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.

 

Science a religion?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becon of Light
My belief structure is not based on blind faith and accepting doctrines without proof to back them up.. there is an element of faith involved in my beliefs.. but there is also a healthy spoonfull of science and philosophy in it too..


What I mean is absolute proof. Proof that cannot be refuted, by a more probable theory. Such proof does not exist. We are left with relative proof; Science and philosophy are also based on faith.



Sooo.. we dont follow Newtonian physics anymore??


Scientifically speaking we never did...


is it no longer true that what comes up must come down? gravity is most deffinetly a fact.. anyone that ever tripped and busted their lip open will tell you that.


The nature of gravity has in itself not changed, but the understanding that came along with Newtonian physics did. Basically Isaac said that gravity was a force. This we now think is false due to Einsein's theories which relatively proved that gravity is a phenomena created by a bend in the spacetime continuum.


hehe is another fact.. if the heart stops.. the body dies


How do you know this?

Is it because poeple have told you? You've read it in textbooks? It's what everyone believes? You've repetitively done tests where you have stopped a person's heart, and observed the effect that such an action has?

None of these will serve to create an absolute cause and effect relationship between the heart stopping, and physical death.


how about this one.. if you lower the tempature of a body of water to a low enough degree it will freeze


Just because you've observed this phenomena in the past, does not mean that the body of water will behave in the same manner in the future.


these are not speculations, these are things that have held up to the scinetific methods, and they are just a small portion of what we know to be fact


I don't want to turn this into a semantics game, but the only reason we disagree with what is considered a fact, is because the meaning of the word fact is different for the both of us. If we come up with a mutually accepted definition we will no longer disagree (hopefully) on what is a fact or not.




posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
"I don't want to turn this into a semantics game, but the only reason we disagree with what is considered a fact, is because the meaning of the word fact is different for the both of us. If we come up with a mutually accepted definition we will no longer disagree (hopefully) on what is a fact or not."

Then how abouts we agree on a meaning, lets say the dictionary's meaning. It seems to make sense to me?

My dictionary (oxford illustrated dictionary - second edition) says:

"Fact n. 1. Thing certainly known to have occurred or be true; datum of experience; thing assumed as basis for inference; what is true ofexsistent; reality; ~s of life, (colloq.) facts of sex and reproduction. 2. Evil deed, crime (only in confess the ~; before, after the ~)."

Any use to you?



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join