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...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
LCKob:
I agree what the model of debate revolves around, which is why I also acknowledge that there is no place for arguments that are irrelevant to the issue, such as fitting religion into the definition of science, other than to cloud the judgment of an arbitrator with convincing, yet invalid arguments.

How does one determine which area the existing database of accumulated data is pertinent to? Is there a chart, table, key or legend which can give you a definitive answer? If not, a subjective assessment is called upon, if so, a subjective judgment must have been involved in the process of constructing this subjectivity eliminating tool.

It all comes back to the existence of faith in science. Your policeman example fails to acknowledge the very real possibility that the gun may malfunction, and the expect result would not materialise.




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
mytym:

From this am I to assume you have never come across a person with faith who answers, I believe there is, but acknowledge that I can't be certain? I certainly have. Even in the event that I hadn't, your use of the terms "usual" and "guess" indicate that your assumption is open to the possibility that one may answer in the way I suggested. Here is an example of you having faith that your assumption is accurate. Using the term know is contradictory to the concept of faith. Knowledge relies on facts, faith relies on belief. Again show me something that you science can claim with certainity is a fact, I expect you cannot? In the absence of facts, faith, assumption, variance, subjective perception all dwell in scientific methodology.

LCKob:

Actually I have come across such individuals, who profess uncertainty in this very manner ... and as per the definitions provided I then classify them as being without true faith as defined previously. As stated earlier, I content that one either believes (as in the mentioned "unshakable faith in god") or not. Thus I can point to the method, criteria and referencing sources for my conclusion as given.


mytym:

Once again, you are trying to fit religion into the definiton of science. As I alluded to in a previous post, I can see that I'm not going to convince you, nor you are going to convince me of the existence (or lack thereof) of faith in science. As a result we are just going to go round and round until one of us grows tired of responding. Just as many religions may be reluctant to accept the possibility that they may be wrong, science is reluctant to accept that faith always exists in the absence of facts.


LCKob:

... or it could be argued with quantifiable results that religions are very opposed to the notion that the core dogma is wrong (i.e. that it is true beyond reproach- with the consequent lack of evidence).

" faith always exists in the absence of facts"

Actually what you have posted here is a very basic assumption, one which SM would not ascribe to ... first and formost you postulate an absolute blanket statement in the form of "always" which invalidates it within the context of SM ....

Secondly, you make the assumption that "faith" or something fills the hypothetical slot in the "absence of facts" ... I contend that this state of "absense of facts" (outside the context of religion) is basically a null set, it contains nothing, and thus requires no further elaboration or justification. As stated a number of times, absolutes and assertions with no substantiation mean nothing to the SM process and as such do not generate the need or motivation for Faith (which negates the desire or need for proof).



[edit on 2-6-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
LCKob:
Fair enough, but I believe I addressed the use of unshakeable and faith together as evidence that they are not ALWAYS required to be used in conjunction with one another.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
mytym:

I agree what the model of debate revolves around, which is why I also acknowledge that there is no place for arguments that are irrelevant to the issue, such as fitting religion into the definition of science, other than to cloud the judgment of an arbitrator with convincing, yet invalid arguments.

LCKob:

How is the cross comparision invalid when the point of contention revolves around the critical definition of faith? I have demonstrated and elaborated upon how this very element is at odds with the very nature of SM ... in fact, from the functionality standpoint, Faith is the very antithesis to Proof and validation ... Bring the notion or concept of Faith together with SM and you have conceptual equivalent of MAD or mutually assured destruction where to opposing elements cancel each other out and render them irelevent and or inoperable.

mytym:

How does one determine which area the existing database of accumulated data is pertinent to? Is there a chart, table, key or legend which can give you a definitive answer? If not, a subjective assessment is called upon, if so, a subjective judgment must have been involved in the process of constructing this subjectivity eliminating tool.

LCKob:

The areas that pertain to the phenomena under exploration have a concrete causal linkage to the aforementioned. As with the example of the Gun ... the related fields to draw upon would included and are not limited to the areas of thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, metalurgy,biology etc. where each of these separate disciplines are linked by process gestalt or direct causal implication. The good or comprehensive experiment/research actually outlines such linkages for the purpose of setting references and context to the area under study as the phenomena under scrutinty (withing the context of a larger causal domain).

mytym:

It all comes back to the existence of faith in science. Your policeman example fails to acknowledge the very real possibility that the gun may malfunction, and the expect result would not materialise.

LCKob:

Actually no, as stated the probabilities do not rule out a misfire, but the odds do not favor such an occurance, thus the officer relying on the known properties of the situation would obviously bias for the much higher statistical chance of a reliable firing cycle from his own (known) gun. If memory serves, with todays technology, and level of quality control, a primer misfire for an established round (say 45 caliber) is something like 1000 to 1 ... with odds like this, while a possibility, I seriously doubt the officer under fire would consider the possibility as anything but a passing academic abstract ... and of course there are other possibilities with degrees of possibility/probability

- Catastrophic failure of the barrel due to metal fatique or manufacturing defect
- failure or binding of the firing pin
- safety on
- faulty round with insuffient or defective powder
- etc.



[edit on 2-6-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
mytym


Fair enough, but I believe I addressed the use of unshakeable and faith together as evidence that they are not ALWAYS required to be used in conjunction with one another.


LCkob:

If what you say is true, then it stands to reason that one can find a religion that does not promote Dogma as fact ... where the adherent has the right and or option to propose variations to the particular view and have them imposed as ratified changes to the said religion ...

... or if this is not the case, then one can contend that unreproachable yet arbitrary dogma is an integral element of religion as ratified by faith.




[edit on 2-6-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hey, maybe u2 should take this lovefest u2u?



I've got a question. If I can interupt...


Does the REAL WORLD enter anywhere into this 'discussion'?

Is it just me, or does it come off like two guys far up in your respective ivory towers shouting at each other across the rhetorical chasm?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Did you want to contribute something here? ...or do you just want attention?

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Whatever floats your boat guy.


Oh, I'm sorry...

I thought this was a forum.



Hey, if all you want to do (or can handle
) is this purely rhetorical ebb-n-flow... that's cool.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
... and I suppose you consider your post out of the blue to be sweetness and light?

Snide remarks by way of entry seldom gets you a warm welcome, and if people don't respond to you, consider that it may be your somewhat abrasive style that pushes others away.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


If you engage in excessive quoting, you will receive a "warning" and points penalty. Examples of what would cause a warning for an excessive quote are:

Quote the post immediately before yours: This doesn't make much sense, but if you must quote the post before yours, please quote just a small portion.


[edit on 19-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
LCKob:
The point of contention revolves around the definiton of religion, not the definition of faith. It is your contention that the only type of faith is absolute faith, to which I have provided a valid argument to the contrary. The onus is on you to adequately demonstrate that absolute faith is the variety of faith alluded to in your definition of a religion, at which point your absolute faith in religion request becomes a relevant one. To date, this has not been achieved, thus the request is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In your gun analogy, I contend that due to the insignificant chance of a malfunction the police officer has an increased level of confidence that the expectation the bullet will cause him significant harm will come to fruition. Confidence is subjective, just like the decision of where to seperate an acceptable risk from an unacceptable one. The amount of time spent considering how likely the possibility of a misfire is directly related to the chance of it happening. The faith he has in the chance of this occurring is negligible, but it exists. If the odds were shorter, the faith related to this occurance would still exist and become more evident.

An example of religion being able to embrace change could be Jesus I guess. He was a Jew who came along and made a whole bunch of new rules to follow, these were accepted and ratified and we now call this religion christianity. Perhaps the name change from Judaism to Christianity excludes this from beingg a valid example? In that event here's one on a far smaller scale. Once upon time it was forbidden for Catholics to eat meat on any Friday of Lent, perhaps any Friday at all but I'm not sure about that one. In recent times, due to the decrease in popularity of the religion, the Pope decided to reduce this restriction to just Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. The change was accepted and ratified. Does this suffice?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Thank you oh wise one.



This is an interesting theme... It's a shame I didn't get in on the action, way back when it got started up.


I can only offer conjecture as to why my comments, or Points, didn't/don't merit a response. One can only speculate that based on the reality context you bring to the fray, your thinking is perhaps too rigid/too wrapped in academia or just maybe you've gone too far down your rhetorical decision tree to backtrace to engage in any way on a topic veer that would involve something... anything with ANY real world connections.

I guess if I want to engage in a variation of this topic along those lines, I will have to start my own thread...


Sorry, I'm sure your response will be/would be just fascinating... But there are people standing at my door with sashimi and sushi!

You know what they say about people bearing gifts of sashimi and sushi... Right?

Invite them in!



See you.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
golemina:
At this stage of the thread I usually only respond when questions are directly asked of me. If someone states their opinion and I agree with it, what would you like me to add? Hey thanks for being on my side? It's already apparent what my viewpoint is in this thread so I fail to see the benefit of stating the obvious by posting that I agree with someone. This is most definitely the case with the comments point has made, and I would imagine that he/she would be aware that we share similar views.

I am aware of the constant back and forth of the current argument, and have made a couple of attempts to agree to disagree for this reason, however I am happy to answer any questions asked of me, and am delighted to finally come across someone with an opposing viewpoint on this thread that is able to keep the discussion civil and intelligent.

In regards to the real world, do you know what it really is, as I'm not too sure that I do?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
>In regards to the real world, do you know what it really is, as I'm not too sure that I do?

I couldn't agree with you more and I touched on that earlier... our XYZ reality context is IMPOSSIBLY flawed...

and thanks for your considerate response.


I saw earlier on where you were getting savaged by Science zealots. Don't you find it a tad ironic that the tactic was to bombard you with ridicule, and veer the topic towards other that its natural flow, degenerating into the inevitable (and ad naseum) define your terminologies sessions, kind of put you in a Stockholm victim mode what have you...

I've got an idea! Let's talk about the topic... rather than making long lists of words/definitions... confuse that with... you know... real analysis and (gulp) meaningful thought.



I'm sorry, I'm totally NOT making light of you or the situation, but rather, hopefully humorously, pointing out that THAT is the preferred method by people who stand on the soapbox of Science use to defend their basically indefensible positions.

That is certainly the SOP when discussing medical issues with scientists. "We're doctors! And you are...". It almost always takes turns that tend to leave little doubt of Einsteins best theory.


My absolutely favorite, in a medical context, is that possibly CAN'T be true, cuz it doesn't agree with my (AMA endorsed
medical ) model.

Speaking of flawed models becoming the defacto standard for extrapolating a context for further queries into the unending marvels that surround us... whereever you look... Whatever you take the time to ponder.

You just have to marvel at the ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE of the modern scientist. The basic we know everything. Essentially arguing we are the center of the universe.

The sad truth is we hardly know enough to even begin to ask the right questions!

We haven't even really gotten off of OUR OWN PLANET... but yet we seem to have all of the answers for all of the universe. Please!..

One of my favorite areas of interest is the study and methodologies used by knowledge systems. In short, that would be something like how a belief system is used by it's adherents and interacts with the REAL WORLD...

I mean, after all, isn't that the only valid measure of how your reality model performs.

I like to get in the trenchs with folks that have differing viewpoints/belief systems... and sometimes they are extremely different reality contexts. And watch them go thru their paces.

You combine the often meaningful results produced by these various models, with the tunnel vision of your typical scientists, NOT EVEN SEEING/totally ignoring anything that prima facia invalidates (or even mildly disagrees with
) Sciences theoretical model du jour...

It leaves little doubt to the honest outside observer or true man of thought or (insert your self-description here if you are not an axiom thumper
) that Science as it is used day to day is in fact more religion than a science.

Thanks for listening.




[edit on 3-6-2006 by golemina]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
So it would seem that the debate is over. Science is a religion. End of story!



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   


Hey Mytym.


Come on back you science, axiom thumping zealots...

I'm loaded for bear and there are just so many areas you guys are in serious trouble.

There are just so many categories... Stuff science says that doesn't exist, yet does. Stuff that science says exists that doesn't. Scientific methodoloy and the of course the lack of it in science.

How about ridiculous projects. Seti. We really went to the Moon true believers. Basically, you can throw in most every school of (thought of) physics.

Hey! We could open with something simple like those methods of investigation that seem to be so in vogue by scientists... Where you close your eyes, cover your eyes, and jump up and down saying things like 'I can't hear you' or 'I don't have to look at your evidence' or (add your personal favorite here
).

Think of the fun we would have!




posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
So it would seem that the debate is over. Science is a religion. End of story!


The silence of the 'white coats' speak volumes!

The closet door has been swung open and the declaration has been made.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Now we are cooking with gas!



And hey there Point.


Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock...

It's our version of Waiting for Godot...


Come back science guys... I promise I won't talk about anti-gravity at least till the 6 or 7 pass.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I recommend reading some threads on this site:

Campbell



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Hey guy.


Can you point us to some specific threads that might contain the meat of what you're pointing to?

The threads I haphazardly dialed into were... real (yawn)ers!

Your thoughts/impressions might also be invaluable.


Thanks.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Some people need to read the Terms & Conditions Of Use.

I highly recommend it, especially this bit:


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Thank you for your co-operation.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join