Science is a metaphysical party pooper.

Post Reply New Topic

The tools of peace? Are they technological or human?

Well, ok. But scientific theories and religious dogmas usually do not refer to the same phenomena. I still pointed out 3 things, that science is a human endeavor, that it is limited in the concerns it bothers to study, and that the scientific methodology is dependent upon assumption that most pro-science people do not critically examine. This isn't to say that I do not know the scientific method or that you do not, but rather seeing some of the more "pro-science" crowd performing sloppy acts of reductionism makes me question their empiricism, or at least the lines they draw upon it, and some aspects of the views makes me have serious question. In any case, individual scientists often do not change their minds about the theories they worked very hard for, often the deaths of the old guard allows for ideas to change. Religions in any case, will often change somewhat in response to facts, but the set of facts viewed as more important can be different, and the assumptions governing some of these facts can be different.

The results of religion have been many, from war to comfort. Obviously people find a use for religion though.

One of the happier aspects of science is that it is more about questions than answers. If anyone can posit an objection to any theory and back it up with credible, reproducible empirical evidence he will be heard sooner or later. Sometimes later, but more often sooner.

The real split between science and religion is the methodology and the mindset. Science is rooted in empiricism and experience. Religion is rooted in faith and superstition. On balance religion has been a bane and a plague on Mankind. There have been many religious wars fought but no science wars. That is because scientific differences can be settled by experiment (in fact or in principle). Religious conflicts cannot be so resolved.

Religion should be kept in the private domain and never be publicly institutionalized and organized. If someone wants to shut himself in a closet and pray to his Father, Mother, Uncle or Aunt in Heaven no one should interfere.

ruveyn

There have been times, within these conversations, when rather peculiar ideas sprout, like contorted intellectual toadstools, sparking up strange fantasies. Quite a few science fiction stories involve non-human technologies but they have yet to make their appearance in reality. Perhaps, in the near future, when robots are developed that can conceive and execute new technologies this will happen but for now, all technologies are quite human and were created through very human efforts and their use and misuse are also very human.

How did you know I pray in a closet?

Well, that has some truth to it. However, I would argue that objections are not always so happily dealt with, as I already argued, it is somewhat known that science often changes with the deaths of the theorists who made their backs on the old theories.


Empiricism and experience are basically synonyms, and religion can often claim the same basis, as it claims the experience of a spiritual force to justify itself in many many cases. The real split between religion and science is the area in which they address the world. On balance, I do not know how we can do a calculation, as some of the people who died in those wars certainly chose their faith. Not only that, but the subject of science has no wars because it has no relation to anything that people care about. There have been long-standing political problems over economic theories, with economics as a social science though, and this whole matter involved millions of deaths.

Where do you derive an "ought" from? The entire derivation of morality that you are reliant upon is not one that science can ever talk about, because science never speaks of "oughts".

Karl Popper coined the expression 'falisifiability' to descibe a significant characteristic of most valid scientific theories. But 'scientific' and 'universally good' are not interchangeable phrases - If I suspect someone is angry, I may never be able to falsify my theory, but it would be better for all concerned if I draw conclusions sooner rather than later, and act upon these conclusions based on remembered evidence. Falsifiability in itself doesn't tell us whether an idea is useful or dangerous, and one can argue that certain religious ideas from tribal or oriental religions (outside the abrahamic family) are empirically or otherwise falsifiable, since many such religions rely on experience rather than the faith you describe. Falsifiability is a mark of good science; nothing else.



I prefer to think of science as a religious activity (lol) that provides some true answers. Faith-based religions defend their dogma with authority; science defends its theories with the demand that all objections must be falsifiable and empirically reproducible, and sometimes also with claims of proof {What respectable scientist would question Evolution by Natural Selection? } The connection is that both science and religion are human activities which claim to provide true answers.

By the way, Sand, you misinterpreted Slowmutant in your last post:



I think he meant to ask if 'tools of peace' have their reality within the mind-brain rather than outside it-?? I don't know of any tools of peace that resemble tools of war in terms of advanced technology, so I think he might be onto something

Science is astounded by metaphysics.

I think sociologist Emile Durkheim argued that the scientific drive came from some of the same mechanisms that our religious instincts came from.

Interesting. Can you elaborate?

Basically, it is because science is a theory of categorization(logic) which is what he takes religions to be, and it is because science is authoritative which entails faith. Durkheim didn't believe in logic the same way a lot of us see it, as he saw logic as socially created rather than inherent, as he saw the categories our logic uses to be social concepts. Essentially in Durkheim's view just about everything social was rooted in some totemic concept of something moral and beyond man.

Science, the religion of the universe

Science is not any kind of religion. Why? Because it is empirical to the bone.

ruveyn

sweet sweet cake

Could it be that the entire universe thinks & perceives as human beings do? What's to say our science is representative of anything but our science?

the problem with philosophers is that most of the really great ones were/are alcoholics anyone ever heard the Philosopher's Beer Drinking Song?


**i can't get the youtube link to work so here's the url

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dJNZNwxEzE4