Originally posted by inimalistIsn't the scientific world supposed to be critical of its own worldviews? I fairly see what assumptions could be attained from me simply stating what scientific community does to itself. That is to be cynical of everything and objective to anything and everything other than what is testable.
people critical of "scientific worldviews" rarely understand the scientific method or natural philosophy very well. I don't mean this in an insulting way, just that I was correct in my assumption, go meis the purpose of science to prove what is true? does science know truth? does it get us closer to truth?
what is the purpose of the scientific method?
And no the purpose of Science is not to be used to form a basis of someone's own belief systems. In fact that has led to corruption of true scientific progress such as people believing the world is flat.
No Science has no "purpose" in that sense. Science in and of itself is simply a means in which we use to observe the world to help enrich our understanding of it as is.
And it is pretty much our only reliable, rational way of going about it.
As truth no science is not about finding truth. some would say it is only a mechanism used to help find out what already was happening but lacked the ability to observe before.
Originally posted by Newjak
Isn't the scientific world supposed to be critical of its own worldviews?
absolutely
I was more taking a shot at you being critical of something you don't necessarily understand. I wasn't trying to be mean, its just, science doesn't do a good job with PR.
Originally posted by Newjak
I fairly see what assumptions could be attained from me simply stating what scientific community does to itself. That is to be cynical of everything and objective to anything and everything other than what is testable.
but other than "you have no way of saying it couldn't", there is no better argument to assume anything that cannot be measured now, or at some time in the future, has any effect on the universe.
Originally posted by Newjak
And no the purpose of Science is not to be used to form a basis of someone's own belief systems.
indeed, as science is a methodology for making predictions. Materialism, determinism and other natural philosophies from which science as a method was born and is constantly being shaped, however, can be, and have been rather effective at eliminating human suffering and promoting human understanding.
Originally posted by Newjak
In fact that has led to corruption of true scientific progress such as people believing the world is flat.
science has maybe legitimately existed for 200 years, long after people knew the world wasn't flat...
other than that can you elaborate on what you mean?
Originally posted by Newjak
No Science has no "purpose" in that sense. Science in and of itself is simply a means in which we use to observe the world to help enrich our understanding of it as is.And it is pretty much our only reliable, rational way of going about it.
we agree, though I would point out, science does have a literal purpose.
As we understand it currently, science is about making predictions with certain levels of probable accuracy upon which research programmes (many, complimentary experiments) can be built to form models of how things work.
Originally posted by Newjak
As truth no science is not about finding truth.
indeed. There is no way to ever know if a scientific model represents what actually occurs in the universe, just how accurate it is at describing the results of systemic observation.
Originally posted by Newjak
some would say it is only a mechanism used to help find out what already was happening but lacked the ability to observe before.
i wouldn't though
Originally posted by inimalist
absolutelyI was more taking a shot at you being critical of something you don't necessarily understand. I wasn't trying to be mean, its just, science doesn't do a good job with PR.
What didn't I understand?
Originally posted by inimalist
but other than "you have no way of saying it couldn't", there is no better argument to assume anything that cannot be measured now, or at some time in the future, has any effect on the universe.
Originally posted by inimalistI agree
indeed, as science is a methodology for making predictions. Materialism, determinism and other natural philosophies from which science as a method was born and is constantly being shaped, however, can be, and have been rather effective at eliminating human suffering and promoting human understanding.
Originally posted by inimalist
science has maybe legitimately existed for 200 years, long after people knew the world wasn't flat...other than that can you elaborate on what you mean?
Of course I don't mean just religious views, I mean almost any personal beliefs.
Originally posted by inimalistTrue
we agree, though I would point out, science does have a literal purpose.As we understand it currently, science is about making predictions with certain levels of probable accuracy upon which research programmes (many, complimentary experiments) can be built to form models of how things work.
Originally posted by inimalistI agree
indeed. There is no way to ever know if a scientific model represents what actually occurs in the universe, just how accurate it is at describing the results of systemic observation.
Originally posted by inimalistOk
i wouldn't though
Originally posted by inimalist
but other than "you have no way of saying it couldn't", there is no better argument to assume anything that cannot be measured now, or at some time in the future, has any effect on the universe.you don't have to assume it has an effect but one must and is often documented in Science Research journals the possibilities of exceptions to anything.
From your response to inimalist you clearly don't get it yet. You say first that "one does not have to assume it has an effect" but then go on to say that "one must" and that there are "exceptions to anything." By considering these parts I can only conclude that your position is that because there are exceptions to almost all rules, there must be an exception to this rule. Please tell me that I misunderstood you. Extrapolating Demons out of uncertainty is not the decision you want to make... Is it?
Seems I stirred an unintentional sh*tstorm. Anyway, on with it:
Originally posted by Allankles
That's a bold statement. And you would know the percentage of those things science can explain vs those it can't? I look at science as a means to better our functionality in this universe. Looking at the overwhelming cycle of life and existence as we perceive it, there is much that our science doesn't define.For one: to break down life, its purpose, its nature. The wonder of consciousness itself, outside of the basic bare bones mundane observable processes.
I don't know how broadly you're looking at this. These are things bread-and-butter factual science doesn't explain or can't without addressing larger than life concepts. But meh!
To me Science is the observance of the mundane world, it doesn't address the question "why?".
For me religion has its place in as much as it relates to mortality, morality, clarity of mind and motivation for life. At least as far as Christian doctrine is concerned there's a very strict code that affects the care with which we handle or own lives and a bigger sense how we handle our thought life. Christianity deals with the "why?", it goes beyond social type systems and their needs.
Doesn't refute my point, that it doesn't make a belief in demons rational simply because it doesn't fall within the observable universe. Of course religion tries to answer the "whys" of the world. But if it offers no evidence for the supposed basis of those answers, the answers themselves are arbitrary. Transempirical phenomenon are not testable. But the supposed affects of those forces upon the world (prayers, angels, demons, visions, psychics, ghosts, dousing, precognition, contact with the dead, miracles, etc. etc.) certainly are testable, which includes any popular theistic religion.
I also said that we know a lot and the information we don't know is dwindling. Pointing out that we don't know everything doesn't refute those statements. It just means there are still things to study. And at the risk of sidetracking us, "the overwhelming cycle of life" is neatly explained through evolution. If you disagree, however, take it to an appropriate thread.
Originally posted by Mindship
It may be more accurate to say that some people put aside their rational faculties because they don't know how to use them, ie, they're not versed in critical observation and thinking. Therefore, in building a reality map, it's easier to believe in the absence of empirical evidence.
True, which is a good alternative way of viewing my point.
Originally posted by Newjak
I like to point out the flaw in this statement.The amount we like to think science can explain is large but what science can actually prove is rather small at the moment.
I mean once you get to astrological sciences it's all based on nominal observations mixed with very, very finite data. From there we make many observations based on that. Astronomy itself is based on the Copernican Theory that we must assume that Universe is a on a macro level uniform. Which as science often points out is a very bad way to go into something or draw conclusions from.
We can't "prove" anything, so let's throw that out the door. Now look at what we knew 100 years ago compared to today? Then observe the number of tests that support a belief in the paranormal, which would need to have some quantifiable affect on reality to be perceived by humans. There are none. My point stands.
Originally posted by Newjak
As to what it can not explain dwindling quickly. I'd point out to the old saying for every question answered a thousand more questions are introduced. Which is true because on a daily basis things we think we know are being overturned for new information and data being recorded which in turn raises a hundred more missing pieces to the puzzle we didn't see before.
Thus the beauty of science: it's provisional, not dogmatic.
But sometimes theories stick. The thousand more questions thing is just a cliche phrase. We know a lot more than we once did, with less holes in our knowledge. No one's saying we know everything, but we're always working toward it.
Originally posted by Newjak
And what exactly is the point in this?It isn't like I care if I choose not to engage in a realistic, "rational" look on everything in my life. Neither does it in anyway take away from my ability to be rational, nor should it be held against me.
So again, what is the point of pointing it out?
Well for one, it wasn't directed at you specifically, but was a response to shakya's protests. Taken out of context, it sounds a bit more vitriolic than intended.
I simply pointed out that to believe in something with no discernible evidence for it is rather absurd. Shakya then pointed out that there's societal and evolutionary advantages to certain beliefs, with thus makes them rational to believe in, but for different reasons. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolshow of hands, who thinks science proves things?
lol. Yes yes, of course. I'm likely the culprit here (or one of a few, since I don't think I used that specific phrase), but we don't always have to be so exacting, yes? I think that the vast majority of us are aware that using "science" as an anthropomorphic giver of knowledge is simply shorthand for talking about studies and tests that evaluate, corroborate, and/or refute theories. If I've said anything specific that's objectionable other than this insertion, please let me know. Until then, please allow me to imagine Science as an old man with a flowing white beard.
😉
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
you don't have to assume it has an effect but one must and is often documented in Science Research journals the possibilities of exceptions to anything.
From your response to inimalist you clearly don't get it yet. You say first that "one does not have to assume it has an effect" but then go on to say that "one must" and that there are "exceptions to anything." By considering these parts I can only conclude that your position is that because there are exceptions to almost all rules, there must be an exception to this rule. Please tell me that I misunderstood you. Extrapolating Demons out of uncertainty is not the decision you want to make... Is it? [/QUOTE] I think you misunderstood quite a bit.
I'm saying that yes science won't assume something will have an effect that can not be measured or tested at the moment.
But as with anything holes are bound to exist. The possibilities of abnormal outcomes are known to creep up.
What I said was that most scientific research will in fact document these exceptions even if they can not be tested.
The point being that the Scientific Community is always noting the limits of itself. Just because something can not be tested for doesn't mean that it won't be taken into account.
Or to better clear it up. Scientist don't assume that these untestable things undermine the current doctrine at the moment, but that doesn't mean the cases themselves aren't hidden. It's like a computer program. As long as everything goes according to plan everything is fine but we still want to be able to account for the possibility of exceptions.... just in case.
The comment itself had nothing to do with Demons only with inimalist's particular comment about how nothing that can not be tested or measured has an effect on the Universe.
can any explain the covers on the bed moving on its own?
first three min. of ghost hunters evidence
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
can any explain the covers on the bed moving on its own?
A light breeze.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
hmm...... with his grotch is that what u are saying?
We call it a leg where I come from.
The only one that impresses me is the man who appears out of no where. Though, that's probably just a person who has used his mind to exploit the fault lines of reality in order to travel instantly through space and time.
See, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i sometimes thing it could be temporal displacement that we happen to see through thin layers of reality...
Really? I usually blame it on grainy black and white viedography. You'll notice that no one has ever produced images of the paranormal in full color with highdef equipment.