Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on March 27, 2016, 06:44:00 AM
-
Hi everyone,
The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant.
People here try to present science as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science. Nothing is fixed for eternity.
It has also become too 'nose in the air'.
Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'. They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations. Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!
If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
My first thought was to demolish this OP, but I am just shaking my head sadly and returning to the latest unreads.
-
My first thought was to demolish this OP, but I am just shaking my head sadly and returning to the latest unreads.
Oh my! How impressive!!
I am terrified by the force of your intellectual thrust. Ha Ha Ha! Really!! ::)
With supporters like you....these atheist chaps don't need enemies! LOL!
Thanks for your views anyway!! (I normally don't bother with you...but sometimes even I get bored). ;)
-
Just some thoughts.
Having read it, the total amount of thoughts in that post is nil.
The total amount of straw men is 17.
-
Hi everyone,
The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant.
People here try to present science as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science. Nothing is fixed for eternity.
It has also become too 'nose in the air'.
Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'. They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations. Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!
If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Science, static and stagnant?
Not around me it isn't.
my grandmothers and mothers life was totally different to mine.
Science gave me washing machines, tumble dryers and dishwashers and a host of other gadgets to make my life easier and give me more leisure time.
When I was a child we only had a black and white telly and 3 channels, my children have grown up in a world full of games machines and computers and hundreds of TV channels. Science gave us all those things.
Probably the most important one to me is that science gave the surgeon who performed my life saving operation the skills ( which was groundbreaking enough that the operation had an audience of 30 other surgeons learning what science and they could now do). This was a groundbreaking operation for cancer, that not so many years ago wasn't possible.
I think it isn't stagnating so much as accelerating and a lot of things, impossible before, we now take for granted.
Science isn't just about black holes and dark matter.
Even knowledge of that has increased as instruments have got better, but it's only a small part of science.
-
Hi everyone,
The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant.
People here try to present science as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science. Nothing is fixed for eternity.
It has also become too 'nose in the air'.
Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'. They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations. Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!
If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Any evidence to support any of that Sriram because it doesn't seem to match my view of scientists or science? Scientific theories are always open to modification based on evidence and scientists are always looking to explore new areas and to try to understand what we don't currently understand. Certainly not static or stagnant.
-
Since when has science been static or stagnant? It appears to be constantly upgrading.
-
Summary for Sriram (who generally can't be arsed to read much): no, science shouldn't incorporate your baseless superstitions.
The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant.
You mean by this....? Let me guess; it doesn't accept your baseless, superstitious assertions.
People here try to present science as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science. Nothing is fixed for eternity.
The process of science has proved, and continues to prove, a very effective means of discovering things about the universe we live in. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The contents of scientific theories are always open to revision - that is part of the process.
It has also become too 'nose in the air'.
Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'. They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations. Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!
Everybody has talents. Not everybody can write great literature or be a professional sportsperson. Not everybody can be a scientist. Many of those that could, choose not to - which is fine.
There are many scientists who try to communicate science to the general population. There are popular books, TV programs, online courses and self-study textbooks in addition to formal education. If people want to learn and have the enthusiasm and ability, they can.
Having said that, much of modern science is just difficult - and there is no escaping that fact. You cannot claim to really understand (say) quantum mechanics unless you can do the mathematics. That is just a fact. Everybody else relies on those scientists and engineers that do understand to, for example, develop computers and the internet, so you can post nonsense like this on a forum.
Of course, criticising science that you haven't even bothered to learn about from a popular point of view, is stupid. Those that do so richly deserve to be looked down on, not only by scientists but everybody with the common sense realise how daft it is.
If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.
Yeah, right... :)
-
Hi everyone,
The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant.
People here try to present science as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science. Nothing is fixed for eternity.
It has also become too 'nose in the air'.
Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'. They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations. Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!
If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Mostly rant and nonsense. Science has not slowed or become stagnant, rather our knowledge base is increasingly exponentially currently, I see no sign of stagnation or slowing. We are now peering to the edges of the universe, to the beginning of time, exploring comets and putting robots on planets; we are building replica brains to demystify the mysteries of consciousness; with particle accelerators we probe the fundamentals of matter and energy so that we can now create a narrative for what was happening 1 millionth of a second after the beginning of time. There is virtually no area of life that research is not peering into to throw light on.
Quite how this amounts to 'stagnation' is baffling. Rather the opposite is perhaps a real concern by which I mean that the rate of acquisition of new knowledge is outpacing our ability to take onboard what it all means. Human nature changes slowly, at biological evolution rates.
For instance, it's now 150 years since Darwin suggested that life is an entirely natural process and humans are part of the natural world being an upright ape, but despite that still there are billions of people in the world who have not taken this insight on board, and still live in a pre-enlightenment world in which humans are special, different, spirit beings created specially by some supernatural sky god with special powers.
For another example, physicists learned how to split the atom in the twentieth century; yet almost as soon as the technology was proved we were using it to build bombs and used them to vaporise millions of Japanese civilians.
For another example, climate science has built up a picture of climate change in the past and has established robust models indicating the role of atmospheric gases underlying climate variability and yet despite the knowledge that our current ways of living are putting future generations at risk, many still eat meat, take holidays in the sun and burn fossil fuels in our cars and develop systems of science denial to pretend the new knowledge will go away.
Rather than science stagnating, I think it is going too fast for us to assimilate what it means. At heart we are still cavemen inside; we are like children given weapons of mass destruction to play with.
-
All responses except Sriram's- brilliantly said.
-
The OP certainly gives the lie to claims of a background in science.
-
Looks like a united front there Sriram, you can add my name to the list.
ippy
-
torridon
"Rather than science stagnating, I think it is going too fast for us to assimilate what it means. At heart we are still cavemen inside; we are like children given weapons of mass destruction to play with."
Sriram
"science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant. .......scientist living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death. "
I think it is probably better to distinguish between science and scientists. Science is a well tested method for exploring what could loosely be called the external objective world and has advanced the use of technology to change the influence of humans upon life and death, not always for the better.
Scientists are human beings with no more claim to be paragons of virtue than anybody else. It might be better if the 'spiritists' didn't dabble in the mechanics of the 'outer physical' world but encouraged focus more upon knowing the 'inner world' in an endeavour to transform the 'caveman' before it is too late (if it's not already). The inscription to Apollo at Delphi is a good starting point 'Know Thyself', preferably before judging others.
-
Dear Ekim,
Excellent post ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Thanks.
-
Dear Ekim,
Excellent post ;)
Gonnagle.
Whilst the pursuit of science is gradually closing down the gaps, science is doing this as we learn more and more about more or less anything you like to name, out of a thirst for knowledge.
Closing the gaps just happens to be a side effect of gaining more knowledge, more than science is interested in closing down gaps.
Science in itself isn't your enemy Gonners, don't you think it's a good thing for mankind to gain as much knowledge that stands up to test and inspection as can be found?
If not Gonners, why not?
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
What the hell! are you chuntering on about.
Gonnagle.
-
I think it is probably better to distinguish between science and scientists. Science is a well tested method for exploring what could loosely be called the external objective world ...
... and yet the external objective world and the internal subjective world are one and the same in the end, a seamless unity. We're not external to ourselves, surely? We're in it and of it, and can never be otherwise.
-
Looks like a united front there Sriram, you can add my name to the list.
ippy
I am far from pitchfork throwing distance....so it doesn't bother me!! Have fun! I am enjoying myself no end. :D
-
... and yet the external objective world and the internal subjective world are one and the same in the end, a seamless unity. We're not external to ourselves, surely? We're in it and of it, and can never be otherwise.
You could declare that but it doesn't seem to do anything to transform the 'caveman'. It is more likely to just be added to all the other opinions which go towards making up the inner subjective world. 'Know thyself' has two aspects to it. One is to know the subjective 'self' or ego (or caveman) which commonly the individual identifies with and secondly to 'know' the 'subject' observer of both the outer external world and the inner subjective world and identify with that rather than the subjective self.
-
I am far from pitchfork throwing distance....so it doesn't bother me!! Have fun! I am enjoying myself no end. :D
Why reply to something, anything that doesn't bother you Sriram?
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
What the hell! are you chuntering on about.
Gonnagle.
Easy Gonners, your post to Ekim telling him you thought his post was excellent, what other reason would you have to think his post was excellent if you didn't go along with his line of thought other than perhaps, you may have thought it was a great piece of literary art, I guessed the former and I was addressing the thoughts you seem to share with Ekim.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Steady old son ::)
The bit where he mentions cavemen, the bit where he mentions,
Scientists are human beings with no more claim to be paragons of virtue than anybody else.
The bit where he mentions,
endeavour to transform the 'caveman' before it is too late (if it's not already).
The bit where he mentions,
The inscription to Apollo at Delphi is a good starting point 'Know Thyself', preferably before judging others.
It all resonated with me.
Gonnagle.
-
I am far from pitchfork throwing distance....
That's a relief.
-
You could declare that but it doesn't seem to do anything to transform the 'caveman'. It is more likely to just be added to all the other opinions which go towards making up the inner subjective world. 'Know thyself' has two aspects to it. One is to know the subjective 'self' or ego (or caveman) which commonly the individual identifies with and secondly to 'know' the 'subject' observer of both the outer external world and the inner subjective world and identify with that rather than the subjective self.
Because of the self-reference here there is a boundary through which we can't penetrate ... the "observer" is one and the same as the "caveman", maybe wearing a different face. And the actual "cavemen" (or people) were just as able to realize that as we are.
If we focus on the "external" world - the one we seem to able to communicate about (this is what we call "science"), the better we understand it, the better we will be able to understand the inner.
-
Because of the self-reference here there is a boundary through which we can't penetrate ... the "observer" is one and the same as the "caveman", maybe wearing a different face. And the actual "cavemen" (or people) were just as able to realize that as we are.
If we focus on the "external" world - the one we seem to able to communicate about (this is what we call "science"), the better we understand it, the better we will be able to understand the inner.
Not bad! That is why science has to evolve beyond its present self declared boundaries and methods.
-
Dear ippy,
Steady old son ::)
The bit where he mentions cavemen, the bit where he mentions,
The bit where he mentions,
The bit where he mentions,
It all resonated with me.
Gonnagle.
All very well but that's no answer to my post 15 on this thread.
ippy
-
Not bad! That is why science has to evolve beyond its present self declared boundaries and methods.
To do what exactly?
-
1. Because of the self-reference here there is a boundary through which we can't penetrate ... the "observer" is one and the same as the "caveman", maybe wearing a different face. And the actual "cavemen" (or people) were just as able to realize that as we are.
2. If we focus on the "external" world - the one we seem to able to communicate about (this is what we call "science"), the better we understand it, the better we will be able to understand the inner.
1. That is one of the difficulties with the methods (usually meditation) used to dis-identify with an ego self, another 'superior' ego self can replace it. You either recognise this and persevere with whatever transcendent method you employ or give up and say it can't be done. The ego mind is very good at thwarting any efforts because it's fighting for its survival.
2. Understanding the mechanisms of the inner based upon external observations is perhaps what psychiatry is about and for those who are happy to or have no option then handing themselves over to an external observer may be helpful but I'm not sure that intellectual understanding is the same as transformation.
-
1. That is one of the difficulties with the methods (usually meditation) used to dis-identify with an ego self, another 'superior' ego self can replace it. You either recognise this and persevere with whatever transcendent method you employ or give up and say it can't be done. The ego mind is very good at thwarting any efforts because it's fighting for its survival.
2. Understanding the mechanisms of the inner based upon external observations is perhaps what psychiatry is about and for those who are happy to or have no option then handing themselves over to an external observer may be helpful but I'm not sure that intellectual understanding is the same as transformation.
Yes....but the ego is also always tricked into pursuing what it believes are its subjective goals....but which eventually turn out to be carrots in front of the horse. So.....ultimately there is no problem. The Self always wins....maybe after many lifetimes....but it always does.
I agree that it appears pointless for science to pursue an objective understanding of the Self....when what we are really looking for is an inner transformation. I agree. But the more science evolves and expands into non material areas....the greater chances there are for the ego (at least in some people) to escape the trap of materialism and pursue the inner Self.
Even today, with just some relatively minor forays of science into philosophical matters such as what I have often mentioned in other posts........many people realize that there is more to life than just the objective material world..... and they turn to spiritual matters.
So....further ventures into such areas will certainly help....if not directly...indirectly.
-
What do you mean, 'turn to spiritual matters'? A child singing a rhyme with their mother, or looking with pleasure at flowers is developing the spiritual side of their nature. All thoughts andideas which can be counted as being a development of an aesthetic sense can equally be counted as spiritual. Some people add an extra complexity to the subject, namely a god of some sort, but this is unnecessary.
-
Hi everyone,
The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status.
Science is a process. In what way does it need to evolve?
It is too static and stagnant.
New scientific discoveries are made every day. How can you possibly say it is static and stagnant?
People here try to present science as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable.
You mean you do. Nobody else does. You're the one who is claiming it is static and stagnant, not any of the people who actually understand it.
It has also become too 'nose in the air'.
You mean it disagrees with what you would like to be true.
Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.
You've never met a scientist then.
Just some thoughts.
Here's a thought: just because science tells us your fantasies are fiction doesn't mean it is wrong or needs "improving".
-
Not bad! That is why science has to evolve beyond its present self declared boundaries and methods.
Science has 'self declared boundaries and methods' ?
I'm not sure what that means; we have a track record of continually confounding what earlier generations claimed 'couldn't be done'. We couldn't measure the length of coastlines, so we invented a whole new branch of mathematics - fractals - to enable just that. They said men would never go to the Moon; so we built rockets and went there. People said the mind was beyond empirical investigation; but now we have a plethora of research approaches unravelling the mysteries of conscious experience and mental phenomena. So much for self-declared boundaries.
-
Science is a process. In what way does it need to evolve?
New scientific discoveries are made every day. How can you possibly say it is static and stagnant?
You mean you do. Nobody else does. You're the one who is claiming it is static and stagnant, not any of the people who actually understand it.
You mean it disagrees with what you would like to be true.
You've never met a scientist then.
Here's a thought: just because science tells us your fantasies are fiction doesn't mean it is wrong or needs "improving".
You don't even understand what I am saying. So...why do you bother? ::)
-
You don't even understand what I am saying. So...why do you bother? ::)
Yes I do. You are saying that science needs to change so that you can pretend your idea are correct. Well bollocks to your sad little fantasies.
-
You don't even understand what I am saying. So...why do you bother? ::)
You are totally transparent. You don't like that science doesn't support your primitive superstitions and you'd prefer that it did...
-
Science has 'self declared boundaries and methods' ?
I'm not sure what that means; we have a track record of continually confounding what earlier generations claimed 'couldn't be done'. We couldn't measure the length of coastlines, so we invented a whole new branch of mathematics - fractals - to enable just that. They said men would never go to the Moon; so we built rockets and went there. People said the mind was beyond empirical investigation; but now we have a plethora of research approaches unravelling the mysteries of conscious experience and mental phenomena. So much for self-declared boundaries.
Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.
Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist. You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means. You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain and that the brain is some self creating self deciding organ. You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations. You still have no clue about what life and death are. And many other such things I am too tired to elaborate.
So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations.
Good night!
-
Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist.
Who has stated that? Be specific, please.
You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations.
By all means demonstrate otherwise. Burden of proof and all that.
You still have no clue about what life and death are.
And I suppose you do.
Ignorance and arrogance separately are obnoxious enough, but in tandem they're truly repulsive.
-
Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.
Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist.
The scientific method relies on measurements and observations. if you are using something else then it isn't science - it is something else.
You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means. You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain and that the brain is some self creating self deciding organ. You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations. You still have no clue about what life and death are. And many other such things I am too tired to elaborate.
I think presenting these things as beliefs is incorrect. People argue that there is no scientific evidence to support the things you mention so to contend that they definetly exist is a belief. Science leaves the door open to new discoveries and theories are changed if new evidence is found - but it does require measurements and testable observations. If you are using something else then it isn't science - it is something else.
So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations.
No it doesn't, it needs to remain true to the scientific method to be science. If you want it to be something else then it isn't science.
I think jeremyp got it spot on in saying 'You are saying that science needs to change so that you can pretend your idea are correct'. You want to wear the clothes of science so as your beliefs are not viewed as what they are but not to actually stick to the scientific method. Better to accept that ypur beliedfs are not supported by the scientific method and just accept it in my view.
Good night!
Good night.
-
What do you mean, 'turn to spiritual matters'? A child singing a rhyme with their mother, or looking with pleasure at flowers is developing the spiritual side of their nature. All thoughts andideas which can be counted as being a development of an aesthetic sense can equally be counted as spiritual. Some people add an extra complexity to the subject, namely a god of some sort, but this is unnecessary.
I'll leave Sriram to explain what he means by 'spiritual' as it is a western word and I expect he will have a more Hindu approach. Using your words "looking with pleasure at flowers" as a starting point, the distinction to me is that the pleasure or joy is dependant upon the external as a stimulus which brings about. The so called 'spiritual' path finds the joy within and exports it i.e. enjoys or puts joy into everything and does not require a stimulus. The former leads to pleasure seeking and the latter perhaps to pleasure giving. Of course, you only have to look at the news headlines these days to see how many distractions there are to sustaining that latter state and how much publicity is given to attaining the former.
-
Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.
Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist.
Nobody says that.
However, if it cannot be sensed or detected with instruments, how can you know anything about it.
You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means.
Nobody believes that.
You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain
All the evidence points to the brain as being the seat of consciousness. Do you have any evidence to suggest there is something else?
You still have no clue about what life and death are.
Most people that have lived a few years know exactly what life and death are.
So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations.
Testing things against the real World is what science is. If a phenomenon can't be sensed or detected with instruments, it can't be tested. Trying to admit such things as science means you no longer have science.
-
Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.
Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist. You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means. You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain and that the brain is some self creating self deciding organ. You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations. You still have no clue about what life and death are. And many other such things I am too tired to elaborate.
So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations.
Good night!
We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it. This is an example of science pushing its boundaries, we don't know how to detect it so we experiment at CERN, we put heavy water detectors in the world's deepest mines and so forth. Sooner or later we will figure out how to detect it. I don't know where you get this idea that science is static. Worldwide we are spending billions on consciousness research pulling together widely different disciplines from mathematical modelling to neuroscience to psychology to artificial intelligence to quantum biology and in the process we will probably learn new insights about the fundamentals of matter. I really don't know where you get this idea that science is static, nothing could be farther than the truth, in reality we are continually breaking new ground.
-
We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it. This is an example of science pushing its boundaries, we don't know how to detect it so we experiment at CERN, we put heavy water detectors in the world's deepest mines and so forth. Sooner or later we will figure out how to detect it. I don't know where you get this idea that science is static. Worldwide we are spending billions on consciousness research pulling together widely different disciplines from mathematical modelling to neuroscience to psychology to artificial intelligence to quantum biology and in the process we will probably learn new insights about the fundamentals of matter. I really don't know where you get this idea that science is static, nothing could be farther than the truth, in reality we are continually breaking new ground.
Indeed! On the contrary, all the airy fairy stuff about gods, spėrits divine forces etc., is totally static. It never gets beyond proclaiming untestable "theories", and the only "evidence" it can offer is the feelings experienced by human brains, which are notoriously unreliable.
-
Science tries to objectively state what is there and how it works, without any cultural bias.
If there is something else we haven't found out about, that too needs to be looked at objectively.
It's like seeing a ghost. It doesn't prove life after death. Neither do NDEs, not conclusively.
For the ghost there are many things it could be.
It could be many things including a hallucination, or a rare timeslip a glimpse into the past ( bearing in mind light from the stars is the past).
Even seeing a ghost doesn't prove life exists after death.
If science manages to detect something, there would still be a long way to go, before science could objectively find out about it.
The problem is everything gets clouded up by personal opinion and what people want to be true.
You have authors of books wanting to soup up their books to sell them.
Science looks deeper and tries to find an answer not based solely on opinions.
That's why it's so fussy about evidence and won't take on my or Srirams worldview.
Science says, but what if it's something else?
I'm all for Science being skeptical, even though I have my own beliefs.
That's because if scientists do finally decide something is there, then it will have value.
If it just accepts people's opinions based on culture, then it won't be as valuable because it's judgements won't be as reliable.
:)
-
We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it. This is an example of science pushing its boundaries, we don't know how to detect it so we experiment at CERN, we put heavy water detectors in the world's deepest mines and so forth. Sooner or later we will figure out how to detect it. I don't know where you get this idea that science is static. Worldwide we are spending billions on consciousness research pulling together widely different disciplines from mathematical modelling to neuroscience to psychology to artificial intelligence to quantum biology and in the process we will probably learn new insights about the fundamentals of matter. I really don't know where you get this idea that science is static, nothing could be farther than the truth, in reality we are continually breaking new ground.
It seems to me that the problem is that many people think of science as FACT - whereas I would view science as a process for modelling 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It probably never will be a perfect model and right now it's a very long way off perfect.
Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.
-
Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.
It is if they're claiming something about the world but can't offer any evidence or methodology to evaluate it.
-
It seems to me that the problem is that many people think of science as FACT - whereas I would view science as a process for modelling 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It probably never will be a perfect model and right now it's a very long way off perfect.
Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.
Which is why if people claim alternative models you ask what is their methodology.
-
It seems to me that the problem is that many people think of science as FACT - whereas I would view science as a process for modelling 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It probably never will be a perfect model and right now it's a very long way off perfect.
Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.
Other Scientists are always sceptical, I'm sure there were a few that found it initially difficult to move away from the idea that dinosaurs were cold blooded clumpy critters.
With enough evidence the idea of dinosaurs changed. They became much more exciting altogether and faster, less clumpy.
Facing up to skepticism is part of it.
Part of the challenge to fight your corner, show you hold the most likely answer.
With evidence.
-
Sometimes I think people think scientists won't even look at something odd, but they do
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11214511/Ghosts-created-by-scientists-in-disturbing-lab-experiment.html
They tried this one and it's only one aspect of what it could be, which is why it says probably.
They can measure this.
If you want to prove something else you have to find a way of producing some sort of results that can be repeated.
-
Rose
There are no such things as ghosts. All apparent sightings of such things are anecdotal. There are never any objective facts or sensory evidence on which a hypothesis could be based and thence tests set up.
On what grounds do you believe, or seem to, there are from how I read your post?
-
Rose
There are no such things as ghosts. All apparent sightings of such things are anecdotal. There are never any objective facts or sensory evidence on which a hypothesis could be based and thence tests set up.
On what grounds do you believe, or seem to, there are from how I read your post?
100 to 1 the grounds are going to be human experiences. ;)
-
Rose
There are no such things as ghosts. All apparent sightings of such things are anecdotal. There are never any objective facts or sensory evidence on which a hypothesis could be based and thence tests set up.
On what grounds do you believe, or seem to, there are from how I read your post?
Hi Susan
I was just using ghosts as an example, scientists look at how those sensations can be recreated in the brain.
The conclusions just in that small idea comes up with ideas ranging from mold to electromagnetic fields to the one in my first link.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/70293/6-scientific-explanations-ghosts
If there is another explanation it might be very hard to pin it down so it can be measured.
We can recreate rainbows and mirages because they are common and we understand why they happen.
We would have to keep looking and stumble across something which would give us a clue as to something else.
I do think it is possible for there to be unusual conditions that create something odd which are hard to pin down and measure. ( like a rare form of mirage etc)
Science just has to keep looking, at everything.
Which I think it does.
I'm open minded about ghosts, Ufos and the rest.
I just don't believe all the hype around them.
-
Which is why if people claim alternative models you ask what is their methodology.
I think you misunderstand me. On a personal level we have beliefs about every aspect of our personal 'universe'. Some of those beliefs might be described as 'scientific' - e.g. most of us don't believe we can fly or walk on water, but the vast majority (and probably the most important) certainly can not.
When you 'dig-down' it turns out people have all kinds of bizarre beliefs that play a major role in how they live their lives - and for the most part these are areas that science can't offer any certainty.
What are we? Why are we here? What becomes of us after death?
We fill the gaps with stuff that seems to work for us, because that is all we can do - and just as willow bark turned-out to be a useful drug, some of our weird beliefs might end up as useful science.
-
This is a rare mirage, which science has explained
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-caused-china-s-floating-city-sky
What even rarer things exist, which we haven't discovered yet?
:)
-
There are no such things as ghosts. All apparent sightings of such things are anecdotal. There are never any objective facts or sensory evidence on which a hypothesis could be based and thence tests set up.
....
Though I'd imagine that if you ever experienced a ghost sighting yourself, you would feel very different.
-
Though I'd imagine that if you ever experienced a ghost sighting yourself, you would feel very different.
I doubt it! Susan is far too aware of the machinations of the human mind to be fooled into considering it "real".
-
I think you misunderstand me. On a personal level we have beliefs about every aspect of our personal 'universe'. Some of those beliefs might be described as 'scientific' - e.g. most of us don't believe we can fly or walk on water, but the vast majority (and probably the most important) certainly can not.
When you 'dig-down' it turns out people have all kinds of bizarre beliefs that play a major role in how they live their lives - and for the most part these are areas that science can't offer any certainty.
What are we? Why are we here? What becomes of us after death?
We fill the gaps with stuff that seems to work for us, because that is all we can do - and just as willow bark turned-out to be a useful drug, some of our weird beliefs might end up as useful science.
I think the willow bark is precisely a bad example because at base that is science, experimentation, observation. Further that people have any number of weird guesses about stuff gives it no validation and in the context of the OP from Sriram is simply a hand waving exercise.
I think you are on much stronger ground with the idea that certain questions will never be science, though I don't see necessarily the questions you use as being crucial. I find the fascination that exists of what happens after death quite odd. Before I could ask why are we here with its built in purposive, I would be asking is there any reason to build that purpose into the question. As to what we are, I would suggest again that to assume an essential mystery and then, say as Alan Burns does, attach it to something not fully understood is yet again a form of question begging. I haven't seen any convincing argument for the sort of exceptionalism this is based on. Not, I think that there can only be arguments put forward for such things as they are specifically outside of our methods that establish evidence, which are methodological naturalistic.
I think science will never give us morality, or beauty or love because they are be their natures subjective. They are also in their motivational guise the only way of creating action since reason is still the slave to passions that it was for Hume.
-
I doubt it! Susan is far too aware of the machinations of the human mind to be fooled into considering it "real".
Except it's observable that there are people who have so claimed who have changed their minds on such things. To think that we as individuals are someone immune from delusions, is a delusion not backed up by the evidence.
-
I think the willow bark is precisely a bad example because at base that is science, experimentation, observation. Further that people have any number of weird guesses about stuff gives it no validation and in the context of the OP from Sriram is simply a hand waving exercise.
My point about the willow bark was that originally people used it without any scientific basis simply because it seemed to work. If 'stuff' works science may offer an explaination in the fullness of time.
I think science will never give us morality, or beauty or love because they are be their natures subjective. They are also in their motivational guise the only way of creating action since reason is still the slave to passions that it was for Hume.
But these are the things that are important to most people for most of the time - and science has nothing to say! Little wonder that people often look elsewhere.
-
Though I'd imagine that if you ever experienced a ghost sighting yourself, you would feel very different.
Not so. I would always know that there is a better, natural, explanation. Even as a child, although I'd have been less positive about that, that would have been because I did not have the information I needed. In any case, I would have gone around asking, 'Is this TRUE?'
-
rose
A few posts back, you say you are open-minded, but then so am I and many others. However, open-minded should mean always ready to consider impartially new evidence and better information, not to accept someone's subjective opinion without valid evidence.
-
We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it.
Yes we can. We detect it by observing the rotation of stars in galaxies.
-
What are we? Why are we here? What becomes of us after death?
Bad examples. Science can give us an answer to all of those questions. The fact that many people do not like the answers, has no bearing on their correctness.
-
Bad examples. Science can give us an answer to all of those questions. The fact that many people do not like the answers, has no bearing on their correctness.
I'd be interested to know the answers?
-
rose
A few posts back, you say you are open-minded, but then so am I and many others. However, open-minded should mean always ready to consider impartially new evidence and better information, not to accept someone's subjective opinion without valid evidence.
Except when it's Star Trek.
ippy
-
Oh My My! There has actually been a discussion on here....(shock)!!! Unbelievable.
I thought it was always about me saying something and all others throwing cyber stones ....and that's it! Not bad, I say!
Thanks LA.
-
Except when it's Star Trek.
ippy
Well, of course, that goes without saying! :)
-
Hi everyone,
Actually in the OP, I wasn't talking about the discoveries and inventions of science. These are what science DOES. Science exists only for such things. These don't show the development or evolution of Science.
What I mean by the evolution of Science is that science should review its basic premises, assumptions, scope and methodologies. It should become a modified, renewed and new Science.
The very fact that all of you are screaming to good heaven that the 'scientific method' is fixed and if something cannot be measured it isn't science......shows how static and stagnant it is. ::)
Cheers.
Sriram
-
The very fact that all of you are screaming to good heaven that the 'scientific method' is fixed and if something cannot be measured it isn't science......shows how static and stagnant it is.
No it doesn't. Why should the definition of what science is change? So you can have the stamp of authority ('this is science') for things which aren't science?
-
rose
A few posts back, you say you are open-minded, but then so am I and many others. However, open-minded should mean always ready to consider impartially new evidence and better information, not to accept someone's subjective opinion without valid evidence.
Yes that's right.
I don't consider I do accept people's subjective opinion.
That everything originates in the mind only, is an opinion.
-
Except when it's Star Trek.
ippy
::)
-
My point about the willow bark was that originally people used it without any scientific basis simply because it seemed to work. If 'stuff' works science may offer an explaination in the fullness of time.
But these are the things that are important to most people for most of the time - and science has nothing to say! Little wonder that people often look elsewhere.
Weird reply. The first part simply accepts that it's a crap analogy and they were just doing science. The second part ignores that it was the point I was making.
-
Weird reply. The first part simply accepts that it's a crap analogy and they were just doing science.
Hi NS,
I refute that it is a crap analogy. A couple of hundred years ago a 'rationalist' like yourself might well have dismissed the herbal treatment as 'snake oil' ; yet by the turn of the century it was being synthesized as aspirin. Just because you don't have a scientific explanation for a phenomena doesn't mean you should dismiss it.
Yes, of course, you're right that was just doing science but at the time it wasn't necessarily seen that way - there are people even today who think many areas of research are 'beyond the pale'.
The second part ignores that it was the point I was making.
I'm not entirely sure which 'second point' you are referring to NS.
-
I'd be interested to know the answers?
What are we?
Mammals with unusually well developed central nervous systems.
Why are we here?
To propagate our genes
What becomes of us after death?
We cease to exist and our bodies are reused as food by other organisms.
-
What are we?
Mammals with unusually well developed centra nervous systems.
Why are we here?
To propagate our genes
What becomes of us after death?
We cease to exist and our bodies are reused as food by other organisms.
And only the middle one I quibble with ...
-
And only the middle one I quibble with ...
Other answers to that question are possible because you can take it in many ways. My answer is the closest you can get to an externally defined "purpose" for human beings, I think.
-
Other answers to that question are possible because you can take it in many ways. My answer is the closest you can get to an externally defined "purpose" for human beings, I think.
We are here for the same reasons that mountains are here, natural processes.
-
ie. For no purpose.
-
ie. For no purpose.
As far as we know.
-
No it doesn't. Why should the definition of what science is change? So you can have the stamp of authority ('this is science') for things which aren't science?
I was talking about the premise, assumptions, scope and methodology of science. A new science.
But that will require more people moving out of their Zoom-In mentality and becoming more Zoom-out. That will take a few generations.
-
Bad examples. Science can give us an answer to all of those questions. The fact that many people do not like the answers, has no bearing on their correctness.
OK, jeremy, give us definititive scientific answers to the 2nd and 3rd questions in the post this is a response to. I'll add a third one for you to consider: what is it that makes a human a human?
-
I was talking about the premise, assumptions, scope and methodology of science. A new science.
Yes I know you were.
So give an example of what you think this new scioence should do/be please, then we can discuss.