Is science a reliable source for truth?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

Sorry for the multi-post, how can I delete them?

Mach 2, how sad

“Make no mistake” that is one stupid comment, probably one of the most stupid

Science is not responsible for any modern comforts, people applying logic, commonsense, practical application and learned and derived knowledge are responsible for using science, a tool, science is a tool, like a hammer, a gun, anything conceived by humanity, science is useless without a designer, someone to use it

Science is a human construct

a reply to: bogdan9310

I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience

LMAO what?

So you would prefer that science relied on personal experience, which differs from person to person? How would that even work?

a reply to: bogdan9310

I only trust the science I don't understand.

All the other science, I can look at and at least have an educated guess whether it is good or junk science. And there is plenty of junk science out there.

Some good examples are when you look at a magazine and see something like, "Study proves fat people are stupid." Whatever is being demonized at the moment, they are less intelligent, they have a lower sperm count, somethings wrong with the kids, etc.

Another good example is industry funded research. It always favors what they want to sell. Doctors say, "Smoking is good for you." "Lead in gasoline is proved not harmful." Anything about climate change.

Last, I'd like to say this about social sciences. Nearly all junk. There are more social scientists running around now then ever before. Has society ever been more screwed up? We are flooded with degenerates. The more social scientists there are, the worse things get.

a reply to: bogdan9310

I agree. Science is faith. Very similar to religion. Why? Because it assumes this reality is nothing more than the material.

What is at the heart of science? The scientific method? Running theories and proving them time and time again. Exact measurements and results. So in reality, the only thing science confirms is the material. It will never acknowledge or fit into its narrow defines the spiritual.

To believe this reality is just the material is faith. Science proves itself in a continuous loop, but dosen't really explain what this reality is.

Just like newton and his formula of gravity. He can say what happens with his formula, but he even agreed that he had not clue WHY it happened.

People say that science has elevated mankind into the realm of gods. I wonder, how happy are we in today's age? How content are we with all of our science? Granted, food and shelter have become abundant, but when the lights go out, how long will that last. Then you have our ancestors 400+ years past that would run circles around our educated A#es and probably be a lot happier and content doing it.

Science is a only a tool but people elevate it into the realm of religions, that of pure faith. It will be interesting how new discoveries will make lies out of our today's 'truths'.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: bogdan9310

I agree. Science is faith. Very similar to religion. Why? Because it assumes this reality is nothing more than the material.

What is at the heart of science? The scientific method? Running theories and proving them time and time again. Exact measurements and results. So in reality, the only thing science confirms is the material. It will never acknowledge or fit into its narrow defines the spiritual.

To believe this reality is just the material is faith. Science proves itself in a continuous loop, but dosen't really explain what this reality is.

Just like newton and his formula of gravity. He can say what happens with his formula, but he even agreed that he had not clue WHY it happened.

People say that science has elevated mankind into the realm of gods. I wonder, how happy are we in today's age? How content are we with all of our science? Granted, food and shelter have become abundant, but when the lights go out, how long will that last. Then you have our ancestors 400+ years past that would run circles around our educated A#es and probably be a lot happier and content doing it.

Science is a only a tool but people elevate it into the realm of religions, that of pure faith. It will be interesting how new discoveries will make lies out of our today's 'truths'.

The scientific methods are literally the opposite of faith and the hypothesis that everything is material, has never been falsified, soooo.... if you want to claim otherwise, you’ll need to use proper methods to deliver your supportive evidence.

originally posted by: Specimen
What about beleiving in a invisible old man that made the universe?

What about believing that nothing made the universe?

Both are essentially mere beliefs that are unproven and largely result from deification of processes. I'm not religious in any shape or form, but I've yet to encounter a habitation that didn't have a creator of some sort whether it be a living biological being constructing a house of stone or wood or a structure occurring in nature like a cave that came into existence through the awe-inspiring natural forces of this world. The universe is our home, so how was it created? Is God a being like us or is god simply a force that creates because that is its function? And if it's the latter then who or what set that force in motion? Is the earth not alive because it is not a being that resembles something more akin to us? If that were true then I suppose it wouldn't matter if we poison her.

That is the problem with this modern view that science is the opposite of religion. Doubt is the opposite of belief. Therefor certainty in science cannot be the opposite of belief in a religion -- it is actually the exact same line of flawed epistemology. Science thrives through doubt. That is why the scientific method works. Religion was essentially humankind's early attempt at science without the benefit of the scientific method -- and now we have begun regressing back to that point with science. This is why we must lend more appreciation to the contrarian viewpoint in scientific discussion. Science has begun to flounder in many aspects (mostly ethically) because more and more ideological cultism has grown around it that operates under a guise of certainty rather than the principle of doubt. The only thing in this universe that is certain is the certainty of fools.

Anyone who tells you during a scientific argument that the science is settled is either engaging is sophistry or is so ill-informed on the matter that they are attempting to end the discussion as a method of hiding their insecurity in defending their position. They're really banking on you just succumbing to the almighty word of certain fools -- especially since they have become the oppressive majority. Gee, just as religion was in the time before the enlightenment which was the beginning of its own undoing...

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: bogdan9310

I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience

LMAO what?

So you would prefer that science relied on personal experience, which differs from person to person? How would that even work?

Science relies on personal experience, it’s by the numbers.
If you think otherwise you are denying reality

Where is the science in the Big Bang, none at all, assumption, so it becomes personal experience, monkey see monkey do, hive mentality.

LMAO, WHAT?

Brainwashed

originally posted by: bogdan9310
a reply to: InhaleExhale

We build upon old science that we consider true because some individuals proved it. What happens if we take everything down? We would have to rethink everything all over again, and most people are too lazy, or too dumb to do that.

agreed to a certain extent.

not most but some.


However if built upon then how did anything originate is what I asked,

did someone just make something up or did they observe their reality and tried explaining it and that is what is built upon?

It was religion in very early humanity but through observation over generations we gained an understanding of certain things that can be understood by anyone using a method we call science.

Still the big questions, the biggest question require faith and I hope always will.

How did faith arise?

How did knowledge arise?

did we have contact with an intelligence or intelligence's or did we just eat a mushroom or anther plant or weed that chemically changed our perception to come up with the ideas we have and debate to this very day?

a reply to: sooth

Hmmm, disagree
The enlightenment wasn’t the beginning of the undoing of religion, it was freeing people from a man made religious prison, a burden placed on people by those in power.

You are right Sciene is being used as the new tool to burden humanity as religion once was.

Outside of that, pretty good post

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: bogdan9310

I agree. Science is faith. Very similar to religion. Why? Because it assumes this reality is nothing more than the material.

What is at the heart of science? The scientific method? Running theories and proving them time and time again. Exact measurements and results. So in reality, the only thing science confirms is the material. It will never acknowledge or fit into its narrow defines the spiritual.

To believe this reality is just the material is faith. Science proves itself in a continuous loop, but dosen't really explain what this reality is.

Just like newton and his formula of gravity. He can say what happens with his formula, but he even agreed that he had not clue WHY it happened.

People say that science has elevated mankind into the realm of gods. I wonder, how happy are we in today's age? How content are we with all of our science? Granted, food and shelter have become abundant, but when the lights go out, how long will that last. Then you have our ancestors 400+ years past that would run circles around our educated A#es and probably be a lot happier and content doing it.

Science is a only a tool but people elevate it into the realm of religions, that of pure faith. It will be interesting how new discoveries will make lies out of our today's 'truths'.

The scientific methods are literally the opposite of faith and the hypothesis that everything is material, has never been falsified, soooo.... if you want to claim otherwise, you’ll need to use proper methods to deliver your supportive evidence.

So what are you asking for Woodie?
Repetable observable and testable methods

Yeah right

a reply to: ClovenSky

I agree. Science is faith. Very similar to religion. Why? Because it assumes this reality is nothing more than the material.

No it observes not assumes.

those assumptions come later from those who observe the same but are stuck in their beliefs.

To believe this reality is just the material is faith.

Yes

However, many Scientists don't believe this hence the reason for them going into science and learning the scientific method.

Science has no beliefs or assumptions, these are characteristics of a human not a method.

People say that science has elevated mankind into the realm of gods.

That there is proof why certain faith indicates a great ignorance and strong faith in that ignorance.

I guess you could argue that realm of gods is based on interpretations of beliefs about ideas humans have created via chemically induced visions or from actual contact with an intelligence some call God.

But that is why its ignorant, humanity cannot agree upon our beginnings so it why I say that people that say such is a good example or proof of why certain faiths indicate a great ignorance.

Science is a only a tool but people elevate it into the realm of religions, that of pure faith.

exactly

Like you have.

It will be interesting how new discoveries will make lies out of our today's 'truths'.

and there is the evidence of the ignorance and faith.

You can take that as you please, In no way do I say that to insult you but simply to explain what I am observing when reading your post as a whole.

a reply to: bogdan9310

I have 10 year old textbooks that have stuff that is now known to be just wrong.

Science is like fashion. What's 'in' this year will be 'out' the next.

How can that be truth?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: bogdan9310

I agree. Science is faith. Very similar to religion. Why? Because it assumes this reality is nothing more than the material.

What is at the heart of science? The scientific method? Running theories and proving them time and time again. Exact measurements and results. So in reality, the only thing science confirms is the material. It will never acknowledge or fit into its narrow defines the spiritual.

To believe this reality is just the material is faith. Science proves itself in a continuous loop, but dosen't really explain what this reality is.

Just like newton and his formula of gravity. He can say what happens with his formula, but he even agreed that he had not clue WHY it happened.

People say that science has elevated mankind into the realm of gods. I wonder, how happy are we in today's age? How content are we with all of our science? Granted, food and shelter have become abundant, but when the lights go out, how long will that last. Then you have our ancestors 400+ years past that would run circles around our educated A#es and probably be a lot happier and content doing it.

Science is a only a tool but people elevate it into the realm of religions, that of pure faith. It will be interesting how new discoveries will make lies out of our today's 'truths'.

The scientific methods are literally the opposite of faith and the hypothesis that everything is material, has never been falsified, soooo.... if you want to claim otherwise, you’ll need to use proper methods to deliver your supportive evidence.

So what are you asking for Woodie?
Repetable observable and testable methods

Yeah right

If you want to support a claim the there is something in the universe that is non material... then, yes. Can you supply that?