NationStates Jolt Archive

Clicky (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html)

This is an article written by Eric Cornell, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2001. The article makes a few good points. One is that they shouldn't teach religion and science together, and the other is that people need to quit giving others such a hard time about their beliefs if they do believe in intelligent design.


In other words, quit yer bitchin', all of you.

Thank you for your time,

Crabs

well, contrary to the article's stated position, justifying observations about the natural world with "Because ___________ is God's will" IS unscientific, and i would even go as far as to say it is the epitome of an unscientific argument. The ultimate aim of science is to record observations, and to manufacture controlled instances for observation so as to make more and more accurate predictions of the outcomes of future circumstances. While the God argument may be a valid belief in the minds of some, and while religion certainly has a wonderful place in ethical training, "Will of God" arguments and justifications provide no predictions about the future, and should not be entertained in the same theater of postulation as scientific arguments and theories.

What do you mean by contrary?

The article states clearly that "intelligent design brings nothing to science"

Clicky (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html)

This is an article written by Eric Cornell, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2001. The article makes a few good points. One is that they shouldn't teach religion and science together, and the other is that people need to quit giving others such a hard time about their beliefs if they do believe in intelligent design.
My ex ( who is a fundamentalist, radical right-wing, Protestant ) and I both read this article and ( SURPRISE! ) we both agree with it! :D

god are teh ultimate shiz of desiging


*runs*

Well, I for one am really tired of both the religious and the scientific extremists. Why can't people just accept the fact that Science and Religion complement each other? The truth is, science is how we understand the world, but there are questions science can't tackle, like why we are here. Science is the tool we use to stay alive in the world, religion is what we stay alive for.

Bravo, Habardia.

Bravo, Habardia.
Thanks.:)

Well, I for one am really tired of both the religious and the scientific extremists. Why can't people just accept the fact that Science and Religion complement each other? The truth is, science is how we understand the world, but there are questions science can't tackle, like why we are here. Science is the tool we use to stay alive in the world, religion is what we stay alive for.

Mostly because the Religious extremists want to force their views to be taught in public schools.

Mostly because the Religious extremists want to force their views to be taught in public schools.
It goes both ways. Religious fanatics want to bring their beliefs into the classroom. Science fanatics want to "enlighten" people to the "falsehood" of religion. Im against both extremes.

As long as religion doesn't require results to be discarded or doctored, I don't see any reason why scientists can't be religious. Whether their beliefs are right doesn't really matter. Freedom of thought requires the freedom to be mistaken.

As long as religion doesn't require results to be discarded or doctored, I don't see any reason why scientists can't be religious. Whether their beliefs are right doesn't really matter. Freedom of thought requires the freedom to be mistaken.
Mistaken? Your bias shows, I'm afraid. But in a way I agree with you. To use a scientific phrase- absence of proof does not mean non-existence. Just because you cannot prove religious beliefs scientifically does not mean they are not true. It only means those questions are unanswerable by science. And on the other side, I really do not see how religiousness would conflict with believing in science too, at least in my experience.

It goes both ways. Religious fanatics want to bring their beliefs into the classroom. Science fanatics want to "enlighten" people to the "falsehood" of religion. Im against both extremes.

I haven't seen any of those Science fanatics in any classroom I've been in or in the news so could you point some cases of these fanatics trying to force their views on others?

Mistaken? Your bias shows, I'm afraid. But in a way I agree with you. To use a scientific phrase- absence of proof does not mean non-existence. Just because you cannot prove religious beliefs scientifically does not mean they are not true. It only means those questions are unanswerable by science. And on the other side, I really do not see how religiousness would conflict with believing in science too, at least in my experience.

Bias? Opinion, certainly, but I don't know if it would count as bias.

I haven't seen any of those Science fanatics in any classroom I've been in or in the news so could you point some cases of these fanatics trying to force their views on others?
Its more subtle than that. The science fanatics don't push their ideas like the religious ones do. They do it by dismissing religion as superstition and putting down people with faith as ignorant. Trust me, there are plenty of those in the universities. I could find some literature to exemplify this, and I will post links to it as soon as I have the time.

Bias? Opinion, certainly, but I don't know if it would count as bias.
Maybe your post gave me a stronger idea than you intended. If that is what happened I'm sorry. But I sensed a bias because of the statement about the "right to be mistaken", which to me suggested that youy think all people with religious beliefs are mistaken, and you just tolerate them out of your more "enlightened" perspective. But then again, I could have read too much into it.

Its more subtle than that. The science fanatics don't push their ideas like the religious ones do. They do it by dismissing religion as superstition and putting down people with faith as ignorant. Trust me, there are plenty of those in the universities. I could find some literature to exemplify this, and I will post links to it as soon as I have the time.

Well then thats not forcing view rather just stating them. I've got no problem with people stating their views but when you try to force them then we've got a problem. And also unless you've witnessed those science fanatics do so in "plenty of universities" your just speculating rather then showing any proof.

Maybe your post gave me a stronger idea than you intended. If that is what happened I'm sorry. But I sensed a bias because of the statement about the "right to be mistaken", which to me suggested that youy think all people with religious beliefs are mistaken, and you just tolerate them out of your more "enlightened" perspective. But then again, I could have read too much into it.

My post wasn't intended to keep my opinion secret, but obviously someone has to be mistaken, unless everyone has the same opinion. You may think I'm the one who is mistaken. I would think otherwise. What matters is that we have the freedom to think these things.

Well I could go on and on about how I feel about extremists. But I created a simple topic about it a while ago.

Hang on, let me see if I can find it.

Well I could go on and on about how I feel about extremists. But I created a simple topic about it a while ago.

Hang on, let me see if I can find it.
And here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441293) it is.

Well then thats not forcing view rather just stating them. I've got no problem with people stating their views but when you try to force them then we've got a problem. And also unless you've witnessed those science fanatics do so in "plenty of universities" your just speculating rather then showing any proof.
I have actually been in quite a few universities, so I guarantee you it is not hearsay or supposition. And about it not being forcing your view, would you argue the same if I told you a grade can depend on you denying your beliefs in favour of the professeur's? Again, as soon as I get the chance I'll post links to literature.

Oh please. i'm hardly a scientific extremist. i'm a buddhist, i'll have you know. All i was saying is that the idea of a creation myth has no place being compared as an equally viable premise for the origin of the universe. i've never said that there's no use to religion, i've never said religion is falsehood, i've said that religion has no place in the role that science plays in the world, which is to describe the natural world as we see it, and make predictions on events in the future. If we were all robots, perhaps we wouldn't need religion; it's true. But as mortal creatures with fears and shortcomings, religion needs to be firmly in place to give answers to questions of morality and ethics.

Oh please. i'm hardly a scientific extremist. i'm a buddhist, i'll have you know. All i was saying is that the idea of a creation myth has no place being compared as an equally viable premise for the origin of the universe. i've never said that there's no use to religion, i've never said religion is falsehood, i've said that religion has no place in the role that science plays in the world, which is to describe the natural world as we see it, and make predictions on events in the future. If we were all robots, perhaps we wouldn't need religion; it's true. But as mortal creatures with fears and shortcomings, religion needs to be firmly in place to give answers to questions of morality and ethics.
I dont know if this is a reply to one of my posts, but if it is, then I have to ask, why are we disagreeing? Ths is exactly my view.

I have actually been in quite a few universities, so I guarantee you it is not hearsay or supposition. And about it not being forcing your view, would you argue the same if I told you a grade can depend on you denying your beliefs in favour of the professeur's?

A person forcing their views on an individual in question has long been a weak argument for denying consideration to a contrary view. The position of "Well, you can believe whatever your want, as long as you don't expect me to" smacks of pejorative dialogue, and anyone who can't see that would do well to take an introductory ethics class, or even an acting class.
i don't understand how people can be so adverse to the actions of people who bear them nothing but good will.

My post wasn't intended to keep my opinion secret, but obviously someone has to be mistaken, unless everyone has the same opinion. You may think I'm the one who is mistaken. I would think otherwise. What matters is that we have the freedom to think these things.
I could ramble on about why I disagree with this, but I'll condense it to the following----no one needs to be wrong for no one to be fully right...

I dont know if this is a reply to one of my posts, but if it is, then I have to ask, why are we disagreeing? Ths is exactly my view.

i apologize, this was meant to be a reply to the author of the thread referring to extremists.

I could ramble on about why I disagree with this, but I'll condense it to the following----no one needs to be wrong for no one to be fully right...

Please no equivocation. You were doing so well...

A person forcing their views on an individual in question has long been a weak argument for denying consideration to a contrary view. The position of "Well, you can believe whatever your want, as long as you don't expect me to" smacks of pejorative dialogue, and anyone who can't see that would do well to take an introductory ethics class, or even an acting class.
i don't understand how people can be so adverse to the actions of people who bear them nothing but good will.
Good will can always be misplaced. And a professeur teaching his students of how "superstitious" and "ignorant" religion is, well, I would call that extremely harmful.

I have actually been in quite a few universities, so I guarantee you it is not hearsay or supposition. And about it not being forcing your view, would you argue the same if I told you a grade can depend on you denying your beliefs in favour of the professeur's? Again, as soon as I get the chance I'll post links to literature.

In the example you've just presented that would be forcing ones views. Its either espouse my views or fail is different from a science professor stating their belief in science over religion. Though there are a great many science professors who are religious or see no problem with religion. You can not say that there is any sort of scientific fanaticism to the extent of religious extremists and you can't say that people who favor science over religion try to force their views more then religious people. How many cases are there of a professor making kids deny their views to pass?

Good will can always be misplaced. And a professeur teaching his students of how "superstitious" and "ignorant" religion is, well, I would call that extremely harmful.

Any scientist who would regard anything he cannot concretely disprove as superstition can have no scientific basis for doing so, we agree. But to deny that viable solutions exist to questions in the world that religion fails to answer as satisfactorily as observation and subsequent prediction is fairly termed ignorance. If we truly do agree that ethics and morality are the purvey of reformed science, we should also agree that ethics and morality may safely be relegated to the critics of pure science. Scientists do their work exclusively on ethical and moral grounds.

Clicky (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html)

This is an article written by Eric Cornell, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2001. The article makes a few good points. One is that they shouldn't teach religion and science together, and the other is that people need to quit giving others such a hard time about their beliefs if they do believe in intelligent design.


In other words, quit yer bitchin', all of you.

Thank you for your time,

Crabs

I don't see what's wrong with it. Of course in public schools and stuff, religion shouldn't be taught w/ science, but in other schools, what's wrong? If you want to, just end it with "....But God started blah, blah, blah, ect., ect."

I don't see what's wrong with it. Of course in public schools and stuff, religion shouldn't be taught w/ science, but in other schools, what's wrong? If you want to, just end it with "....But God started blah, blah, blah, ect., ect."

That sounds like a weak mitigation of two topics that might cause "unnecessary fuss" otherwise.
If i want someone to tell me i have to share the backseat with someone no matter how immature they're being, i'll regress a decade or two and go on a car trip with my family.

Clicky[/URL]
One is that they shouldn't teach religion and science together,

Crabs


I could have told you a that:D

Oh please. i'm hardly a scientific extremist. i'm a buddhist, i'll have you know. All i was saying is that the idea of a creation myth has no place being compared as an equally viable premise for the origin of the universe. i've never said that there's no use to religion, i've never said religion is falsehood, i've said that religion has no place in the role that science plays in the world, which is to describe the natural world as we see it, and make predictions on events in the future. If we were all robots, perhaps we wouldn't need religion; it's true. But as mortal creatures with fears and shortcomings, religion needs to be firmly in place to give answers to questions of morality and ethics.
I never implied that you were an extremist. But there is one thing that you have to understand about creation myths. They are an attempt to give meaning and understanding of the basic fundamentals of why we are here and what our relationship is with the divine and what our relationship is with nature and each other. It's more than just stating how the world came into being. It's the fundamental system which shaped their culture.

Any scientist who would regard anything he cannot concretely disprove as superstition can have no scientific basis for doing so, we agree. But to deny that viable solutions exist to questions in the world that religion fails to answer as satisfactorily as observation and subsequent prediction is fairly termed ignorance. If we truly do agree that ethics and morality are the purvey of reformed science, we should also agree that ethics and morality may safely be relegated to the critics of pure science. Scientists do their work exclusively on ethical and moral grounds.
Agreed. But a scientist who can't recognise there are questions to which the scientific method doesnt apply is also flawed.

In the example you've just presented that would be forcing ones views. Its either espouse my views or fail is different from a science professor stating their belief in science over religion. Though there are a great many science professors who are religious or see no problem with religion. You can not say that there is any sort of scientific fanaticism to the extent of religious extremists and you can't say that people who favor science over religion try to force their views more then religious people. How many cases are there of a professor making kids deny their views to pass?
And I never claimed this was the majority of scientists. But the extremist side is also not the majority among religious people.

Science fanatics want to "enlighten" people to the "falsehood" of religion.

That not true, the tell People what the have learned from real science, and if that goes aginast your relgion well then... But Sciencetist are not doing this just to be Anit-Religion. While intelligent design is just a plan to get around a seperate ''Church and State''

Agreed. But a scientist who can't recognise there are questions to which the scientific method doesnt apply is also flawed.


Wait, what's wrong with a scientist dismissing a question to which the scientific method doesn't apply? You'd hardly call a priest underqualified if he refused to explain the role of phosphofructokinase in metabolism during a sermon.

Wait, what's wrong with a scientist dismissing a question to which the scientific method doesn't apply? You'd hardly call a priest underqualified if he refused to explain the role of phosphofructokinase in metabolism during a sermon.
Nothing. The problem is when he doesn't dismiss the question, rather sweeps it under the rug as if it didn't exist.

There are a few people who have to be fairly careful in their views on things here. Science is literaly translated as knowledge, if based on scientific approach/method (As there is valid science behind all debated origin arguments just as there is conjecture or moral information) all THEORIES should therefore have a right to be taught and none being more likely than another, this is often presented well in physics, but not in biological training.
Religion is no longer "the establishment" or the enemy of science as it has been in the past e.g. institutional church vs gallileo and copernicus etc.
"Science" is now its own greatest opposition. The institutionalised "religion" of today in the west is now a well established humanistic mindset based on freudian, marxist and darwinian doctrines. There are wide ranging cases where this institution has rejected hardcopy evidence when it does not line up with the application of the above doctrines, just as the church once did in years past.
Care must be taken though to not reject these mens theories out of traditional conservative moral objection. All three stated philosophers expoused ideas of grand revolutionary truth mixed with that not so provable or out rightly wrong. i.e. Natural selection is biological fact it has been observed to occur outside of darwins writings over the course of time, however the extrapolation of that idea, or biological law to the farthest extent of say a bacterium eventually becoming a tiger or a human is unprovable, can never be and will never be observed, or made subject to the scientific method.
Ballance and truth must be sought in these things, not extremism and emotion.

P.S. i am a student of medical biology also a born again christian in case any were wondering

There are a few people who have to be fairly careful in their views on things here. Science is literaly translated as knowledge, if based on scientific approach/method (As there is valid science behind all debated origin arguments just as there is conjecture or moral information) all THEORIES should therefore have a right to be taught and none being more likely than another, this is often presented well in physics, but not in biological training.
Religion is no longer the establishment of the enemy of science as it has been in the past e.g. institutional church vs gallileo and copernicus etc.
"Science" is now its own greatest opposition. The institutionalised "religion" of today in the west is now a well established humanistic mindset based on freudian, marxist and darwinian doctrines. There are wide ranging cases where this institution has rejected hardcopy evidence when it does not line up with the application of the above doctrines, just as the church once did in years past.
Care must be taken though to not reject these mens theories out of traditional conservative moral objection. All three stated philosophers expoused ideas of grand revolutionary truth mixed with that not so provable or out rightly wrong. i.e. Natural selection is biological fact it has been observed to occur outside of darwins writings over the course of time, however the extrapolation of that idea, or biological law to the farthest extent of say a bacterium eventually becoming a tiger or a human is unprovable, can never be and will never be observed, or made subject to the scientific method.
Ballance and truth must be sought in these things, not extremism and emotion.

P.S. i am a student of medical biology also a born again christian in case any were wondering
Tear. Applause.

interigent disign
From now on, that is exactly what I'm calling it.

If we do manage to convince many people of the falsehood of religion think of the freedom that would bring. Observe folks there is no prison bars here it was just an illusion feel free to move around more freely not that you know those original bounds where only an illusion.

There are a few people who have to be fairly careful in their views on things here. Science is literaly translated as knowledge, if based on scientific approach/method (As there is valid science behind all debated origin arguments just as there is conjecture or moral information) all THEORIES should therefore have a right to be taught and none being more likely than another, this is often presented well in physics, but not in biological training.
Religion is no longer "the establishment" or the enemy of science as it has been in the past e.g. institutional church vs gallileo and copernicus etc.
"Science" is now its own greatest opposition. The institutionalised "religion" of today in the west is now a well established humanistic mindset based on freudian, marxist and darwinian doctrines. There are wide ranging cases where this institution has rejected hardcopy evidence when it does not line up with the application of the above doctrines, just as the church once did in years past.
Care must be taken though to not reject these mens theories out of traditional conservative moral objection. All three stated philosophers expoused ideas of grand revolutionary truth mixed with that not so provable or out rightly wrong. i.e. Natural selection is biological fact it has been observed to occur outside of darwins writings over the course of time, however the extrapolation of that idea, or biological law to the farthest extent of say a bacterium eventually becoming a tiger or a human is unprovable, can never be and will never be observed, or made subject to the scientific method.
Ballance and truth must be sought in these things, not extremism and emotion.

P.S. i am a student of medical biology also a born again christian in case any were wondering

This sounds distressingly typical of most arguments put forth by those who are inadequately informed about a subject, but who know enough to sound reasonably knowledgeable to those equally or less informed. It's not unusual among pseudo-intellectuals, or among the mentally ill, for that matter. It's not usually like me to make an ad hominem argument, but there are times when it's appropriate.

Nothing. The problem is when he doesn't dismiss the question, rather sweeps it under the rug as if it didn't exist.

What you're talking about sounds just like a dismissal to me. If it's not, please clarify.

If we do manage to convince many people of the falsehood of religion think of the freedom that would bring. Observe folks there is no prison bars here it was just an illusion feel free to move around more freely not that you know those original bounds where only an illusion.
Wow. So sad. This is exactly what I meant when I was talking about the scientific extremists.

From now on, that is exactly what I'm calling it.
:eek: :headbang: :headbang:

Opps not one of the smartest thing i have ever said:D

Wow. So sad. This is exactly what I meant when I was talking about the scientific extremists.

Yes, and this sort of elitist criticism wherein all substance of argument and refutal is merely replaced with egotism and biased language is exactly what turns people off to debate in the first place, but you're right. HE's the problem.

What you're talking about sounds just like a dismissal to me. If it's not, please clarify.
I can see where the confusion would be, so I'll elaborate. To dismiss entails recognising they have no real knowledge or capacity to answer the question then moving on to matters they can knowledgeably discuss. What I was talking about means when a scientist, e.g. is asked about the meaning of life, and instead of admitting science can not tackle this question condemns the question as superstition or the asker as ignorant. I realise the question used for the example is not realy good, but its the only one that comes to mind right now.

I can see where the confusion would be, so I'll elaborate. To dismiss entails recognising they have no real knowledge or capacity to answer the question then moving on to matters they can knowledgeably discuss. What I was talking about means when a scientist, e.g. is asked about the meaning of life, and instead of admitting science can not tackle this question condemns the question as superstition or the asker as ignorant. I realise the question used for the example is not realy good, but its the only one that comes to mind right now.

In my view, interpersonal questions and the like are not the business of science. Saying that "Science cannot tackle these questions" is giving science less credit than it is due. You might as well say "Well, there are some questions my toolbox cannot answer. It's not the business of science to speculate as to matters that are wholly of human invention. Science concerns itself with the natural world, in which humans are only one very small factor. The egotism inherent in most of the anthropic arguments presented as classroom alternatives to scientific method is one of the most distressing factors of all.

In my view, interpersonal questions and the like are not the business of science. Saying that "Science cannot tackle these questions" is giving science less credit than it is due. You might as well say "Well, there are some questions my toolbox cannot answer. It's not the business of science to speculate as to matters that are wholly of human invention. Science concerns itself with the natural world, in which humans are only one very small factor. The egotism inherent in most of the anthropic arguments presented as classroom alternatives to scientific method is one of the most distressing factors of all.
Science itself is of human invention.

Science itself is of human invention.

Clever wordplay, but science does not study itself either. That sort of recursion of study was taken care of by the mathemetician Kurt Godel.

Clever wordplay, but science does not study itself either. That sort of recursion of study was taken care of by the mathemetician Kurt Godel.
It is not just wordplay, its a statement. When you show me a non-human doing science, then I'll stop making anthropocentric claims. Science was made by humans, therefore can only provide the human perspective of things.

I can see where the confusion would be, so I'll elaborate. To dismiss entails recognising they have no real knowledge or capacity to answer the question then moving on to matters they can knowledgeably discuss. What I was talking about means when a scientist, e.g. is asked about the meaning of life, and instead of admitting science can not tackle this question condemns the question as superstition or the asker as ignorant. I realise the question used for the example is not realy good, but its the only one that comes to mind right now.

Science has never made any claims about the meaning of life. Science only pertains to the study of the natural world. Of the professors of science I have met none of them have condemned anyone who's asked that as supersticious or ignorant rather they say science does not seek an answer to that question.

Science has never made any claims about the meaning of life. Science only pertains to the study of the natural world. Of the professors of science I have met none of them have condemned anyone who's asked that as supersticious or ignorant rather they say science does not seek an answer to that question.
Did you read the last part of my post??

I realise the question used for the example is not realy good, but its the only one that comes to mind right now.

Did you read the last part of my post??

I did and even though you said its not the best question you could come up with you still used it and thereby allowed me to respond on it. If you didn't want a reply based on that question don't use it.

I did and even though you said its not the best question you could come up with you still used it and thereby allowed me to respond on it. If you didn't want a reply based on that question don't use it.
Well then, lets edit....

I can see where the confusion would be, so I'll elaborate. To dismiss entails recognising they have no real knowledge or capacity to answer the question then moving on to matters they can knowledgeably discuss. What I was talking about means when a scientist, e.g. is asked about insert question here, and instead of admitting science can not tackle this question condemns the question as superstition or the asker as ignorant. I realise the question used for the example is not realy good, but its the only one that comes to mind right now.

Alright then.

Science was made by humans, therefore can only provide the human perspective of things.

Nonsense. The entire aim of science is to provide objective answers to questions posed about causality in the natural world.
If you're looking for a discipline that will give you human-generated answers to human-generated questions as seen through a human-generated filter, the first that comes to mind is to turn back to religion.

Nonsense. The entire aim of science is to provide objective answers to questions posed about causality in the natural world.
If you're looking for a discipline that will give you human-generated answers to human-generated questions as seen through a human-generated filter, the first that comes to mind is to turn back to religion.
Or science. Have you ever been anything but human? Then how can you presume to have a non-human perspective of things? To me, that is egotistic.

Or science. Have you ever been anything but human? Then how can you presume to have a non-human perspective of things? To me, that is egotistic.

So it's egotism to trust my eyes because i have nothing else to see with?
If it's futility you're aiming at, fire away, but you're not justifying anything.

This sounds distressingly typical of most arguments put forth by those who are inadequately informed about a subject, but who know enough to sound reasonably knowledgeable to those equally or less informed. It's not unusual among pseudo-intellectuals, or among the mentally ill, for that matter. It's not usually like me to make an ad hominem argument, but there are times when it's appropriate.



Please explain because obviously i have missed something here, where am i ill informed in the argument, or perhaps you have read something into my post that really isn't there

So it's egotism to trust my eyes because i have nothing else to see with?
If it's futility you're aiming at, fire away, but you're not justifying anything.
Its egotism to think your human eyes are capable of understanding anything from a non-human perspective.

Or science. Have you ever been anything but human? Then how can you presume to have a non-human perspective of things? To me, that is egotistic.
Science isn't intended to be species-dependent. Of course, it might be. In the realms of philosophy, anything might be. That's the point of philosophy as a whole. We might not exist either, or your rants might simply be my imagination.

But if we discard our imaginings, there's no reason to assume the scientific method relies on a particular species or even a particular form of intelligence. It's just a fact-finding & problem-solving method. Much like math is it.

I don't know why you'd assume humanity have anything to do with what we observe about the universe. I can see why being human affects the manner in which we observe it, but I have a hard time imagening how being human - or an alien - has any impact on the results of our observations.

Please explain because obviously i have missed something here, where am i ill informed in the argument, or perhaps you have read something into my post that really isn't there

The tone and content of the post you made seemed contrived and sophomoric. It was heavy on jargon and seemingly reasonable statements that actually meant very little, and it presented a lack of understanding in key principles of scientific study.

Science isn't intended to be species-dependent. Of course, it might be. In the realms of philosophy, anything might be. That's the point of philosophy as a whole. We might not exist either, or your rants might simply be my imagination.

But if we discard our imaginings, there's no reason to assume the scientific method relies on a particular species or even a particular form of intelligence. It's just a fact-finding & problem-solving method. Much like math is it.

I don't know why you'd assume humanity have anything to do with what we observe about the universe. I can see why being human affects the manner in which we observe it, but I have a hard time imagening how being human - or an alien - has any impact on the results of our observations.

~Applause~

Science isn't intended to be species-dependent. Of course, it might be. In the realms of philosophy, anything might be. That's the point of philosophy as a whole. We might not exist either, or your rants might simply be my imagination.

But if we discard our imaginings, there's no reason to assume the scientific method relies on a particular species or even a particular form of intelligence. It's just a fact-finding & problem-solving method. Much like math is it.

I don't know why you'd assume humanity have anything to do with what we observe about the universe. I can see why being human affects the manner in which we observe it, but I have a hard time imagening how being human - or an alien - has any impact on the results of our observations.
And therein lies my argument. The fact that we can't even imagine what it is like to perceive the world as anything but human. In fact, the scientific method is not just anthropocentric, but ethnocentric. It relies not only on the way humans view the world, but also on the way western culture views the world. The type of linear thinking (e.g. a+b=c) that characterises science is at home in the west, yet not in the circular thinking native peoples of america. If the same form of cognitive thinking can't be found even within the human race, how can we expect it to trascend species lines?

And therein lies my argument. The fact that we can't even imagine what it is like to perceive the world as anything but human. In fact, the scientific method is not just anthropocentric, but ethnocentric. It relies not only on the way humans view the world, but also on the way western culture views the world. The type of linear thinking (e.g. a+b=c) that characterises science is at home in the west, yet not in the circular thinking native peoples of america. If the same form of cognitive thinking can't be found even within the human race, how can we expect it to trascend species lines?

Well, if you aren't persuaded by the last post, i'll aim for the RAA. If it is, as you say, impossible to communicate any of the ideas or observations in say, mathematics, science and the like outside of the species, what sort of things fall into your category of things that can be?
Further, since we haven't had much luck with scentient dialogue outside of the species, what makes science and math and other studies bound by their own limitations of observation fail to be useful? i think you'll agree that although it's impossible to prove that 1+1=2 outside of a mathematical context, it is still an extremely useful one.

The tone and content of the post you made seemed contrived and sophomoric. It was heavy on jargon and seemingly reasonable statements that actually meant very little, and it presented a lack of understanding in key principles of scientific study.


Im sorry if it wasn't to your liking. It was only to bring ballance to an arena which often is dealt with in beautiful shades of black and white. Especially an issue where mistakes are routeinly made by both parties involved.
As to scientific understanding im sorry if i dont subscribe to the media based hype and use of "science" to officiate things in the minds of those with lesser understanding.
I am one of these "scientists" and utilise and learn scientific principals every day, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life it is my job, so dont jump to conclusions off of one post

Im sorry if it wasn't to your liking. It was only to bring ballance to an arena which often is dealt with in beautiful shades of black and white. Especially an issue where mistakes are routeinly made by both parties involved.
As to scientific understanding im sorry if i dont subscribe to the media based hype and use of "science" to officiate things in the minds of those with lesser understanding.
I am one of these "scientists" and utilise and learn scientific principals every day, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life it is my job, so dont jump to conclusions off of one post

Well then.
Any doubts i had regarding the veracity of my contention have been utterly dispelled.

Well, if you aren't persuaded by the last post, i'll aim for the RAA. If it is, as you say, impossible to communicate any of the ideas or observations in say, mathematics, science and the like outside of the species, what sort of things fall into your category of things that can be?
Further, since we haven't had much luck with scentient dialogue outside of the species, what makes science and math and other studies bound by their own limitations of observation fail to be useful? i think you'll agree that although it's impossible to prove that 1+1=2 outside of a mathematical context, it is still an extremely useful one.
Now, I never said they weren't useful. I am a great follower of science. But I do claim that nothing, absolutely nothing can be translated between species, except perhaps for the basic feelings of hunger, fear, etc, and even those might not be experienced in the same way by other beings.

Now, I never said they weren't useful. I am a great follower of science. But I do claim that nothing, absolutely nothing can be translated between species, except perhaps for the basic feelings of hunger, fear, etc, and even those might not be experienced in the same way by other beings.

Wait. That makes even less sense. Hunger and fear are as utterly objective concepts as can be put forward. If you really believe that because all observations about the world in which we live are inherently flawed because of the manner in which they are collected, then why bother with anything? If subjective understanding of every circumstance is the only context in which ideas can be entertained, why collect information at all?
Secondly, where's your counterargument? If you're going to contend that nothing can be translated across a species line, what sentient species have you failed to translate your conjectures to? If you really can't translate anything, then how do you KNOW you failed to do so? How could you confirm that your subject truly hadn't understood if it was impossible to understand what they grasped or didn't grasp?

And therein lies my argument. The fact that we can't even imagine what it is like to perceive the world as anything but human. In fact, the scientific method is not just anthropocentric, but ethnocentric. It relies not only on the way humans view the world, but also on the way western culture views the world. The type of linear thinking (e.g. a+b=c) that characterises science is at home in the west, yet not in the circular thinking native peoples of america. If the same form of cognitive thinking can't be found even within the human race, how can we expect it to trascend species lines?
You seem to assume an observation - a fact - is dependent on the mindset of the individual that knows this fact. How so?

If a Native American takes 2 sticks from the ground, and adds it to his existing collection, will he not have 4 sticks? Will an eskimo, an arab, an anglo-saxan not have the same?

See the interpretation of something may well depend on the observer, but the result of an observation doesn't. If a Native American drops something, it falls to the ground. Same thing happens if a tree or a bird do it. It's got nothing to do with the species. 4 birds sitting on a row might not be aware they are 4, but they are none the less. It doesn't depend on their intellect.

Of course the hypothesies we propose are closely tied to our preconcieved notions, but that's why we have science. So our preconceptions don't end up giving us false impressions about the universe we inhabit.

Do you think some bloke just sat down one day & thought "Wow, evolution mate! Now that's a spiffy idea!"? That's not what happened. It was a painstakingly slow process of observation upon observation, that made absolutely no sense, untill a random guy suddenly realised a pattern.
Same thing with gravity & pretty much any knowledge you posess & take for granted.

Also, things doesn't need humans to work. A branch that breaks off from a tree will still fall to the ground, regardless of whether there's an observer. And yes, it will make a noise, at least in our atmosphere.

But yea, our intellects & notions about reality does complicate things. Just look at the evo-crea argument. It's utterly inconsequential to evolution. It'll keep on working exactly like it always has, no matter what we think about it. And we'll keep on evolving too. Science is the tool we use to observe & thus come to conclusions, about how stuff works. It's not a tool for superimposing our ideas on the stuff we observe. Again, that's philosophy.

And if you come splitting hairs about how science is a school of philosophy, I'll rip your head off. Don't split hairs.

Wait. That makes even less sense. Hunger and fear are as utterly objective concepts as can be put forward. If you really believe that because all observations about the world in which we live are inherently flawed because of the manner in which they are collected, then why bother with anything? If subjective understanding of every circumstance is the only context in which ideas can be entertained, why collect information at all?
Secondly, where's your counterargument? If you're going to contend that nothing can be translated across a species line, what sentient species have you failed to translate your conjectures to? If you really can't translate anything, then how do you KNOW you failed to do so? How could you confirm that your subject truly hadn't understood if it was impossible to understand what they grasped or didn't grasp?
My friend, why do you try and twist my words? I never said our observations were flawed, just biased. And about the reason for collecting data, I see two primary reasons for it: survival and sheer pleasure. We collect data because its the way we humans adapted to survive in the world and that produces a desire for knowledge in our beings that has translated in us having discussions such as this one which really have no bearing on whether our species survives or not. About a counter-argument, I don't have one. I admit that what I claimed is pure belief. But I am fine with that, because unlike science extremists I am perfectly content with having some parts of my life not backed up by the scientific method.

-SNIP LIKE MAD-
...I'll rip your head off. Don't split hairs.

My time here is done. Not that i know what i'd tack on to that, SW. Well spok- er, typen.

~Shuffles out of the room like a tired old man~

Scientific observation is performed by humans, and so the conclusions are tarnished by human prejudice, one of which is the anthropomorphosising of observations. Training in scientific thinking often goes to great lengths to force that natural human instinct out of innocent moulable university students. However the observer will always have an effect on that obseved.
Unfortunately

You seem to assume an observation - a fact - is dependent on the mindset of the individual that knows this fact. How so?

If a Native American takes 2 sticks from the ground, and adds it to his existing collection, will he not have 4 sticks? Will an eskimo, an arab, an anglo-saxan not have the same?

See the interpretation of something may well depend on the observer, but the result of an observation doesn't. If a Native American drops something, it falls to the ground. Same thing happens if a tree or a bird do it. It's got nothing to do with the species. 4 birds sitting on a row might not be aware they are 4, but they are none the less. It doesn't depend on their intellect.

Of course the hypothesies we propose are closely tied to our preconcieved notions, but that's why we have science. So our preconceptions don't end up giving us false impressions about the universe we inhabit.

Do you think some bloke just sat down one day & thought "Wow, evolution mate! Now that's a spiffy idea!"? That's not what happened. It was a painstakingly slow process of observation upon observation, that made absolutely no sense, untill a random guy suddenly realised a pattern.
Same thing with gravity & pretty much any knowledge you posess & take for granted.

Also, things doesn't need humans to work. A branch that breaks off from a tree will still fall to the ground, regardless of whether there's an observer. And yes, it will make a noise, at least in our atmosphere.

But yea, our intellects & notions about reality does complicate things. Just look at the evo-crea argument. It's utterly inconsequential to evolution. It'll keep on working exactly like it always has, no matter what we think about it. And we'll keep on evolving too. Science is the tool we use to observe & thus come to conclusions, about how stuff works. It's not a tool for superimposing our ideas on the stuff we observe. Again, that's philosophy.

And if you come splitting hairs about how science is a school of philosophy, I'll rip your head off. Don't split hairs.
Then get your head ripping equipment ready, because I believe science is just another philosophy. It is a way of processing the information we receive from the environment. I agree the world will exist regardless of whether humans exist or not, but does that matter to the human species? No. A world that keeps going after we are gone is non-existent by human standards. And spend some time with native americans and you will know what I mean when I say our "truths" are not the same in their world.

Then get your head ripping equipment ready, because I believe science is just another philosophy. It is a way of processing the information we receive from the environment. I agree the world will exist regardless of whether humans exist or not, but does that matter to the human species? No. A world that keeps going after we are gone is non-existent by human standards. And spend some time with native americans and you will know what I mean when I say our "truths" are not the same in their world.


Good work!!
Yea you have to admit it, unless you lack an understanding of what is talked about when the word science is used:(
All science is is a method of processing and making sense of information no more no less. It is a extremely capable tool, but it has its limits, in that a particular mindset is required ie in many cases you have to fit your natural training/upbringing inside the formal box of science.
Communication issues may then arise with those not familiar with that mindset (Its not a natural, from birth understanding)
If used to explain unobservable events, shadows of events or moral issues it falls down, sometimes like a ton of bricks

has any one thought of taking both theories out of science class and put them into a so called theroy 101 that teaches these along with other types of theories. It would tell people that these are both either based on what has been writen or seen by humans and not totaly proven fact. to be blunt people should just allow others to make there own choice on what created humans, how humans where created, or to even let them create there own theory on how they are created.

Good work!!
Yea you have to admit it, unless you lack an understanding of what is talked about when the word science is used:(
All science is is a method of processing and making sense of information no more no less. It is a extremely capable tool, but it has its limits, in that a particular mindset is required ie in many cases you have to fit your natural training/upbringing inside the formal box of science.
Communication issues may then arise with those not familiar with that mindset (Its not a natural, from birth understanding)
If used to explain unobservable events, shadows of events or moral issues it falls down, sometimes like a ton of bricks
I agree fully with this statement.

Actually science is a way of knowing/figuring out the natural world(measurable universe). Its more specific then your definition Chomungalia.

Actually science is a way of knowing/figuring out the natural world(measurable universe). Its more specific then your definition Chomungalia.

yea very true my statement was very basic.

Then get your head ripping equipment ready, because I believe science is just another philosophy. It is a way of processing the information we receive from the environment. I agree the world will exist regardless of whether humans exist or not, but does that matter to the human species? No. A world that keeps going after we are gone is non-existent by human standards. And spend some time with native americans and you will know what I mean when I say our "truths" are not the same in their world.
So basically you don't hold the position you claimed. You simply have a bit of trouble communicating what you mean in an accurate maner?

Your example has nothing to do with science. Sure, it might be philosophy, but it's got nothing to do with science. You contend that science doesn't transcend cultural borders, yet you clearly admit that "by human standards" only, will the unscientific idea you proposed be true.

Religion isn't the same the world over either. Many of them even contradict or outright deny scientific theories. Does that invalidate science somehow? Perhaps in your personal opinion, but objectively it doesn't. It can't, because such fancies doesn't follow the scientific method. If they did, they'd either be discarded, or replace current theories.

Further, do you think a Native American radioastronomer will claim that the universe will cease to exist when mankind does?
Sure, he might not think it makes much of a difference, assuming all other life ends when ours does - I don't think so either - but I doubt you'll get hum to say that the universe will cease to be.

I don't for a second believe you don't know what the difference between philosophy in general & theology & the scientific method in particular, is. Still, www.wikipedia.com effectively kills all confusion about it, especially if you type "Scientific Method" and "Philosophy".

Stop splitting hairs. It's counterproductive, unless you're trying to obscure the debate because you can't make a reasonable argument.

Your example has nothing to do with science. Sure, it might be philosophy, but it's got nothing to do with science. You contend that science doesn't transcend cultural borders, yet you clearly admit that "by human standards" only, will the unscientific idea you proposed be true.
ou are taking this out of context. The scientific method is culturally biased. A world without humans is irrelevant by human standards.

Religion isn't the same the world over either. Many of them even contradict or outright deny scientific theories. Does that invalidate science somehow? Perhaps in your personal opinion, but objectively it doesn't. It can't, because such fancies doesn't follow the scientific method. If they did, they'd either be discarded, or replace current theories.
Does the fact that science denies some religious beliefs invalidate them? No. My point exactly.

Further, do you think a Native American radioastronomer will claim that the universe will cease to exist when mankind does?
Sure, he might not think it makes much of a difference, assuming all other life ends when ours does - I don't think so either - but I doubt you'll get hum to say that the universe will cease to be.

I don't for a second believe you don't know what the difference between philosophy in general & theology & the scientific method in particular, is. Still, www.wikipedia.com effectively kills all confusion about it, especially if you type "Scientific Method" and "Philosophy".

Stop splitting hairs. It's counterproductive, unless you're trying to obscure the debate because you can't make a reasonable argument.
And I must wonder what you consider a "reasonable argument". If you are looking for a scientific argument, I can't give you one, because I am discussing the scientific method in itself. And this is what I am arguing, that science cannot tackle every question.

The whole "does it cross cultural boundries" question is a bit null dont u think??
there are very few people in the world who do have not had some introduction to western/greecoroman thought and to ideals similar to the scientific method. This makes a viable test of this issue quite hard really.
Never mind that humans are humans and each culture has some basis for learning and observation (where do you think the western civilizations "scientific method" grew from) when introduced to one of the foreign frameworks a culture will automaticaly recognise parts familiar to their learning, allowing those people to learn the new ideal faster that if it really were brand new.

The whole "does it cross cultural boundries" question is a bit null dont u think??
there are very few people in the world who do have not had some introduction to western/greecoroman thought and to ideals similar to the scientific method. This makes a viable test of this issue quite hard really.
Never mind that humans are humans and each culture has some basis for learning and observation (where do you think the western civilizations "scientific method" grew from) when introduced to one of the foreign frameworks a culture will automaticaly recognise parts familiar to their learning, allowing those people to learn the new ideal faster that if it really were brand new.
It evolved from the Western way of learning. And my point was not that it can't be learned by others, just that it is not pan-species, which would translate also in the method being anthropocentric.

ou are taking this out of context. The scientific method is culturally biased. A world without humans is irrelevant by human standards.
Well I'm so sorry. It wasn't intentional. And I disagree with you, as you might have noticed in your previous post. I suspect quite a few humans do. I give a shit about our biosphere, and not simply because there'll be humans after I've had my turn, but because this isn't a lifeless rock. I don't want to adversely affect the planet because I'm not the only one who'll ever be using it.

Assuming humanity suddenly vanished in 2000 years, it still matters to me that the planet remains unmolested. It will matter to me right until the point when my intellect ceases to function.

Does the fact that science denies some religious beliefs invalidate them? No. My point exactly.
I have a feeling I'll end up regretting answering this loaded question. No answer here you can't spin.

Science can't be used to examine religion. It might be able to examine a few inconsequential details, but the overall concepts of religion are beyond what the scientific method can be applied to.

Still, does the fact that the Catholic Church now recognises evolution invalidate ID? - To me, it does. Apparently, it does to them as well.


And I must wonder what you consider a "reasonable argument". If you are looking for a scientific argument, I can't give you one, because I am discussing the scientific method in itself. And this is what I am arguing, that science cannot tackle every question.
You were arguing that science relies on a particular species or intellect. It's perfectly obvious that the scientific method has limits. It's what sets it apart from other fields of philosophy. You won't find many sane individuals who'll claim otherwise, if they know what the scientific method is.

People, as a rule, don't use sledgehammers to operate windows either. Sledgehammers are practical tools, handy for many, many things, but they have their limits. The tool we call the scientific method is no different.

Well I'm so sorry. It wasn't intentional. And I disagree with you, as you might have noticed in your previous post. I suspect quite a few humans do. I give a shit about our biosphere, and not simply because there'll be humans after I've had my turn, but because this isn't a lifeless rock. I don't want to adversely affect the planet because I'm not the only one who'll ever be using it.

Assuming humanity suddenly vanished in 2000 years, it still matters to me that the planet remains unmolested. It will matter to me right until the point when my intellect ceases to function.
I care about the planet too, but because my children will be living in it, not because of other species. After humans are gone, I really don't care that much.


I have a feeling I'll end up regretting answering this loaded question. No answer here you can't spin.
It wasnt meant as a trap, but whatever.

Science can't be used to examine religion. It might be able to examine a few inconsequential details, but the overall concepts of religion are beyond what the scientific method can be applied to.

Still, does the fact that the Catholic Church now recognises evolution invalidate ID? - To me, it does. Apparently, it does to them as well.
Well depends on what you consider ID. Creationism is recognised by the CC, as is evolution, they are not in conflict.



You were arguing that science relies on a particular species or intellect. It's perfectly obvious that the scientific method has limits. It's what sets it apart from other fields of philosophy. You won't find many sane individuals who'll claim otherwise, if they know what the scientific method is.

People, as a rule, don't use sledgehammers to operate windows either. Sledgehammers are practical tools, handy for many, many things, but they have their limits. The tool we call the scientific method is no different.
Agreed.

I care about the planet too, but because my children will be living in it, not because of other species. After humans are gone, I really don't care that much.However, not everyone feels like you. Not that I know why you claimed that in the first place, but whatever.Well depends on what you consider ID. Creationism is recognised by the CC, as is evolution, they are not in conflict.Not anymore. Hence my comment.Agreed.Mate, I was & am arguing against your claim that science is species, even culture, dependent. I'm sure there are plenty of things we agree on, but that's not why I bother writing here.

Do you still claim the scientific method & the results of it's use, are culture/species/intelligence dependent?

Do you still claim the scientific method & the results of it's use, are culture/species/intelligence dependent?
Yes. And always will, until a non-human tells me otherwise.

Yes. And always will, until a non-human tells me otherwise.
Indulge me please... What makes you believe that?

Indulge me please... What makes you believe that?
I have explained it already, but I'll summarise it. We have only experience the world as humans. We can only hope to experience the world as humans. Therefore we have no idea what it is to experience it as anything else, and since the way we process information is based on our experiences, then it is reasonable to argue that our information processing processes are human in nature.