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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion, Proton.

Perhaps I did bring up a tertiary issue under the circumstances; and for that, I apologize. However, it's not an issue that we can brush aside entirely, is it?

Aren't generalizations the bane of good scholarship? Can we humans be reduced to "science thinks this" and "religion thinks that"?

I sure hope not.

Chaiyah




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   


Rather than using experiences you are using science alone to explain the world around us. Why is science OK, but experience is not?


Experience doesn't tell me how something works. Science does, learning does. For example, through experience you may become able to tell when it's going to rain by looking at que's from nature, but only through science do you learn why and how it rains, all the different variable's behind the process. Experience can't teach you about DNA, or about QM. If our species had gone through experience only, we wouldn't know about these thing's. Experience still would have us believe life came from decomposing materials. Science and learning are very very very important for our growth. We're getting hit with new disease's, cancer's, flu's. Experience won't tell how or why these thing's happen nor will experience tell you how to fight against them. I'm not saying experience is BAD, but basing everything you believe upon what you experience is not the right course of action. Experience can help you grow as a person, help shape who you are, but never under any circumstance should it dictate what you THINK you know to be true.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Everyone's experiences are different. Perhaps your experiences can't tell you many of these things, but your experiences aren't not universal.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaiyah99

Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion, Proton.

Perhaps I did bring up a tertiary issue under the circumstances; and for that, I apologize. However, it's not an issue that we can brush aside entirely, is it?

Aren't generalizations the bane of good scholarship? Can we humans be reduced to "science thinks this" and "religion thinks that"?

I sure hope not.

Chaiyah


Nygdan, nor anyone else was making that kind of generalization, not on an individual basis atleast. Nygdan did raise a good point though, religion does tend to go against scientific evidence. Science is available for everyone to have a go at it. Whereas, for example, I'm closed off from certain religous communities unless I follow what they believe. One group may say I can goto a peacfull afterlife and another will say heck no, your going to hell because you do this or that and we don't believe it's right. Even if it's something so ridiculously stupid as eating pork on a certain day of the year.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
Everyone's experiences are different. Perhaps your experiences can't tell you many of these things, but your experiences aren't not universal.


Point is, experience isn't ALL that there is. Learning more about something should always be of the highest value for any individual.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
True. Both of you.

Hey. I have to go do my radio gig. Talk back to you in a couple of hours.

Later.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaiyah99
There is no such thing as "scientists think" or "religionists think."

Scientists, as scientists, or in thinking scientifically. Its a bit of a blur, to say 'scientists think this, religionists think that', I'll agree, but it keeps the language uncomplicated.


that human beings experience their thoughts in clumps or bunches or WHOLE PARADIGMS; rather than experientially, one-moment-at-a-time?

But we are talking about science 'on its own', and religion 'on its own', and whether or not people 'beleive' things that 'science' tells us in the same way that we 'beleive' things that, say, the bible or the swami tells us, irrational thought and rational thought.


So, how does one arrive at huge categorizations for whole classes of humans, as if human thoughts are monolithic?

I wouldn't want to take a bunch of individual people and categorize them as wholly scientific or wholly religious, but I do think that we can distinguish between scientific thought and religious thought, in spite of the fact that a single individual might have both in parallel.


You from Sirius, maybe?

Nope, just Tellus.



Your definitions of rational and irrational aren't necessarilly the same as someone else's. They are subjective.

This is an interesting point, however, to be clear, are you saying that science, say, as that found in the text of the articles in scientific journals, is as subjective as religion, as found prostelytized in the churches? Also, I think a critical distinction is that science 'works'. Take a lever of a certain length with a fulcrum at a certain point, apply a particular amount of force to one end and we get a particular amount of force exerted at the other end. Pray for money, maybe you get money one day, maybe you don't. Fire a projectile using newton's laws of motion and it hits the enemy and kills them, pray for a thunderbolt, and you get killed while on your knees.


It's the disguise that science is factual that troubles me.

I wouldn't say its a disguise, rather a misunderstaning on the part of the public. Also, insofar as 'facts' are 'things that work', science is effectively factual, in that sense, (thought I don't know, to tell the truth, if that is a sufficient definition of 'fact' or 'truth', or even, without putting much thought into it at the moment, if 'fact' can be seperate from 'truth', or how'd we know that).
However I'd agree, as anyone who really takes a look at science can agree, science does not deal with 'proven factual Truths'. Science is 'truth like' and tries to become what we think is more 'truth like'. Nothing in science is ever proven, nothing in physics, biology, computer science, anything, its allways theoretical and never able to become 'factual', in that sense.
But, again, science works, so it makes sense to teach it in schools. You can teach anyone science, and they can use it and get it to work, can't teach anyone and everyone every religion and get them to make all of them work.

Rather than using experiences you are using science alone

Science is experience, and is a way to impart experience to other people in such a way that others can make use of it, such as observations about the reactions between different chemicals, as opposed to 'personal faith' about the divining powers of Apollo or about how to best ward off vampires.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   


No doubt maths is a science, agreed. However there is a distinction between a science that tries to explain why things are the way they are, and one that is there as a tool to aid these explanations. A similar parallel can be drawn with Psychology and language, where language is the math and Psychology is Physics, Chemistry, Biology or many other sciences.


Let's keep the waters clear of mud please keep it's ugly offshoot, mutant sibling Psychology out of the discussion please.
Let's define a Fact shall we...


1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.




At the present time, with our present understanding, it seems that the acceleration of gravity is pretty accurate. All the pieces we have fit, but then again hundreds of years ago the Earth being flat also seemed pretty accurate.


Excuse me?!? We have eyes, ears, and brains which can conceive of time. We measure the distance from the point of the drop, say 20 meters within a high vacuum, then we make sure all outside influences are minimized, then drop the ball and calculate the time it takes from multiple perspectives will always come back with a 9.17 m/s result.

Actually the knowledge of the Round Earth history was originally discovered between 200-240 bc.

en.wikipedia.org...



Eratosthenes knew that on the summer solstice at local noon on the Tropic of Cancer, the Sun would appear at the zenith, directly over. — though Syene was in fact slightly north of the tropic.

He also knew, from measurement, that in his hometown of Alexandria, the angle of elevation of the Sun would be 7° south of the zenith at the same time. Assuming that Alexandria was due north of Syene — Alexandria is in fact on a more westerly longitude — he concluded that the distance from Alexandria to Syene must be 7/360 of the total circumference of the Earth. The distance between the cities was known from caravan travellings to be about 5000 stadia: approximately 800 km.

There were some errors in this calculation although today we can use his method using correct measurements. Syene is not exactly on the Tropic of Cancer, and is not directly south of Alexandria; nor is the Sun at infinite distance. (Eratosthenes knew the latter, but we are not told he corrected for it.) More seriously, angles in antiquity could be measured only to degrees or quarter-degrees, and measurement of overland distances was worse. He established a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

Eratosthenes' method was used by Posidonius about 150 years later.

About 200 BC Eratosthenes is thought to have coined or to have adopted the word geography, the descriptive study of the Earth.


It was done with simple tools, a little knowledge of math, and dedication to work out without ever having seen the earth from orbit, that the planet was a sphere. The Flat Earth "Theory" was not based on any scientific method. It was Dogma, plain and simple.



Perhaps there is a huge magnet drawing everything to the centre of the Earth,

Do you know anything about magnetism? I know you're just throwing things out there to try to impress your point, but if you would actually study science (Physics is a good place to start btw), then you will know that it isn't Faith or Religion.


I don't know, but at the moment we have faith in gravity being the cause. This may not be the case in hundreds of years. Religion provides explanations of how everything came to be just as Science does.

Gravity is very misunderstood, but it's just what we call that phenomenon. We know that on Earth the rate of Gravitation attraction within a certain distance, is 9.17 m/s. It is known to be such by doing practical and very simple experiments. It doesn't explain what gravity actually is, we just dont' really know what it is. It provides an explanation to what it does. When we finally define what gravity actually is, instead of does, whoever actually does that will be just as famous as Einstein.

Here is this defintion of the Scientific Method to help this discussion along..


en.wikipedia.org...
Scientific method is a technique of investigation and acquisition of new knowledge, as well as the integration, elimination, and/or explanation of previous knowledge, based upon observable, measurable evidence.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Yes, all generalizations are deficient at least in part.

I think perhaps the Hegelian Dialectic strategy is appropriate at this point, in which differences are maximized in order to divide group A from group B so they can no longer presume unity on any element or segment of Truth.

I'm working through this "New Physics" explanation to see if I can construct a coherent model, in my mind, that encompasses both God and my own experiences with causes-and-effects.

I'll let you all know, how far I actually get, in this endeavor.

Gnight.

Emily



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
From my understanding, religion is a belief or faith in something controlling or influencing existence. It is also my understanding that science tries to explain what the something is controlling or influencing existence.

Both require faith in the same "something", don't they? In many religions the something is God. In science the "something" is theories. Many may argue that these theories are proven facts, whereas a religious God is unproven, however in my opinion many of these theories are simply "assumptions of best fit", not proven facts.

Existence is a jigsaw puzzle with an infinite number of pieces. By making assumptions we place a finite limit on the number of pieces, ignoring the existence of the remainder. Both science and other "religions", are guilty of this. Issues are raised that cannot be explained or understood sufficently, thus are ignored and treated as being independant of other teachings. You can't complete a puzzle without all the pieces.

The problem is that whilst religions are regarded as reliant on personal preference, science is regarded as fact and taught as such.

It's time for science to come out of the closet and admit, "Hi my name is science, and I am just another religion."



wait you dont mean scientologist do you?

cause they believe that we are aliens osuls or something and that these alien souls cant remember they arent from earth and then this one alien guy is going to built these massive space ships to harvest the alien souls when we die... or atleast thats what l ron hubbard has to say about that i guess he had a lot of time to think about this as he had a yacht and many young boys to keep it running.





posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Prot0n:
I understand your point, science isn't all that there is either. I choose to learn through experience among other things. Why do you have such a problem with this?

Nygdan:
I'm not making any mention of the degree of subjectivity in science, just that it is subjective. It's not that science works, it's that science appears to work, right up until the point that it stops working, like with black holes, or the origin of the Big Bang. Religion also appears to work, that's why there are so many religious people. As I've mentioned previously, I have no problem with teaching science in schools, just make it apparent that it is not factual. For that matter, I have no problem teaching religion in schools, but the same conditions should apply. One can learn a lot from both of them, despite the common flaws in both.

sardion2000:
I challenge the definition of a fact you presented. It mentioned something believed to be true or real. Depending on who you speak to all of science and all of every other religion can be interpreted as a fact or factless, based on this. What defines a REAL occurrance? Using the term fact to explain the meaning of the same word is a very poor definition.

I already explained my view on gravity. We may have had the knowledge of the round Earth 2,000 years ago, but it wasn't regarded as fact back then was it? The assumption of best fit at the time was that the Earth was flat, and it remained that way for hundreds of years.

Correct, magnetism was just an example that there could be something else causing the illusion of gravity which we have yet to discover. The theory of gravity may be correct, but at the moment we can only have FAITH (just like other religions) that the ASSUMPTION is correct.

Lysergic:
No, I don't mean scientology.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   


I understand your point, science isn't all that there is either. I choose to learn through experience among other things. Why do you have such a problem with this?


I'm just curious, what have you learned through experience that has taught you more about the world you live on and the universe at large?



I already explained my view on gravity. We may have had the knowledge of the round Earth 2,000 years ago, but it wasn't regarded as fact back then was it? The assumption of best fit at the time was that the Earth was flat, and it remained that way for hundreds of years.


If I'm not mistaken, it was religous belief that stopped that silly spherical earth thoughts back then, same thing with atomic theory. We had that as far back as 400BC.



Correct, magnetism was just an example that there could be something else causing the illusion of gravity which we have yet to discover. The theory of gravity may be correct, but at the moment we can only have FAITH (just like other religions) that the ASSUMPTION is correct.


No one know's exactly what cause's gravity. We do know gravity is real and directly tied to mass. The only 'assumption' is what cause's it. Particle or force? And those aren't even assumptions really, just theories and possible way's gravity might work. I really beg you to learn more about these thing's before you knock them down as hogwash idea's that don't fit with your view's.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
I'm not making any mention of the degree of subjectivity in science, just that it is subjective.

In so far as there is such a thing as pure objectivity, science would be it, I would say.


It's not that science works, it's that science appears to work, right up until the point that it stops working, like with black holes, or the origin of the Big Bang.

Science does not stop working at those points.

Religion also appears to work,

? It doesn't appear to work. You can't make a car with faith alone, you need science.


that's why there are so many religious people.

I doubt that the religions that are the most popular are the ones that have the highest rate of 'prayer success'. Indeed, why has religion changed through time if that were the case?


As I've mentioned previously, I have no problem with teaching science in schools, just make it apparent that it is not factual.

In so far as anything is factual, science is.


One can learn a lot from both of them, despite the common flaws in both.

There is nothing to learn from religion expect religious ideas, and there is no particular reason to think that any religious ideas specifically are worth learning.

The theory of gravity may be correct, but at the moment we can only have FAITH (just like other religions) that the ASSUMPTION is correct.

Its entirely different. The theory of gravity could be overturned tommorow, its a theory. The theory of gravity isn't just an assumption, its something that we can work with in the world. If we want to send a space probe to other planets, like we've been doing, we can use the theory of gravity to predict the motion of the probe and the forces it will experience and to direct and manipulate the probe. We can't use faith to do this, we can't use the idea that there are 'crystal spheres' holding the planets up to help us in this, or anything. This is the big distinction, science works, irrational beleif doesn't.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Prot0n:
I never indicated how much I know about the world around me and the Universe at large, just that through experience I can learn more about it. An example is through Astral Travelling to any location you wish, having an increased awareness of your surroundings, not to mention meditation and lucid dreaming. However I'm sure you require me to provide accepted physical world examples. The reasoning behind such you can find in the following thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Experience through observing, interacting with and listening to the experiences of others is another way.

I believe Christopher Columbus still had some convincing to do in this reagrd when he ventured off to discover America, as many feared he would fall off the edge of the Earth. How long ago was this?

I never knocked anything down as hogwash, just that these things rely on FAITH in ASSUMPTIONS being accurate. You say that science does not know that gravity is tied to mass yet it assumes this is the case to develop more advanced theories.

Nygdan:
Science DOES stop working at those points. Religion teaches that people should love one another, that appears to work. What is the relevance of which religions are more popular or why there are so many? Science is just one more. Science and all other religions have flaws. I believe I indicated this in the thread title. Something doesn't need to be factual to learn from it, unless you wish to learn something factual. Fiction can teach you a lot too. Your opinion of what can be learned from religion is your own. Don't disguise it as a fact.

We can make predictions based on the assumptions gravity relies on and have faith that probe will reach it's destination.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   


I never indicated how much I know about the world around me and the Universe at large, just that through experience I can learn more about it.


That wasn't the question. What have you specifically learned, yourself, through your own experience that has given you a greater understanding of the universe at large that learning though science can't give you and how have you come to know that what experience has dictated to you is actually true. I'll take the time to look through that thread.



I believe Christopher Columbus still had some convincing to do in this reagrd when he ventured off to discover America, as many feared he would fall off the edge of the Earth. How long ago was this?


If I'm not mistaken, that was basically a myth and I'm not sure if they're still teaching that junk in school. Almost as if we're trying to make kids think our ancestor's were extremely stupid. Do some research behind this myth, you'll see what I mean. I really hope they aren't teaching this in school's. Anyone still in school, can you let me know if this myth is still being taught???

We might have to start an ATS school system!




I never knocked anything down as hogwash, just that these things rely on FAITH in ASSUMPTIONS being accurate. You say that science does not know that gravity is tied to mass yet it assumes this is the case to develop more advanced theories.


No, you didn't necessarily say hogwash, but a few of your statements did give me that impression, such as having no desire to LEARN "false" science, as if ALL science is "'wrong". But then you seemed to quickly adopt QM as if it were fitting with your view's, which you really know little about and admit to not wanting to learn more about. Reason most likely being is you'll see how little QM actually fits your views. The hardest thing for anyone is to admit they are wrong. Took the church 400 years to do that.

I said science does know mass and gravity are tied together, all that isn't known is what cause's it for sure. Particle's or force. Personally, I think it's another force, similar to electromagnetism. And I have good reason for that. Maybe I'll start a more thought out thread about it in the science section.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I never said that my experiences have given me a GREATER understanding of the Universe at large than learning through science, that is your interpretation. All I alluded to was that I can attain knowledge of the Universe amongst other things, through alternative methods such as experience, rather than science. I have already indicated some of those methods previously. The question was that you are curious to know what these methods are, was it not? Whether the methods dictate to me that the experiences are actually true, is beside the point. True or not, I can learn from them. The important thing is I know that they are subjective from the outset, as almost everything is to some degree, and they are not hindered by uncompromising rigidity that chooses to rule out elements which could be relative to achieving a greater understanding.

As far as the Christopher Columbus quote goes, I am not obligated to research if this is a myth, you are, seeing as how this is your belief. All I know is that was what I was taught. I can't speak for everyone else, that's why I started with "I believe".

Your interpretation of my statements on the validity of science is something you are in control of. Don't blame me for misinterpreting them. I have explained my stance already. I can admit that I'm wrong, as I am often wrong. I conceded the point on mathematics being accurate didn't I?

Concerning the relationship between mass and gravity, I believe you made mention of knowing the effect but not the cause. If the cause is unknown, how can the effect be known? That's a contradiction in terms, if every every effect requires a cause, isn't it? If something is not KNOWN for sure, as you admit, how can you then claim to KNOW that they are tied together? All you can do is assume based on the evidence at hand and have FAITH that it is correct until you do find out for sure.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
No, the question was, and clearly stated.

I'm just curious, what have you learned through experience that has taught you more about the world you live on and the universe at large?

What exactly have you learned through experience alone that is factual and can be proven to be factual? I've said nothing about method's used.



As far as the Christopher Columbus quote goes, I am not obligated to research if this is a myth, you are, seeing as how this is your belief. All I know is that was what I was taught. I can't speak for everyone else, that's why I started with "I believe".


It is not a "belief", it is truth and history. And as I've stated many time's before, one should ALWAYS strive for greater knowledge, not choose to remain in the dark. You may not feel "obligated" to learn, but by not learning you remain ignorant of the world around you. Obviously this is not a healthy mentality.



Concerning the relationship between mass and gravity, I believe you made mention of knowing the effect but not the cause. If the cause is unknown, how can the effect be known? That's a contradiction in terms, if every every effect requires a cause, isn't it? If something is not KNOWN for sure, as you admit, how can you then claim to KNOW that they are tied together? All you can do is assume based on the evidence at hand and have FAITH that it is correct until you do find out for sure.


If you had any inkling of understanding of gravity and mass you wouldn't dare say this. We know for a fact that gravity and mass are tied together. The mechanics behind large body's of mass and the effect's of it's gravity or propagation of are not fully understood. Not understanding HOW the gravitational field is propagated by large bodies of mass does not in any way invalidate that the greater the mass the greater the gravitational field generated by that mass. It has nothing to do with faith. Not understanding how the system works doesn't force one into a faith based belief system. Science is not religion for so many various reason's it should be plainly obvious to anyone who had an inkling of understanding of what science is and how the scientific method works. There's literally no hint's of faith or religous belief's behind it.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
REGARDLESS of our wishes, mentations, thoughts and dreams--

FEAR is not the answer to the question, "Who is going to survive these lies?"

We're going to have to stand up and say, "Stop it!"

chaiyah




Originally posted by Prot0n
No, the question was, and clearly stated.

I'm just curious, what have you learned through experience that has taught you more about the world you live on and the universe at large?

What exactly have you learned through experience alone that is factual and can be proven to be factual? I've said nothing about method's used.



As far as the Christopher Columbus quote goes, I am not obligated to research if this is a myth, you are, seeing as how this is your belief. All I know is that was what I was taught. I can't speak for everyone else, that's why I started with "I believe".


It is not a "belief", it is truth and history. And as I've stated many time's before, one should ALWAYS strive for greater knowledge, not choose to remain in the dark. You may not feel "obligated" to learn, but by not learning you remain ignorant of the world around you. Obviously this is not a healthy mentality.



Concerning the relationship between mass and gravity, I believe you made mention of knowing the effect but not the cause. If the cause is unknown, how can the effect be known? That's a contradiction in terms, if every every effect requires a cause, isn't it? If something is not KNOWN for sure, as you admit, how can you then claim to KNOW that they are tied together? All you can do is assume based on the evidence at hand and have FAITH that it is correct until you do find out for sure.


If you had any inkling of understanding of gravity and mass you wouldn't dare say this. We know for a fact that gravity and mass are tied together. The mechanics behind large body's of mass and the effect's of it's gravity or propagation of are not fully understood. Not understanding HOW the gravitational field is propagated by large bodies of mass does not in any way invalidate that the greater the mass the greater the gravitational field generated by that mass. It has nothing to do with faith. Not understanding how the system works doesn't force one into a faith based belief system. Science is not religion for so many various reason's it should be plainly obvious to anyone who had an inkling of understanding of what science is and how the scientific method works. There's literally no hint's of faith or religous belief's behind it.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaiyah99
REGARDLESS of our wishes, mentations, thoughts and dreams--

FEAR is not the answer to the question, "Who is going to survive these lies?"

We're going to have to stand up and say, "Stop it!"

chaiyah


Sorry for the one liner but .... HUH?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
OK, fair enough. I have learned that there is more to existence than just the physical world around us that we can sense with our five accepted senses. Once again, as previously mentioned, I made no claim that what I have learned through experience is factual alone is factual and can be proven factual. Very little is truly factual, elements of subjectivity exist in practically everything. Do you even read my posts before replying?

If the Christopher Columbus myth is not a belief of yours, why were you not certain of your view? Facts require no faith, yet you started with "It is my belief." Once again, as I've stated before, I agree that the acquirement of knowledge is important, but you seem to think the only way to attain knowledge is through science. I have been trying to turn the light on for you, but it seems you haven't paid your electricity bill. I am not in the dark, the sun is streaming through my front window.

As with many of the other points you have raised here, I have already covered them in previous posts. I see nothing new at the table that needs to be discussed, all of the answers you seek from me are in my previous posts.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join