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.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.
The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.
This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.
The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.
So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.
More assumptions.
You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.
Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.
There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).
But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.
Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.
Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:
Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects.
Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method.
But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the superluminal inflation of the early universe after the Big Bang. whiich breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also outside the scientific method to test.
Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, van der waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.
The scientific method can be applied to all of these questions. But I'm not seeing any facts that can't be verified.
Then please explain the specifics of the steps with which one would apply the scientific method to any one of them.
Or consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are considered facts, fundamental, even, are they not? Please provide the case which falsifies one of them, not something general, some specific theory that is supported by observational data and can be tested.
Or the geometry of Euclid which is the virtual opposite of Reinmanian geometry. Shouldn't we be able to apply scientific method and determine which is the true case and which is false. We can't, despite their opposing and fundamental nature, science cannot test them and disprove one or the other. Science is provably limited in what it can determine.
If you choose not to look, you will never see and it doesn't prove your case.
The laws of thermodynamics are the result of reproducible data from repeatable test. The same goes for geometry. Let's not get into the game of trying to use science to disprove what science has already proven in order to prove that science is unreliable. Science gave us penicillin when God gave us cancer. So yeah the methods and tools of science are imperfect and incomplete, but at least it can tell us the difference between penicillin and snake oil.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
Are you comfortable with the concept that our consciousness came from nothing before we were born and that after our Deaths we will simply blink out and nothing more?
If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?
Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?
If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: dismanrc
You have faith in your science don't you? Newton had faith that if he dropped something it would fall down, even though he did not know why. Evn today no one can completely explain gravity, but they still have faith that it will work.
You are equivocating different meanings of the word faith. Faith can mean belief without evidence and can also mean trust. This is a deceptive tactic used by religious extremists to suggest science is like a belief system. It's not. There are experiments and evidence. We TRUST scientists to learn these things because they are certified experts. We TRUST that gravity is real because we can witness objects falling at the same rate every single time. This is not simply belief (ie religious faith in something that cannot be proven), this is trust in proven facts and experiments. It's like trusting your dentist to work on your teeth or trusting your mechanic to fix your car.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?
If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?
Science is nothing but a belief system
From one point you say there is no proof that there is a God so he can't exesit
On the other hand Tackyons are a well establish scientific theory but know one knows now to measure them, look at them or dectect them
From the flip side of this there is nothing that says God could not of setup a rational system to govern the world.
God did also say we have free will and that he helps those who help themselves.
Not really comparable with religious belief, which is faith in things that cannot be shown to exist.
originally posted by: dismanrc
Science is nothing but a belief system; the same as religion.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Astyanax
There are some that claim to be dowsers that are not .There are some that can and do . I compare it to the two types of charities .One where its done for ulterior motives and on in a altruistic sense .Showing where one person fails does not answer the question of how the one that got it correct, did . You assuming that they just dig up roots and go from there does not fit the description Davis makes for the case .
originally posted by: Ghost147
Out of curiosity, have you tested this? Or know of a test?