes diabetics, those are peoples poor decisions...why are you using science as a scape goat. It's akin to blaming knife manufacturer for making knives a serial killer uses...I'm sure they'd improvise.
edit on 30-3-2015 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: BlueMule

You are talking about humanity's flaws rather than Science.

Individuals, Academic establishments etc are not science and it is those you are calling names.


Put science in a vacuum, and what do you have? A vacuum.

👣


Science in Acton actually. Vacuum - Brought to you by Science
edit on 30-3-2015 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: BlueMule

Science saves more then it kills. If you aren't aware of that I'd hit the books and study. Enjoy a life where reaching forty and not being considered on your death bed was obtained by science. It's not science that makes diabetics, those are peoples poor decisions...why are you using science as a scape goat. It's akin to blaming knife manufacturer for making knives a serial killer uses...I'm sure they'd improvise.


When science works, it's people that get the credit not some entity named science. When science destroys our planet, it is people that will get the blame not some entity named science. Science is just a method we can use honorably and honestly or abuse.

You don't credit or blame the tool. You credit or blame the craftsman.

It may turn out that science is more a friend of dishonor than honor. It may turn out that it enables the corruption of the few to destroy the many.

One thing is sure. It is too important to be left to scientists.

👣


edit on 021MondayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruMondayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Well, this is how that can be done with dreams anyway:

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

gizmodo.com...

So yes, we're getting there. It's very exciting work. Science never ceases to amaze me.

Regarding your more subjective experiences in general, there's simply no way to verify them AT THIS TIME. In the future, who knows what science will be capable of? Every memory may be able to be stored.

However, experiencing them does not make them a REAL thing. If I hallucinate that I'm having a tea party with the Mad Hatter and Friends, even though that experience can appear quite real to me, it's not the truth of what is happening. The truth would be that I'm a human who is hallucinating about a tea party. You can go even more philosophical than that of course, but that would be an easily validated truth, likely proven by those around you that know you were just sitting there and smiling while asking for more tea.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I don't have the energy needed to debate those disagreeing with the opening post. I do think it would benefit some members to re-read it and refrain from indulging in unfounded assumptions.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join