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.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
As long as you're willing to put them both to the test. Science doesn't hold up to a scientific standard. You can't prove, scientifically, that the basic principles upon which science works actually work. They're just assumptions.
Without endorsing Mr. Carson's perspective, what's so far-fetched about this? If religious beliefs can be used to control people, what about scientific ones? Back in the day, "scientific" beliefs about race were used to control people.
Say what? Are you able to give some examples of science that doesn't hold up to the "scientific standard"?
Race equality wasn't based on science! There is no actual science that suggests one race of human is better than another. It didn't exist then and doesn't exist now.
The far fetched part of this is that religion doesn't prove anything, it is faith based.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Not examples of science. Science itself. You cannot prove to me, scientifically, that the scientific method works.
Easy to say that now that it's the popular view.
Science is faith based as well. It's based on the faith of inductive reasoning.
First, that doesn't even make sense and 2nd, yes I can.
The fact that I am typing this message to you is evidence that the scientific method works. In fact all technology reinforces it, along with modern medicine, the numerous fields of earth science and much much more. Asking for an experiment that proves that experiment works, is beyond silly when we see it working in action every day in society.
Popular view is irrelevant and does not affect the validity of science.
The bottom line is that you were wrong calling racism and inequality in the past a scientific position. That is simply false. Don't get me wrong, people have falsely claimed science suggests this, but it is actually more about propaganda and it is far from a scientific position.
False. Science is not even close to faith based. It follows evidence.
You don't need faith to believe that if an experiment shows that the earth rotates on an axis, that it actually does.
You don't need faith when science is implemented in our daily lives and works. Do you consider gravity to be faith based as well as the earth's revolution around the sun and the tilt of our axis causing the seasons on earth? Maybe you aren't aware of how the scientific method actually works.
You seem to be looking at it in the wrong way.
Leave science alone. I never understood the need for others to attack it.
Would you be willing to give up every benefit that science has given you in your life to maintain that viewpoint?
I doubt it, and honestly it's downright hypocritical to use your computer to communicate with me, a product that was created using knowledge gained from science, and at the same time claim that it's faith based.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
"Asking for proof that God exists is beyond silly when we see Him in action every day." See how unconvincing that is?
The truth is that science is founded on certain philosophical presuppositions about the way that the universe works.
It just affects people, and people do science.
When I said that racism was the scientific position, that is what I was referring to. Scientists believed that racial inequality was a fact.
Which is based on faith.
I do, actually. But, more to the point, science doesn't just claim that the earth once rotated on an axis. It claims that it will do so tomorrow because it did yesterday. That is the basis of inductive reasoning, and the only reason we have to believe that inductive reasoning works is because inductive reasoning...that is, more inductive reasoning. Which is circular reasoning, and that is a fallacy.
I am aware of how the scientific method works. You appear to be unaware that it is based on certain philosophical presuppositions, presuppositions that scientists take on faith.
Science is great, and I have a lot of respect for the discipline. But it is grounded in philosophy. Somehow, over the last few centuries, the links between the two have been severed, and few have any idea of the connection.
I'm not attacking it. I'm attacking this foolish "sola sciencia" idea that science is the be-all end-all. It's not.
What viewpoint?
Ah, but how do I know that I am communicating with you? How do I even know I have a computer?
I didn't ask for proof of god, so your point is moot.
Do you seriously deny that information technology works?
Do you deny it is based on science?
Saying that you see god in action is false, because you do not see god in action.
You guess that he is responsible for what you do see. Science can be tested and verified. God cannot.
Which is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about and is huge simplification of how it really works. Science is not a person, it's a method and has nothing to do with popular views. It is based on evidence.
Give me some names of these "scientists" and the research they used to support this claim.
A view can only be scientific if it is based on scientific research and experiments. Scientist opinions are not facts. Research and experimental conclusions is what matters in science.
Nope.
A rogue planet or unseen asteroid could hit the earth today and stop it.
What scientists can accurately predict, is that if all the current factors involved with the earth's revolution, rotation, speed and mass/gravity stay the same, that it will continue to do so.
Science doesn't claim it will rotate forever.
Clearly, you aren't aware of how it works. We are more scientifically advanced than we have ever been in our known history. The scientific method tests hypotheses. Scientists don't just dream stuff up and make it a fact. It has to be tested first. That is the key prerequisite to suggesting any view is scientific. Testing, observing, experimenting, falsifiability, peer review and ability to make accurate predictions are how fact is separated from fiction in science.
It goes way beyond simple philosophy.
You are attacking it. You claimed that it is faith based.
Nobody claims science is the be-all-end-all except for people that don't understand how it works.
Science evolves as new data and facts are discovered.
Computer, smart phone, tablet, whatever internet ready device you have is a product of science unless you are sending these posts via the force, and if that's the case I'd love to learn how it works.
You grossly misunderstand the nature of science.
Okay, you can argue that nothing actually exists, but can you prove that view? No, you can't.
Science is objectively real and it works in this realm of existence whether you deny reality or not.
I looked up your racism claims and they are based on nothing tangible.
Social Darwinism isn't scientific and actually has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Pundits who misinterpret science to promote a worldview are doing exactly that. They aren't referencing real science, they are loosely basing their ego driven guess on a few cherry picked concepts. They are actually ignoring a large amount of evidence by doing this.
Racism was never a scientific viewpoint, it was an egotistical one.
Science > philosophy when it comes to objective reality.
Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
But like I said, if you think science is fake, then give it up and stop benefiting from it.
Remove all devices and technology from your life that are the result of scientific knowledge, and we'll see how that goes. It is hypocrisy to the extreme to actively preach against science while benefiting from it in your daily life. It's 2015! Denial of science in this day and age is downright silly.
Also if you think reality is just a figment of your imagination, why would you post on a message board if you are talking to a hallucination?
Obviously I can't, but the kicker is that science cannot prove that anything actually exists. Isn't that great?
This is a philosophical statement you are making, not a scientific one. And you have provided no evidence for your claims. How unscientific of you.
Except history.
Social Darwinism is (was) a socio-economic posture. What you're looking for is scientific racism.
Sorry to break it to you, but scientists mess up. Theories get promoted, and accepted, and later refuted. That's science. And there's no way to except human ego and guesswork from the process.
Some people say that about evolution.
Uh, no...science cannot prove objective reality exists. Philosophy attempts to do that. Science doesn't. That's why metaphysics is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one.
Another baseless claim.
I don't think science is "fake." I think it rests on certain philosophical presuppositions and in faith in a certain nature of reality.
Reread what I am saying. I'm not "denying science." I'm putting it in its proper place. Back in the day, science was called "natural philosophy" because it was one tool among many others for the discovery of truth.
Science can prove things within this realm of existence and that's the only thing that it has ever claimed. If it turns out all of this reality is fake and you are computer simulation rather than a real person, then it won't affect science at all. The science will still work within this realm of existence.
Your argument is irrelevant and doesn't get us anywhere. You are postulating a "what if" statement to argue against science.
Sorry but you can't do that.
Science is based on what we CAN determine, not what ifs.
No, it's not philosophical. It is based on what we currently know about this reality based on objective experiment. You are the one that is making philosophical statements, not me.
You have to do better than dropping argumentative one liners that prove nothing. Link me to the peer reviewed scientific research papers that suggests one race of human is better than another. If you can't do that, then you can't claim it is a scientific view. The end. Even Darwin was against that idea.
You must not have read the whole thing, because none of that is based on the conclusions of scientific research papers, they are examples of people who tried to push an agenda by cherry picking.
I don't get how you can call somebody a "disciple of Darwin" when their claims about race directly conflict with his view.
Just because a scientist says something, does not make it a scientific view. It makes it the personal opinion of a scientist.
Sorry to break it to you, but nobody claims scientists don't make mistakes or that science is perfect. Can you give me an example of an actual scientific theory that was accepted and later refuted?
Well substantiated theories don't just completely vanish, they update their data when new discoveries are made.
I don't think you even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science. Please name an actual scientific theory that this has happened to. Again, I'm not looking for hypotheses or concepts that were misunderstood or that changed over time. All science changes over time. Drop me the name of the exact theory where this has happened.
Who cares? Some people say the moon is made of cheese.
That's also why there isn't a shred of objective evidence in support of metaphysics or anything like that.
It's 100% guesswork, unlike science, which is based on what we can observe and prove.
What ifs do not go against science, for the last time.
I will stick with science until it one day discovers this or discovers a creator.
Why would you separate this from the previous quote, just to post another irrelevant one liner?
In this world, science proves things and holds more weight than philosophy.
That isn't baseless it's a fact.
Philosophy is 100% subjective. I am talking about objective reality.
Welp, you are simply wrong in that assumption and I've already explained it multiple times.
Science is about objective reality. Philosophy is about subjective reality.
You can't mix the 2 or claim science doesn't hold as much weight as pure guesswork LMAO.
Labeling science faith or suggesting it is equally valid is denying science regardless of you sugar coating it.
Just to add on and explain more clearly:
The second you start talking about simulation hypothesis and that reality might not be real, you are leaving the realm of science and going into philosophy, which doesn't hold as much weight as science in reference to objective reality.
Besides, saying that reality might not be real is a huge cop out and would pretty much mean that nothing is real, not even you.
Please explain how science could even logically prove that 'reality is real'.
Dip your hand in a pot with boiling water. If it's not real, no big deal right?
Cause and effect is a very real process. Every action has a consequence.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Well, maybe. Or maybe next week gravity will work slightly differently.
How am I arguing against science?
Wait, so science didn't exist before peer review????
Are you sure you understand how science works?
Because he was.
Newtonian physics is a good place to start. Or heliocentricism.
My point exactly. Why should I care what you say unless you back it up with proof?
WHAT?!
That's like saying "there's not even a shred of objective evidence in support of dentistry or anything like that." Metaphysics is a field of study, not a theory.
Besides, I like addressing people on a point-by-point basis.
According to what authority? Do you have a peer reviewed article on this subject? Has science proven this? Or are you making stuff up?
And all objective reality rests on subjective reality, because everyone perceives the world from their own point of view, i.e. subjectively.
It (almost certainly) can't. That's my point. We have to depend on philosophy to argue about reality, the nature of being, and the meaning of life.
Unreal things can still cause you pain. Ever dreamed you were falling/drowning/burning alive?
I'm sure people can experience pain in dreams, however.
originally posted by: BlueMule
I'm sure people can experience pain in dreams, however.
So am I, because I have. I've also seen the future in dreams. So I'm going to make an educated metaphysical guess. Consciousness can and does transcend spacetime. Humanity is psychic.
So, to the extent that any given scientific community opposes my metaphysic, I oppose them. To the extent they oppose the dissemination of parapsychological evidence, I oppose them.