This is just wrong. Science has nothing to do with “handy-dandy gadgets”. Science is just a means of observation and conclusion. Granted, the use of science has led to the creation of numerous hand-dandy gadgets, but it has also led to a means of using logical analysis to examine events.
Religion was called “the opiate of the masses” because it required no thought or effort… people just yelled “Praise Jesus!” once every seven days, and they could sleep peacefully knowing that their ass is covered for the next eternity. But thoughtlessness and laziness is the antithesis of science, which requires thought and scrutiny in order to operate.
It was the opiate of the masses because it was an ideology of those in power used to keep the rabble in place. In short…it kept information from people.
It’s entertainment, but to claim that the majority put it in place for the express purpose of pacifying us is more than a little stretch. For that matter, there’s quite a bit of information that’s harmful to those in power that gets disseminated through the ol’ box. The graphic images of Vietnam, for example, helped to show the brutality of the war and ultimately help create outrage and protest against the government.
Like the tv, the web is used for everything from titilation to the immediate distribution of very useful information.
The purpose of science books are to teach science, which has nothing to do with esoteric questions. Science teaches the “how” but not the “why.”
“I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.”
With all respect, Phallacy, I think you’re not quite getting it.
See, this is a not a formal exercise. Nor is it forensics. This is down-and-dirty.
If your arguments are self-contained, logical, and well-founded, you’ll find people willing to discuss them in detail. The trick, however, is to make very certain that your arguments are in fact self-contained, logical, and well-founded. Perhaps it might help if you view deconstruction as a refining process. If your thoughts cannot survive, it’s time to reframe them.
God is inaccessable to any man other than in his own imagination. Science is accessable to anyone with the mental capacity to understand it.
A more accurate assertation would be to say that “technology has replaced religion as the opiate of the masses”. Most people do not understand how technology works. All they know is that they flick a switch and power comes on or they dial a cellphone and someone across town answers. Technology in many ways has replaced religeon as a provider of “warm and fuzzy” feelings. I no longer pray to God to keep my family safe. I buy cars with dual airbags or keep a cellphone handy as if it will provide a shield from the big bad world. Instead of prayer, problems can be fixed by throwing enough processing power and plastic at it.
Technology should not be confused with science. Science is simply a framework for examining how the world around us works. Unlike religion, it is consistent, repeatable, and self-contained. When an experiment produces results outside of our accepted paradigm, that paradigm must be reexamined in order to fit the new data. Unlike in religeon, a believer in science cannot ignore data just because it is inconvenient.
Why are we here? How do we know this is real? Science doesn’t care. Science says “we are here, this is reality, here’s how it appears to work”.
Well then the computer you are using to post this drivel must just be a figment of my imagination if science has no validity. The technological devices we use in our everyday life are based on discoveries made using the methodologies of science. If the methodologies of science are invalid, then the technology based on scientific discoveries won’t work. Since technology doesn’t work, I must be imagining all of this.
Why, oh why did I dream up this Logical Phallacy character - and why am I arguing with a figment of my imagination.
:rolleyes:
LP, out of utter curiosity, what real thing should we be pursuing instead of trusting science? Do you have a better and more objective method of exploring the world than the scientific method? You seem to reject religion and science without giving an alternative way to look at the world. Is there some more active way to encounter reality??
Super Gnat: Unforchunately, it seems that that there is no other way, atleast not for the masses. Its the direction the river has taken, and there’s no force on earth powerful enough to push back.
I’ll think a bit more about that one though, cause it sure does seem depressing
First and fundamental Logical: Use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] , please. The three dashes as quote marker signifies that the post is one of quality, reason, and logic(i.e. They are apos’s posts), none of which have yet applied to your posts.
Next, what are you talking about? The common man have no idea why his car runs or a plane flies. As a meme, science encourages the common man to educate himself, by showing, scientifically that learning things == good. It produces the most ‘real’ responses of all worldviews to date. If you feel that science is fundamentally wrong, you’re out of luck. In order to have a common ground for debate, the debaters need to agree on what would prove them right or wrong, or they’re just blathering. If you can’t agree that we could scientifically determine whether your statements are true or false, then debate would be as useful as a RISC processer running Windows XP.
On the other hand, if you could come up with a system for observing the universe that, when pitted against science in an observable manner, beats it, by all means tell us. That’s the great part about science: we admit we’re wrong about fundamental things all the time
So if this is the way it is, and it is not possible for it to be any other way, then why the diatribe? From your viewpoint, apparantly, it’s like arguing for or against gravity. Personally I think science provides a means for the motivated individual to discover the world around themselves. The only reason most people are passive about technology is b/c they’re not motivated; i.e., I have no idea how a cell phone works, but could find out if sufficiently motivated.
Mangetout: You can’t. That’s my point. If, on the other hand, inspiration strikes someone who comes up with a provably better scientific method, then science (as we understand it) would adapt, or cease to be science.
Actually, that would be epistemology. Just sitting around thinking about stuff (or talking about stuff) isn’t doing science; you have to also go do something or go look at something in order to be doing science. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in people sometimes just sitting around thinking about stuff and talking about stuff.
It isn’t that what Logical Phallacy claims to be doing is a bad idea in concept. We should try to critically examine the claims of science. It’s just that Logical Phallacy is doing a really bad job of it.
Not really…science is asking what the universe looks like from the inside. Religeon or philosophy is like asking what it looks like from the outside. Science probably won’t ever be able to tell you the nature of the universe as it relates to anything outside of the universe.
I assume the one drawback to science is that it assumes that this “reality” is the correct, if not only, one. Since we are unable to observe or interact with any other realty, that drawback is irrelevent.
If someone could present a better method for observing the universe than the scientific method, I’m open for suggestions.
I don’t think that’s quite it, though. More, it is that science does not establish things for which there is no empirical evidence based on the methods it uses. We know that phlogistin probably doesn’t exist because there is no evidence that it does. If such evidence ever was found, science would admit its mistake and be revised. I don’t think science presupposes some kind of grand argumentum ad ignorantiam. =}
