What Does Science Mean to You?

Post Reply New Topic

only if you do not trust your senses that nature gave you and you was born with.

What is your point about all this Kevv?

If you trust your senses you don't need science.

If we did that, we'd still think the sun revolved around the Earth

Just asking what science means to everybody that is all I was doing. Anybody whats to add to Ideal what science means to them then do so then.

Not necessarily, but even if we did, what would it matter? Science and the so called knowledge associated with it have done nothing for the human experience. We bow and grovel at its' alter because without it we have nothing to believe in and no purpose as a species. The fact that it has brought nothing but despair and suffering into the world is inconsequential to the horrendous thought of life without the cranial masturbation that passes for intelligence in our current society......... So meet the new religion same as the old religion.

Right, and you're telling us this over the Internet using a computer. Depending on your timezone you may even have used a lightbulb. Shame on you for supporting science!

Actually, i like science, puters, light, etc. I'm just making an observation. Plus being a hypocrite does not automatically make my statement false.

I think You hit it on the head this is what science is becoming.

Does anybody have anything else to add Science and what it is becoming to Us all and how it affects Us all.

The point of this thread is quickly becoming mute,
whats the point if none wants to listen or trust or believe in SOMETHING that there hearts and minds can chase with a dream at the end, something in the end that is prof enough for the mind and the heart, faith alone is for the foolhardy for nothing is proven, walk off your own cliffs if you like believing something will save you when there is nothing to be seen that can or will.
wallow in Your own hell, I have enough swimming of my own to do, at least I can see land.

aspergian_mutant

Science and the ideals of science affect us all in our lives.

I just want to see what other ideals that have about science that is what is to be debated here.

If it is becoming mute to You why then post anything on it in the end then.

I may have very interesting views on science but that is what make Me, Me in the end.

I just what to know how other people see it, their Ideals and expand on it is that so bad.

sorry, sometimes the many posts and threads tend to blend for me, esp those on the same theme like religion and science.

My understanding of my surroundings is my alpha and omega and i would never call myself a nihilist.


First of all i would like to define science as the systematized study of the surroundings (or everything for that matter).

About morals. Moral is a way to relate to the surroundings, thus the very idea of science comes after the idea of morals, and thus is a part of morality.
This specific part of morality aims to explain everything, some scientificly minded persons would like to claim that some areas goes beyond the domain of science.
I would like to prove them wrong. Morals is different for all cultures and persons yet there is some themes that are general for all cultures and the world.
These themes and their variations is the study of both the fields of antrophology and philosophy and sometimes it is required for further specific studies in other
other humanistic sciences. For example: The banking-establishments of europe was at first held back by the church who thaught that one should not recive more
from ones brother than one had given him to begin with. If you had lend your brother a sack of grain to survive the winter you would be exploiting his missery
if you wanted back two sacks of grain the following winter. This was not the cause when the bankiers lend a sum to an industrialist for the later to
invest. The industrialists wanted bankiers interested in lending them capital and the bankiers naturaly wanted to be alowed to earn interest for their lending
a sum of capital wich they could have invested themselves. These two ideas of morals inevitibly clashed, driven by the economic factors that lead to the
industrialisation of europe. The church naturaly lost the battle because it´s wiev was unsuitable for the new condition. Interest was alowed. One can see the
same type of phenomena in saudi-arabia where the banks do not take interest but fees, the system is almost indistinguishable from the interestsystem but because
of the prophets explicit forbiding of interest they don´t call it interest.
Thus we conclude that the morals of a society is changed if it´s economic system is changed and to a much extent the moral of a society affects the
economic system. (For further readings on this issue i would recomend the book "The Wealth Of Man" by Leo Hubermann).
Furthermore morals is not a static platonic idea but it is dynamic allthough based on certain laws. The study of these laws is so complex that it would require
a merging of the humanistic sciences to do it. This merging i belive is not posible within the boundaries and traditions of the current western (or any) society.
What i am talking about is a total reshaping of how we wiev scienctific study and learning. Science is not built by certain great individuals but it is built
by humanity! To exclude people from the collective learningprocess is contra productive. If we take any person in my class for example. They are all idiots.
Yet i belive that with proper education from childhood any one of these persons could have contributed a great deal to science of today. With proper education
i believe that any group of small children could compliment each others differences and make as big a contribution to science as a Nicholai Tesla or an Albert Einstein
could.

You just put the finger on the big issue. If my bigbrother died i would not grieve over losing connection to some form of astral body or soul. I would grieve over
the loss of a person to talk to, wich i have grew up with. There would be an emptiness in my life. This emptiness would go away if i learnt to know someone else
i could talk to. Not because of the soulconnection being able to reconnect to a different object but because the behaviour in my brother would somewhat replaced
by this person C´s behaviour. The differences betwean persons is more like a pattern than a unique soul created at birth. If you want to be unique; you still are
if we could fully explore a persons mind and create an artificial copy of the same i do not think it would even be desireable. It would be like counting the rocks
on Mount Everest.

I don´t know if i have contributed with something meaningfull to the discusion. I do that some times, go on and on about subjects wich no one cares about . I will return to this subject but now i will play Civ IV (im seriously addicted).


Fun to polemise (is that the english word), about an isue i have dealt with at a more general level for some time, for the first time.
My wiev of the matter is influenced by Robert M. Pirsig´s thaughts presented in
"Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintance" and "Lila, An Inquiry Into Morals".

Sorry how my post looks like, i wrote it in a .txt file.

What does Science Mean to You?
I'll go with definition #1.

How do You truly see Science.
Define truly?

How does Science effect Us all.
The advent of the steam engine and plastics for one... science is how we figure out how to do things.

Does Science explain who, what, how, We truly are as humans.
Define truly. I can hear the bagpipes playing...

Can Science be a Religion.
No. Religion can employ science, and base itself on science, as for instance Deism, Secular Humanism, Unitarianism, and Spiritual Humanism. Saying "Can science be a religion?" is like saying "Can cold be a fruit?" A fruit can be cold, but... no.

Is Science a Religion.
Since it cannot, it is not.

What do You make of Science and Religion and there conflicts.
Well that's religion's fault. See, some religions support science, and other religions oppose science, or seek to replace it. Unfortunately the latter religions are worshipped by the majority of the world today, so we're seeing religion butt its head in places (the state, the classroom, the court, the science textbook) where it shouldn't be.

The trouble is, science isn't religion, but what science does, it does so much better than religion, we can just replace religion with science. So to draw an allegory, since we have a refrigerator, we don't have to salt meat anymore. However, people still like beef jerky, and there are times when dried meat is economically desirable. We can replace religion with science, only in the areas where science does well: explaining the universe, guiding our political and social systems, and predicting the future. We still have religion for feeling good, keeping the masses docile and unprotesting, and asking questions about what we cannot observe.

Can just Science resolve all the We Know and Understand.
Define Know. Define Understand. Yes, science can resolve all that we know and understand, if by knowledge you mean tried an experiment, and if by understand you mean disproved a null hypothesis. If by know you mean feel in your heart, and by understand you mean receive divine grace, then no science doesn't have anything to do with that stuff.

Is Science the only way to Explain it All.
But first, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Don't ask loaded questions, please. I know you'd feel better if you could just get me to claim that I worship the evil god Athea, queen of Science, and hate all Christians. Unfortunately I can't do that. Most Christians I know are nice, if a bit misled and paranoid. You got the Athea part dead on though.