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.

 

is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Thank you !, this has given me some ideas for a solution I've looked for... really




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Snarl

MichaelPMaccabee
Any scientist worth their salt understands that -nothing- in science is taken on faith.

So no, science is not a religion. It is a tool of understanding based on exploration, experimentation, and explanation.


Real science requires little or no explanation. When science starts in on a lengthy explanation they're looking for 'faith' from their audience.

And where, oh where, did you find that cool picture of Satan you use for your avatar?


Science is the explanation, and I would disagree with you emphatically about the requirement for explanation in Science. Without intricate detailed explanations of every aspect of an exploration or experiment, the amount of error in any research would make any attempt at study so worthless that science would not be a useful tool in sense making.

Side note: My then 4 year old cousin was coloring at the table when my aunt, her mother, answered the knock door. Jehovah's Witnesses. My aunt, not being one to turn away a visitor, invited them in. As they sat at the table where my cousin was coloring, the woman in the group commented on her picture, a round blue blob with brown squiggles.

My cousin looks up with her crystal blue eyes and cherub smile and says, "This is Michael. He's the Devil."

9 years later and I still have the drawing. Perhaps I should scan it and make THAT my avatar for a while.
edit on 2-11-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by leostokes
 


So all mathematically based concepts are actually based on assumptions established for the benefit of such concepts, but have no actual basis themselves? Almost sounds like a religion...
From an engineering perspective, think of them like tools in a toolbox. You use a hammer to pound nails, and a wrench to turn bolts. You can try to pound a nail with a wrench, but it doesn't work very well, and turning a bolt with a hammer doesn't work.

When you need a model that involves Euclidian space, this is your "hammer".

When you need a model that involves non-Euclidian space, this is a "wrench".

They are just tools. No model is a perfect representation of reality, but some models are useful.

This has nothing to do with religion or other belief systems.

We know now that Newton's model is wrong, but we still use it. Why? Not because it's right but because it's useful. In most cases that don't involve GPS satellites and such, the model works adequately and using the more correct relativistic model we know of wouldn't give much of a different answer. But with GPS satellites, it does give a different answer so in that case we use the more accurate, but more difficult to use, non-Euclidian model.

There may be a more accurate, yet to be discovered model, and scientists don't have any delusions otherwise, (though laypeople seem to have plenty of delusions about what scientists do and don't believe). If we find it, and find applications for it, we would then use that, however we may continue to use models we know are wrong, as long as they are useful enough to give us the right answers in certain situations.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


It was inevitable. When the elite decided to 'kill God' in the body politic; public square; government etc. They had a problem. Mankind inherently worships SOMETHING.

The TWO somethings they have replaced God with are at least

1. The Religion of Scientism

and

2. Nature

As predicted 2,000 years ago . . . the created creature now worships the creation instead of the Creator.

.

edit on 2/11/2013 by BO XIAN because: tags



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by leostokes
 


So all mathematically based concepts are actually based on assumptions established for the benefit of such concepts, but have no actual basis themselves? Almost sounds like a religion...


And if you do not want to call it a religion, then say that at least it requires faith - just like a religion.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



We know now that Newton's model is wrong, but we still use it.


Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man who spent no small time writing about and clarifying the scriptures.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

AfterInfinity
reply to post by leostokes
 


So all mathematically based concepts are actually based on assumptions established for the benefit of such concepts, but have no actual basis themselves? Almost sounds like a religion...
From an engineering perspective, think of them like tools in a toolbox. You use a hammer to pound nails, and a wrench to turn bolts. You can try to pound a nail with a wrench, but it doesn't work very well, and turning a bolt with a hammer doesn't work.

When you need a model that involves Euclidian space, this is your "hammer".

When you need a model that involves non-Euclidian space, this is a "wrench".

They are just tools. No model is a perfect representation of reality, but some models are useful.

This has nothing to do with religion or other belief systems.

We know now that Newton's model is wrong, but we still use it. Why? Not because it's right but because it's useful. In most cases that don't involve GPS satellites and such, the model works adequately and using the more correct relativistic model we know of wouldn't give much of a different answer. But with GPS satellites, it does give a different answer so in that case we use the more accurate, but more difficult to use, non-Euclidian model.

There may be a more accurate, yet to be discovered model, and scientists don't have any delusions otherwise, (though laypeople seem to have plenty of delusions about what scientists do and don't believe). If we find it, and find applications for it, we would then use that, however we may continue to use models we know are wrong, as long as they are useful enough to give us the right answers in certain situations.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


You can say it has nothing to do with religion but...

Which model do you pick among the choices available? The one you "know" will work. How do you know? Because you have faith in it. Faith is required to chose a model just like it is required to choose a religion.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

leostokes
You can say it has nothing to do with religion but...

Which model do you pick among the choices available? The one you "know" will work. How do you know? Because you have faith in it. Faith is required to chose a model just like it is required to choose a religion.
Use the wrong model and it doesn't work. Use the right model and it does.

I don't see the faith in that. I see observation of what works according to the model, and what doesn't.

Your GPS works, right? Therefore we conclude the model we used seems to be reasonably accurate in that application. Where is the faith? That is a factual observation. If we use the wrong model it won't work. That is another factual observation. Faith is when you believe something without observation or evidence to back up the belief. This is not a difficult concept so I'm not sure why you don't seem to grasp it.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   

leostokes
Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man who spent no small time writing about and clarifying the scriptures.
So?

I know a brilliant scientist who apparently believes in ghosts, even though she admits she can't prove their existence and has no evidence for them.

That doesn't detract from the brilliance of her scientific work. But the fact she's a brilliant scientist doesn't make me believe in ghosts, nor does the fact that Newton had certain beliefs without scientific support make me want to accept those along with his scientific work, when the criteria we use in science is that scientific claims are to be supported by observation and experiment.

If someone wants to have beliefs beyond that like ghosts or spirits, they certainly can, but they are beyond the scope of science if there is no scientific evidence to support them. Newton was religious but he realized the difference, and don't forget in Newton's time, people who disagreed with religion could meet with grave consequences.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well those people who support the separateness (incompatibility) of religion and science might be surprised to learn that Issac Newton is not in their camp.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



You use faith at every stoplight giving you the green light.

You must have faith that others will stop at their red light and that no drunk will run the red light THIS TIME.

Folks have faith that they'll not get a speeding ticket when they speed.

One must have faith that the GPS will be accurate THIS TIME and that no Chinese or other hackers have jiggered the signals/readings.

One must have some measure of faith that the plants, trees, disappearing rain forests are producing enough oxygen for us to breathe today and tomorrow and hopefully next week.

Many seem to have a very ignorant, stupid kind of faith that the global oligarchy doesn't exist . . . or that their current stooge in the White House is NOT REALLY doing all they've ordered done to destroy the old order global economic system; freedoms; privacy; the Constitution; the Republic and exterminate most of the citizens.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Evidently you have not read well on Sir Isaac Newton.

His PASSION was the Bible and His Lord Jesus.

The Bible was truly his MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION.

He probably spent more time studying the Bible than he did science.

He even tried to work out some Bible Codes way back then.

There's no way he was coerced into studying or believing in the Bible to avoid censure.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This thread turned into the usual word altering game.

If you call it faith when your trust that others will stop for a red light, or that a model wil work in a certain situation, you are totally raping the meaning of the word.

And the agenda is very transparent. Once you can claim that science is also based on faith, you can claim its no different than religion.

Its a rather pathetic line of reasoning, that I have seen religous people all around the world do. It seems to me that these religous people are trying to convince themselves that science really is just as irrational as their own beliefs. Which I guess is an understandable thing to do. Maybe I would too if I was indoctrinated.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Oh, there are plenty of OTHER factors affirming the

RELIGIOUS NATURE OF SCIENTISM.

1. A high priesthood gatekeeping on the dogma.

2. A high priesthood gatekeeping on most of the jobs in academia to insure orthodoxy according to the tenants of Scientism.

3. Excommunication when scientists do not march lock-step according to the dogma of Scientism.

4. Journals insuring only kosher Scientism dogma gets published.

5. Legal pressures to insure that children are propagandized and indoctrinated with Scientism dogma.

6. Emotionally hostile attacks on any who dare to contradict the dogma of Scientism.

7. IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP mentalities and treatments of those who are part of the Religion of Scientism vs those who are perceived not to be.

8. Media manipulations to further the Religion of Scientism's principles and dogma, beliefs among those daring to not be card-caring members and the population in general.

9. At least a sub-set of dogma which depends in large measure on faith to hold the dogma as absolute truth.

etc. etc.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Actually, I think it's far more pathetic to observe the rigid, narrow, dogmatic blind spots among so many of the priests of the Religion of Scientism.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Ha! Okay. Then you had better junk you car and computer and phone and electricity. Don't talk trash about science and continue to enjoy its miracles.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Evidently part of the dogma is--under pain of hostile punitive treatment--to never be the least bit negative about the Holy Self-Righteous Religion of Scientism.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





And the agenda is very transparent.


Question:
This assertion of yours leaves you open to the accusation that you think of yourself as a mind reader, does it not?

As for myself, no, I am no mind reader. I do not know your agenda. If I wanted to know your agenda I would ask you for it.

If I am asked for my agenda, I would say: it is to find the truth.

The word "faith" means a strongly held belief or theory.





faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

edit on 3-11-2013 by leostokes because: add definition



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Ha! Okay. Then you had better junk you car and computer and phone and electricity. Don't talk trash about science and continue to enjoy its miracles.


I actually confirm BO-XIAN's view.
it is not about the "things" we do get from science, it's what we don't get.
look, one of the first cars was run by electric power...
unfortunately it was more profitable to develop and sell combustion engine
the same with uranium vs thorium reactor
www.youtube.com...
this is why
www.youtube.com...
looks like science is worshipping Ares instead of Eirene

science is definitely not free as it should be



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 



NOW NOW.

That's entirely toooo sensible.

That's not quite orthodox for the Religion of Scientism.

Maybe you could buy a pack of convoluted assumptions and theories from the local 7/11.

LOLOL



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join