Is science a reliable source for truth?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
What do you call people who don’t believe in ghosts? Or that UFO’s are aliens visiting?

I would call them skeptics.

In fact I would say that atheists probably follow the belief structure of skepticism.
Calling atheism not a belief is a cop out.

originally posted by: bogdan9310
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The logic for most people, would be that the 19 people who don't see it are right.

Yes, that seems logical.
What have you got against logic?

Although I'm thinking you're anti-science stance is a little more focused.

Do you dismiss the science of solar power?
Do you dismiss the science of clouds?
Do you dismiss the science of automobiles?

Or do you happily accept all those sciences and only get miffed when the science disagrees with you.

a reply to: Woodcarver

i don’t think you know what the meaning of the word obvious is.

How are you going to detect something that is non material.

With a television or a radio or any kind of receiver, or the human brain.

Do you know what the electromagnetic spectrum is?

Forgive me for pointing it out, but it appears that you are oblivious to anything you can't see with your own eyes.

Did you know that there are parts to the electromagnetic spectrum that are invisible to the human eye, but they obviously exist. Magnetism is a non tangible, invisible force but is easy to detect.

I don't know why you can't see that.

He is pretending to be the scientist that you imagine all scientists are like.

Listen to the dialogue for a hint.

Science is a tool with which to seek knowledge. What you do with the knowledge is up to you. You can seek truth with it or you can seek money with it or you can seek fame with it. Probably other choices that don't come to mind just now. It is one of many tools we must learn to use to our advantage in this human world.

originally posted by: bogdan9310
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But science only analyzes existing concepts, it is widely known that philosophy is the art of concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it.

Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on.

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.

And the problem I want to point out, is that a lot of people treat it like religion. They bring up science in conversations to back up their arguments like the science is settled and can never be proven wrong.

I believe you have gone too deep down the rabbit hole. It should come to attention that personal experience may not be real. Just because we think we saw something, does not make it real. Its called subjective bias. Now, science, especially the scientific method, will test these things that we see or think of and see if it is actually in the realm of possibility. Science works with facts. Personal experience is far, far, far less reliable than what science can do.

If a being follows data (seek) and constantly re question it's own data it will broaden it's understanding.

The problem in atheistic view is that many are materialist who cannot handle that consciousness can be delocalized from the brain. The bias of not accepting entanglement make the materialist unable to handle the reality that happens in experiment.

Instead of looking deeper into what is going on with the Pauli effect materialists ignore the effect.

Carl Jung explained Synchronicity on a level most people cannot logically understand today. You can create a model where you logically can explain out of body, telepathic and empathic abilities and energetic body states (bliss mode).

In most fields of knowledge you seem to have about 10% real seekers who quantify the hidden/mysterious and 90% followers of current dogma who just want to make money.

a reply to: bogdan9310

Science isn't a source of truth. It isn't a source of anything. It's a filter that we apply to what the universe is telling us, in order to understand it.

The truth comes from the universe, science helps us to weigh up what we're hearing and consider if anything is being lost in translation.

a reply to: EvillerBob

AH yes, another one of these threads.

Firstly science and the scientific method are tools, if applied correctly and without bias, give a method of self correction. There are some posts in this thread written in a very condescending tone which is sort of funny because the condescension isn't backed up by good argument, or profound things and is more a 'look i can say something that makes you sound wrong thus you are stupid/wrong'

Science being truth? well its an unanswerable question really. What science can allow us to do is to take snapshots of our understanding of processes and behaviour. Science is never settled, we continuously question ourselves and continuously search for something that can be a first principle solution to most/all problems and behaviour. This as a concept is what most people don't see, or don't want to see as non-scientists.

I use the phrase/label non-scientist because here there are so many people who claim to know or have knowledge way beyond every day understanding, but they truly get stuck or lost when it comes to the bias part. When people say or its obvious that... x its most common that they have a huge bias and themselves don't believe it to be a bias, but believe it to be a truth.

There is a lot of popular science that gets portrade as truth and for someone such as myself I find it interesting how, even in the name of trying to be scientific how often people hold onto something they have been told which is fairly high level to be immovable, yet, they have no understanding of the foundations and such when new information comes along, they out right reject it.

Its the same with so many of the commends in this thread. People claiming there is great profit in climate science and some kind of hoax of climate change... there isn't profit for the scientists. Scientists barely make themselves rich. Much of the research is done by grass roots people who don't make much more than a blue collar worker. Why? Well because universities are not businesses typically unless (for America anyway) they a have a football team. And thats where the misconceptions come.

Im a particle physicist... Am I wealthy? Nope not really, I'm getting paid an average salary compared to the country, and yet, because large numbers get batted around in terms of the research grants we get, people equate it to some kind of award say for a sportsman... "This experiment got 2billion" As though we get the 2billion and divvy it up between people who work on the experiment. This is further from the truth, as that money will mostly go to buy equipment, engineering and training of people.

So anyway little off topic, but really, much like science itself.. its open ended.

Fun example when people talk about the non-material is ghosts... Iv seen many many discussions of photographs and videos as proofs...for example, orbs. A scientist looks at the evidence and says "Those orbs are dust... it is a well known optical phenomena in which when a particle of dust, close to the lens but not in the field of focus picks up light, it produces and orb like artifact."
They then can go on and prove it and show you exactly how it works.

The bias of those who want to believe in their evidence then basically tell the scientist they are wrong... because...

iv seen it so many times, especially here. The thing about truth, is that truth as a concept can't be manipulated, it either is, or isn't, BUT people's concept of truth isn't that at all. People will always make up their own truth to fit their situation or bias. Much like is on display in this thread. Id say that looking at this thread, you could easily make an argument that the colour of the sky isn't blue during the day time, simply because someone doesn't want it to be, or wants social attention by causing controversy or generating an argument.

Remember one thing, much like any skill, there are people out there who have dedicated time to honing them, This is true of science as it is true with anything. The application of Science is a skill the same as mechanics and engineering.

a reply to: kennyb72

That probably contains a measure of truth the difference being however a rather less proactive approach.

Tell me this, how many Westboro Baptist Scientist have you come across in your time?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
What do you call people who don’t believe in ghosts? Or that UFO’s are aliens visiting?

I would call them skeptics.

In fact I would say that atheists probably follow the belief structure of skepticism.
Calling atheism not a belief is a cop out.

Lol. Do you know that the electromagnetic spectrum is considered physical. Radio waves are considered physical, light is physical. They can all be measured and they can assert force on other objects.

Can you now give me an example of a nonphysical thing?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
What do you call people who don’t believe in ghosts? Or that UFO’s are aliens visiting?

I would call them skeptics.

In fact I would say that atheists probably follow the belief structure of skepticism.
Calling atheism not a belief is a cop out.

Lol. Do you know that the electromagnetic spectrum is considered physical. Radio waves are considered physical, light is physical. They can all be measured and they can assert force on other objects.

Can you now give me an example of a nonphysical thing?

Science starts with the understanding that NOTHING can be known to 100% certainty. That all all "knowledge" is statistical in nature, and then seeks to determine what is the most PROBABLE.

Doing an experiment and then repeating it multiple times is like if you're in a rigged casino, and you think the dice are loaded, so you grab them and roll them again and again, to see if you get the same result. Getting the same result again and again doesn't absolutely prove they are loaded. But if you roll 20 straight 6's, then well..... odds are they are loaded.

That is the best science can do. And it's the best it ever tries to do.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Science allows one to refine our ideologies as new and more accurate information becomes available, even encourages such by way of technological advancement.

Religion on the other hand, not so much.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You missed my point--which was the irony that atheists have no rules.

--break break--

As far as science being a theory, I've been putting food in my freezer for many many years and it freezes solid. Trying to prove this theory wrong is getting quite tiresome.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

I would suggest atheists seem to stick to the rules, it's organized religion that disregards the obvious, in an attempt to control the way we think and act.

By the way im on the fence, let's just say one like to hedge one's bet.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TheTruthRocks

I would suggest atheists seem to stick to the rules, it's organized religion that disregards the obvious, in an attempt to control the way we think and act.

By the way im on the fence, let's just say one like to hedge one's bet.

Make up your mind! Pick either a fence or a hedge. You can't have both

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

And yet i do indeed in the garden.

You need to understand the entirety of the choice before you come to any definitive decision, else that just a guess or leap of faith, which funnily enough sums up organized religious practice rather eloquently.

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: Woodcarver

You missed my point--which was the irony that atheists have no rules.

--break break--

As far as science being a theory, I've been putting food in my freezer for many many years and it freezes solid. Trying to prove this theory wrong is getting quite tiresome.

a reply to: bogdan9310

In short, no, science is not a good way to arrive at truth. Not at all. Remember, the only historically valid scientific truth is that science is never currently accurate

No what the scientific method is good for is reaching a consensus on agreed upon pseudo truths that allows progress to be made. Also though remember that most scientific break throughs are accidents while doing experiments for other science. Paradigms are actually better at suppressing and hiding truth rather than revealing it.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

In short, what's your better proposal other than science to arrive at truth?

Consider the notion that without science we could not even communicate in the manner we are now doing.