Is science a reliable source for truth?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Thank you for proving my point woodcarver. You are the embodiment and perfect spokesperson for science.

Not that it creates much animosity in me, it is what it is. To me it is the beauty of this reality. The unknown. I take some pleasure in knowing that science is a religion and important answers will always be out of its reach. Those that struggle to make everything known come up some great unique and original ideas. But so closed minded when painted into a corner that I get embarrassed for them sometimes.

Any current knowledge can be proven wrong, unless it has a strong link to reality, and reality is all that we can perceive through our senses, and our senses can be refined with practice. What does that say about reality?

Now, reality as you know it, is defined only by yourself. The best allegory to describe this is the highway: every individual is driving its own car, and their personal tailored reality is defined by what is inside the car. They can look outside of it, and they can see others, but they will only pay close attention to what is inside their own car, or at the traffic signs. You could be living in a completly different universe from the person passing you by.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: bogdan9310

I have 10 year old textbooks that have stuff that is now known to be just wrong.

Science is like fashion. What's 'in' this year will be 'out' the next.

How can that be truth?

Yes.... we know all to well that text book makers have no idea what belongs in text books. That is not a problem with science. That is a political problem when public money is given to companies that knowingly print bad info to be taught in school.

Otherwise, we know very well that private interests offer big money to anyone with a phd if they will smudge some numbers or even bend results to have a study point in a certain direction.

Neither of these issues can be blamed on science. Bad science, biased science, and paying for the answers you want, are not good science.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

Thank you for proving my point woodcarver. You are the embodiment and perfect spokesperson for science.

Not that it creates much animosity in me, it is what it is. To me it is the beauty of this reality. The unknown. I take some pleasure in knowing that science is a religion and important answers will always be out of its reach. Those that struggle to make everything known come up some great unique and original ideas. But so closed minded when painted into a corner that I get embarrassed for them sometimes.

So, i just have to believe claims that nonmaterial “things” exist? Why should i believe that?

Should beliefs be reasonable?

Should unreasonable beliefs be supported by people who don’t believe them?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Ah, but I never claimed to have 'certifiable' answers. In all of my expression of OPINION I never claim to know for sure. I believe strongly in the spiritual with sensory input telling me that it is there.

A lot of scientists would call my sensations illusionary, simple chemical reactions. Do they really know this or is it a guess?



And thank you for the reply, no insult taken.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Ah, but I never claimed to have 'certifiable' answers. In all of my expression of OPINION I never claim to know for sure. I believe strongly in the spiritual with sensory input telling me that it is there.

A lot of scientists would call my sensations illusionary, simple chemical reactions. Do they really know this or is it a guess?

And thank you for the reply, no insult taken.

Do you understand that mr cleese is making fun of people like you?

Truth is like a triple edged sword, your version, their version and the truth. Truth is personal thus no truth understood as same.


It is well hidden no matter what we do; we have to accept it generally…culturally,scientifically, religiously etc.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Ah, but I never claimed to have 'certifiable' answers.

who said you did?

In all of my expression of OPINION I never claim to know for sure.

yes

that is what I said but in other words that your understanding of what science is is just you not knowing what is know, that being the definition of science.

I believe strongly in the spiritual with sensory input telling me that it is there.

Me too

I have shared experiences with other individuals that to u that have had the shared experiences proves that there is so much science cannot and should not explain.

A lot of scientists would call my sensations illusionary, simple chemical reactions. Do they really know this or is it a guess?

Certain experiences can be induced chemically, certain experiences can induced via psychological methods like hypnosis.

its repeatable but not all details are explained as being identical,

until we can map consciousness and film our thoughts so we can view them on a screen to compare thoughts between individuals then how subjects explain their expediences based on chemically induced mindsets cannot be confirmed or denied, they can but that takes faith.

I believe that its our faith and power of belief that has given us the power to gain knowledge and allowed us to explore and come to where we have.

without belief .... are we really alive?

the material world sure indicates we are

I guess faith and science are so intertwined that those on both opposing sides are like a positive a negative energy or charge, it would take an energy greater than the 2 combined to bring them together.

But we cannot have that otherwise would duality exist , would choice exist?

Sorry But my ramblings are either making no sense or you get it.

To get it takes faith, I think.

I'm tired and need sleep.

Goodnight

a reply to: bogdan9310

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.

Science is the only tool we have at our disposal that enables us to attempt to understand the reality and universe we exist within.

Its not perfect, by any manner nor means, but then again nothing is.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

To get it takes faith, I think.

speaking to myself



Its this is why many step away from faith and stand towards science.

One can have faith in my words but if my intentions are to control or something else sinister then its easy for people to be manipulated,

science make sit harder to manipulate large groups, not impossible but its easier with faith to deceive than it is with the scientific method

Science would be more reliable if it's findings weren't skewed by the male dominated nature of the patriarchy.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I think I understand where you are coming from and weirdly, I kind of agree.

The truth is, I believe in science as a tool of exploration. But at the heart of the scientific method, it appears to only rely on the material. It is the people who take it as everything and anything outside of the scientific method is considered to be erroneous. That is what I have a problem with. It compartmentalizes everything and seldom appears to link things together. It appears to me that it is actually becoming more and more separated from reality. When separated from reality, it can prove anything is wants, like theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics.

a reply to: bogdan9310

Science is knowledge, but we have to remember it is not absolute knowledge like people want to believe.

Especially when it comes to medical science

I'll give a perfect example that I have used a few times.
My FIL died from complications of the flu shot - guillain barre
at the time, over a decade ago, I was terrified to get my kids the flu shot because what I saw happen to him
I was called, crazy, silly and told my fears were completely unfounded.

Fast forward a decade or so. Now it is know that certain conditions like guillain barre there might be a genetic disposition. All the doctors now highlight and note it acting like they have agreed that the flu shot for them are a risk.

Just remember doctors used to use all kinds of crazy things in the past, like blowing tobacco smoke up people's butts as a treatment! (yes they really did that)

A Scientist would tell you that the scientific method does not find The Truth, but is only a tool to help sort through problems in order to hopefully get closer to the truth.

The scientific method (therefore, science in general) has mechanisms built into it to be self-corrected so its results can be ever-evolving.

Considering that science has these continuous self-correction mechanisms built into it, science obviously doesn't feel that its findings always represent "The Truth" about everything.

People who complain that science doesn't know everything are basically creating a strawman argument. Science already understands that it doesn't know everything, and the things it thinks it does know are always open to being re-thought.

...And that's what makes it a good tool for sorting through problems in order to hopefully get closer to the truth.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Just like you wouldn't use a screwdriver to pound a nail, the science tool has to be used in appropriate fashion to do any real good. Most of my complaints are due to a misapplication of the method. Of course science has brought us unprecedented benefits but there is an ever increasing amount of junk also and occasionally, outright fraud.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: bogdan9310

I have 10 year old textbooks that have stuff that is now known to be just wrong.

Science is like fashion. What's 'in' this year will be 'out' the next.

How can that be truth?

Yes.... we know all to well that text book makers have no idea what belongs in text books. That is not a problem with science. That is a political problem when public money is given to companies that knowingly print bad info to be taught in school.

Otherwise, we know very well that private interests offer big money to anyone with a phd if they will smudge some numbers or even bend results to have a study point in a certain direction.

Neither of these issues can be blamed on science. Bad science, biased science, and paying for the answers you want, are not good science.

No, the information in the textbooks was once up to date but it goes out of date all the time on high rotation.

That is what every new academic paper is these days, a pulling down of the facade that preceded it, with revised data and new discoveries.

As such, even real accurate cutting-edge science will continue to be cycled out by new, real accurate science. Always.

The process of science that reveals its inadequacy as being acceptable as immutable truth.

Do you trust and believe in your phone to keep you connected? Your alarms to wake you in the morning? Your lights to keep your house lit? Your tv to entertain you? Your car to start and get you where you wanna go?
...the list goes on and on.
You might just be a believer in science.

Science is me saying that dogs can't look up. Then I try it and my dog looks up. Another hundred people from other places around the globe, under other and, or similar conditions also register that their dogs look up. They record this in many forms and present it.

That way we can say that it's highly likely that dogs can look up.

a reply to: Woodcarver

So, i just have to believe claims that nonmaterial “things” exist? Why should i believe that?

It’s perfectly obvious that non material things exist. There is information everywhere outside of our senses and we need receivers to detect them.

Do you seriously believe there is nothing else? something that we are yet unable to detect.

You surely must believe in Quantum Physics, a science that deals entirely with the non physical, you do know that we are all energy don't you? or, that the receivers for certain frequencies are part of our own physical makeup, our own consciousness.

For some people, that reception is much stronger than others. For those of you that do not receive the affirmation of the existence of a greater intelligence beyond the physical, I have to say that you are greatly disadvantaged and perhaps you should do a little work looking inwards for a while, to regain balance.

Do you understand that mr cleese is making fun of people like you?

Your general comprehension is also lacking, he is poking fun at you and your dogma's

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: bogdan9310

I agree. Science is faith. Very similar to religion. Why? Because it assumes this reality is nothing more than the material.

What is at the heart of science? The scientific method? Running theories and proving them time and time again. Exact measurements and results. So in reality, the only thing science confirms is the material. It will never acknowledge or fit into its narrow defines the spiritual.

To believe this reality is just the material is faith. Science proves itself in a continuous loop, but dosen't really explain what this reality is.

Just like newton and his formula of gravity. He can say what happens with his formula, but he even agreed that he had not clue WHY it happened.

People say that science has elevated mankind into the realm of gods. I wonder, how happy are we in today's age? How content are we with all of our science? Granted, food and shelter have become abundant, but when the lights go out, how long will that last. Then you have our ancestors 400+ years past that would run circles around our educated A#es and probably be a lot happier and content doing it.

Science is a only a tool but people elevate it into the realm of religions, that of pure faith. It will be interesting how new discoveries will make lies out of our today's 'truths'.

The scientific methods are literally the opposite of faith and the hypothesis that everything is material, has never been falsified, soooo.... if you want to claim otherwise, you’ll need to use proper methods to deliver your supportive evidence.

So what are you asking for Woodie?
Repetable observable and testable methods

Yeah right

If you want to support a claim the there is something in the universe that is non material... then, yes. Can you supply that?

Woodiw woodie woodie, I am not stating faith is science I am saying some science is faith
Hence why I am the one constantly asking that the scientific method be applied when stupid people brandish the word science around like some mantra of perfection as Christian fundamentalist say the bible is perfect and has no faults

Scientific fundamentalists are as stupid as religious fundamentalists, just different sides of the coin

No Woodie, I am not using science to prove God, it's faith, I am asking for repetable observable and testable scientific method to be used to prove anything you say is proven by sthe scientific method or "science" whatever that means
Want scientific proof that God exists, look at creation