I see I left the lower case j after I wanted to put a capitol on the word Jesus, another human being making a mistake,( my vision is such that it is difficult for me to get the cursor in-between the letters sometimes) it can happen to anyone, and so it sort of points out to me how some or even many mistakes were made in early writings. There is a big difference between Faith and Fact!
Y’know, I will generally let you spout your odd beliefs without let or hindrance, but this is just nonsense.
The most important nonsense is your claim that they “analyze the results to get the answers from the god.” Utter rubbish. When scientists develop new products, they test them against predicted outcomes in repeated trials. Then other scientists test them against the same predicted outcomes in repeated trials. Only when the predictions are not disproven do they accept that their process has been successful.
I am a religious person and I still recognize that that system is different than anything that spiritual efforts produce. When a shaman produces successful treatment, it is not the result of scientific process, (although it may have been the result of some of the same processes of intelligence of which humans are capable, many years ago). Over the years, through trial and error and serendipitous events, humans have discovered a lot of remedies for various ailments that may now be used successfully by various shamans, but that is not science. Science is the deliberate process by which hypotheses are formed and tested and new results are produced. Your attempt to equate the two methods of discovery and your ludicrous attempt to equate science and religion has no basis in reality.
That is not why. I am certainly lead, and some of it is blindly. The difference is that the parts I follow on blind faith do not affect my life, and the parts which do affect my life have been proven and are not on blind faith. My problems with your analogies are that you make analogies to points easily disproved, and then ignore when we disprove them. I understand them (except when you mis-spell everything..) but they are so ridiculously wrong it is silly. My biggest problem is that instead of answering any uestions you skip to an analogy. You should make an argument and use the analogy to clarify. The analogy should not be your argument.
I dont have to understand rocket science to believe it is actually proven when i can see a rocket go into space.
The difference is that global warming is a “new” aspect of science which is highly debated, and even the most pronounced results showed a change of barely 1 degree. I challenge you to make that debate about any proven fact of science which is not affected by vested interests. If you apply that argument to any proven physical field of science it wouldnt work because they are verifiable. You can also look at a database of temperature differences and get to the same conclusion yourself.
You always disregard an entire post and simply retort with a silly paragraph comment about something else, never directly answering the previous question. It is a waste of time on our part.
I challenge you again to answer directly what your definition of science is, and to define discipline properly if you want to use that in your definition.
I then challenge you to explain how not taking objects built on theories as proof for the theories being true. If you can not explain this last point this entire thread is over and has been. If you do not see the meaning of this paragraph, I dont know what to say.
I told you that your definition of science is wrong, and you ignored me. I told you that your thought process is illogical, and you ignored me. I asked for clarifications and you still ignore me. I will ignore you now if you dont answer them.
DaveBfd Would you accept this as a valid definition of science?
-
Credit to** tomndebb**, who I thank for their above post and this definition
My points on this is what does it take to get to the point where one can actually test hypotheses? What level of training, study and connections. Is it something that a lay person can do? and if not I contend it is a matter of faith if one accepts scientific findings - and I believe you admit in your above post that you do take some aspects of science on faith, which I presume because you believe in the process as defined above.
Not exactly my take on this, but this it, with spirituality anyone can find out the truth for themselves, to know God, and not have to place blind faith on others as you always can get guidance. It goes further then that, but that is the basic premise.
I did address this above, I stated even if it’s a construct of the mind, it is a increadably useful and powerful way to tap into the power of the mind far above what is generally known. Things just ‘magically’ work and life is without worry or fear that normally plagues humanity. And one becomes a beacon of hope for many.
So it is a worthwhile pursuit based on that alone.
How many of us has fudged data points in our lab reports in school to get the results that the teacher expects us to get. Questioning authority is generally not acceptable at this level, which is also the relationship between priests and parishioners, the priest is the authority not to be questioned.
But is it not a desire fore many people to come up with a new theory to challenge the conventional thinking, to make a breakthrough when they are in the position to do so. If it is in science, religion or whatever. Why this is taken as specifically related to science does not make sense when it is a basic human characteristic in many fields.
Simple. The scientist builds the theoretical framework for the engineer to work in. Engineers may have built the nuclear bomb, but without the research and insight of the physicists and chemists who created the theories behind it, it wouldn’t have ever gone anywhere. This knowledge is crucial. It is the real driving force of progress.
[/QUOTE]
I believe scientific findings because science is set up as an adversarial system where experts who are unable to back their claims up with evidence are dismissed.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that science is some sort of chummy club where everyone just agrees to go along with groupthink. But, in fact, the quickest way for a scientist to become famous and powerful is to overturn the status quo. And you overturn the status quo by presenting unshakeable evidence that current theory is wrong, or by creating a new theory that explains the previously unexplainable. Science, by design, pits expert against expert, and the winner is the expert who can most successfully support his position empirically. That’s why we can trust scientific findings.
Religion, by contrast, is designed to squelch any thought that threatens to overturn the status quo. And when disagreements do arise, there is no way for the “experts” to resolve which position is correct. The result is the incoherent and fragmentary theology we see today, where the major players are unable to agree on answers to even the most fundamental questions (such as “How many gods are there?”). Religion is untrustworthy because religion is not designed to root out error.
I agree. You don’t need a supercollider to figure out that God is a myth.
Well enough and thank you as this is well taken and I see that you believe in the system that is behind science. That is fine.
And it is true that religion tends to fragment.
It still does not address my claim that the lay person still has to take scientific findings on blind faith as there is no way of a lay person to verify scientific findings.
I agree of course, but if you are looking for anything that is truly God inspired, you are going to be out of luck, since everything has been written down by people long after the supposed events, with no primary source references.
I’ve been trying to look at this from the point of view of someone who actually believe in this stuff, and I know the problems very well.
There is an intermediary position between blind faith and personal verification. Do you believe Paris exists? Hong King? Ulan Bator? Do you think you believe that these cities would be there if you visited through blind faith, or do you believe because trusted people have reported on them, and because you know you can go whenever you wish? Even if your desire to visit Ulan Bator is about the same as your desire to pick up a cosmology journal.
No, because you would misconstrue the word “results.”
I would prefer the more exact definition of “systematic knowledge” taken from dictionary.com
The reason I chose this definition is it shows our difference in interpretations of the word science. Your interpretation involves blurryness about the results, mine shows that science only deals with “truths or facts,” and you are allowed to make such a statement because of the process in which the truths are derived.
There are sections of science which dont adhere to this definition, such as unproven hypothesis, or what I would label as fringe sciences which can not be proven.
To test a hypothesis? As I said above: The hypothesis predicts that x happens under y circumstances. You create y circumstances and observe x. Hypothesis is now proven.
An example is that we understand from science that electricity works in certain ways, and NEVER outside of those ways. Using this knowledge, we are able to build tools to make use of that energy. Anything that uses electricity is a proof for the laws which electricity abides by, and a similar example can be used for any part of science. If electricity didnt follow the laws we know, the device would not work.
I will post this again because I feel you dont understand the importance of this paragraph to your position:
This is the crux of your position. You arent believing that our physical use of scientific laws is proof of their existance. It does not make sense. We do not have to take something on faith when we know it works by watching it in action.
The simple answer is that Paris exists, but I feel there is much more to your question.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. Your question is a basic philosophical question that has been asked for ages I believe without answer.
Does Paris (a city I have never been to yet BTW) exist. I’m pretty sure I could visit Paris and find that it exists and has always existed.
Is there not a quantum state in physics that both outcomes are simultaneously true until it is analyzed and then only one state ever existed?
Does Paris exist in the above because I will visit it? Or does my future visit to Paris mean it always exists?
Let me propose another model that explains the ancients belief in ‘priests’, modern day belief in science, and the spot on accuracy of both during their times.
I’ll call it called spirituality and has this premise, We all are children of God and as such have god powers to create reality. Yet the ‘big’ God limits those to a extent till we learn to use them. Our god powers include the ability to create and change reality by will, word and intents.
All well and good.
We were made to know our parent God and love each other, bless each other and we all benefit, such as wishing well for the farmer and he has a great crop.
Now comes the priest. People put faith in the priest, the priest says the Nile will not flood next year so the crops will fail. People who have faith in these priests are lead to speak badly of the upcoming crops and in effect ‘curse’ them, because these are just not people, but gods saying that the crops will fail actually causes the crops to fail.
Now comes the scientists saying that global warming will call massive crop failure worldwide, people who trust science will state it as such and since these are not only people but gods who have the power to change reality, even to the point to form evidence of global warming, will lead to that end, worldwide crop failure.
My apologies but Id like to make a quick reply before voyager (though voyager you should reply as it is your train of thought)
How do you know Paris exists, what evidence do you have? You havent been there so you cant personally validate it. Why do you assume you can visit paris, but not assume you can trust facts within science? You are holding everything to different degrees of proof through your bias. There is no diference in paris being validated by others as there is in math being validated by others. Why do you assume math is wrong and unproven?
Neither. It exists simply because it is there, and it has been proven to be there. Why would you bring in another variable which is “unproven” to alter the first question? (not to mention you are misrepresenting the quantum scenario you are referring to)
Your analogy again is poor. PLEASE make a point instead of these ridiculous analogies. They fail to address the issues we are discussing. Your endless comparisons of science to religion/god through analogy is tiresome.
If a scientist proves that X causes Y, X will always cause Y. Forever. You can not “will it back” like in your analogy. X always did cause Y, and we just never knew how. The scientist only explained the how, and did not alter anything in reality.
You are aware that electricity was used before the scientific laws were discovered. Many types of optical lenses also were made long before refraction was scientifically defined. Having a working product does not necessary prove that the science behind it is known nor does it prove is it correct.
So we can have a working observable product, but that does not mean we understand 100% how it works in a scientific sense. If this is the case, how can we be sure that the working products we have are based on correct scientific theories and laws. And after all is not one of the goals of science a ongoing attempt to disprove known and accepted scientific theories and laws?
I believe you have made a, perhaps small, even perhaps irrelevant, leap in logic to say because you have a working product that it proves the scientific laws made in the design of the product.
But there is a much larger issue with your statement, you are making a much bigger leap of logic that the lay person can understand what scientific laws and theories went in to a product and how what that product does follows and proves the science.
Going further on this, you are assuming the final product is based on the science that went into the initial design, and ignoring any ‘fudge factors’ that were added during manufacturing process to actually make the product work as intended.
Well, Paris has not always existed. 3,000 years ago there was no Paris. But sure you are justified in thinking Paris exists. (Hong King, on the other hand …) People you trust - like Woody Allen - have been there. You have never heard of anyone who wished to go there having a problem. So you are totally justified in believing that if you chose to go there, you could. You have also had the experience of traveling to new cities, and have found them there.
The tree falling example is not very interesting, in my opinion, since if we put a tape recorder there we would hear it. In any case in the cities example there are people there. You can’t go to a city which no one sees by definition, since it is not a city.
Not quite true - possible.
I don’t think you got the analogy. Just as it makes sense for you to accept the existence of Paris despite the fact that you haven’t gone there (I have btw in case you doubt it does exist) and may never go there (which is why I included Ulan Bator,) it makes sense for you to accept the findings of science though you haven’t and may never personally verify them. I was demonstrating that you accept things based on the work of others all the time, science is no different from geography.
I’m not sure what you mean by changing reality, but we certainly can given certain definitions of this.
There are a few differences between the scientist and the priest. First, the scientist publishes. He must say what leads him to say that there is climate change.
Second, the scientist makes much more detailed predictions than the priest, and predictions of change. If the priest predicts crop failure, he will likely say that more prayers, and more sacrifices (which the priest takes) will lead to no flood - which then works. How accurate is the priest in predicting a change from the norm, the black swan of a drought. Will the priest change the method if he screws up, or will he say the people were sinful. Remember, the priest supposedly has a direct line to god.
Now scientists will predict a range of possible result based on their theory, and, if it turns out not to be true, revise openly. Good ones don’t blame the world, the gods, or their readers if their predictions don’t turn out. If the theory needs to be tweaked, it gets tweaked. (Like the case we’re seeing that their predictions are too conservative.) If it is too far off it gets discarded. And, another difference, there is no heresy, so if a bunch of scientists using different methods come to the same conclusion, like they do with global warming, it is the way to bet.
Do you think that things work because of the laws that we discover? If you read the early papers about electricity, you will see them inching their way to an understanding of it. Electricity was there before. The planets moved in their orbits before Kepler figured out what those orbits were.
The attempt to disprove is more important for early work, especially your own work. Experiments must be defined to be able to falsify your hypothesis. That is different from scientist running around trying to disprove accepted results. However, if new results cause the old theory into question, then you have to be open to finding ways of falsifying the old theory. The measurement of the position of Mercury is an excellent example, since the results would either falsify relativity or classical physics.
Note this is using the proposed ‘spiritual model’ where the main reason for the accuracy of the modern scientist and the ancient priests alike is the faith of the children of God (lay people) place on these scientists/priests. And those children’s ‘god’ powers to effect the actual change in reality to make those predictions come true.
In this model we control our own reality we exist in (but looked over and ‘regulated’ by our parent ‘God’)
We now have tools that allow such publications, that was a technological barrier, I’m pretty sure that the ancient priests predictions would have been published and distributed if it was possible. This was very valuable information, and I’m sure predictions were widely spread and known and preparations made for predicted upcoming events.
I also know how accurate and detailed such spiritually derived information can be. It is not all Revelation or Nostradamus style, yes some is, but some is dead on eerie accurate and detailed.
This I don’t agree with (see my above ‘paragraph’). Since they were not published, we can not know, and they would not be to the degree of scientific papers. But I believe these ancient priests to have been very accurate and detailed at times partly because they are using the exact same power to change reality to their predictions as scientists are using in the ‘spiritual’ model.
Yes but that direct line to God in this model is controlling God’s very children and thus their (god’s) power to make things happen just as the ancient priest predicts.
If there is a predicted crop failure, yes the priest may be able to get God’s children to engage in such a sacrifice which may change intent of the children and effect the change in reality.
Compare this with your statement that the scientist will make more detailed predictions.
You bring up important points that I should clarify. Science does nothing more than explain how things work, and make predictions explaining what will happen in the future. Could we use lenses and electricity before we really knew what they were or what caused them to work? yes. Could we use them in unique ways, or predict how to use them? no.
Continued below.
Yes, you are right. There are hidden assumptions and unexplained points.
To harnass the power of anything requires an understanding of how it works. The laws are in effect before we know about them, but only when we understand them can we actually do things with them. While edison et al. didnt necessarily know how or why electricity worked, they knew certain ways to make it useful. They were demonstrating boundaries of the laws, which is as voyager mentioned the initial step of science. They did have an understanding, but because they didnt understand fully they were limited in using its potential.
While this may still be true today, and forever, all of the scientific facts that we have now are proven under the circumstances we have experienced and will continue to be true forever. We can predict what the result of any scenario they are defined for will be. Any changes will have to agree with all our previous data, as well as any anomolies.
The simple answer is every law and theory is used in every product. If any law and theory worked differently than predicted, the end result would likely be different.
You could say that evolution isnt related, but by doing so the term science is no longer useful to your position because you are now forced to break the large label apart. Im fine with the statement “non-physical sections of science can be opiates to the masses,” because while it may or may not be true, it can be argued. This position however excludes the main streams of science and makes the point pretty useless. I dont think this will make you happy, though.
Any fudge factors must be explained by the current laws/theories or the “laws/theories” are no longer considered true. I dont think this is an issue as there is no reason for this information to be withheld, and incentive to provide such information. In fact I dont think it is possible based on the scope of the theories for such a position to arise. The only possibility is mis-use of the theory.
Is your point that the people building the product could have experienced different results than the law/theory they used predicted, and you as a user would never know? It is certainly possible and quite possibly your only argument against my position, which I can concede to you.
That was part of my point, things can work before we know why or the laws we discover and can work even if we get the laws wrong.
I’ll accept this, except for the Mercury part as I really don’t know how those things relate. it does sound a lot better then having every scientist trying to disprove every other scientists.