"The heavens and the earth"-notice the plural on "heavens"...it's not referring to Heaven (singular)...........This blanket statement covers stuff in space.
That hoad nothing to do with the heavans and the earth. I just figured that the assaults on science were based on evolution arguments we have had. Somehow it reminded me of when baseballer Carl Everett said that he does not believe that dinosaurs existed because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
That hoad nothing to do with the heavans and the earth. I just figured that the assaults on science were based on evolution arguments we have had. Somehow it reminded me of when baseballer Carl Everett said that he does not believe that dinosaurs existed because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
Carl Everett..............he was a real piece of work....no dinosaurs....yeah, that was funny.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
So, next time someone needs serious surgery, or the government wants to contruct a new rocket, they should call up graduates of Harvard's philosophy program?
For a new rocket, of course. Everyone knows the prowess of Harvard's Outer Space Philosophy program. But for surgery? Get real, man. The best Body Imperfection Correction Philosophy programs are at Yale, Stanford and, for some reason, Middle Tennessee State.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
That hoad nothing to do with the heavans and the earth. I just figured that the assaults on science were based on evolution arguments we have had. Somehow it reminded me of when baseballer Carl Everett said that he does not believe that dinosaurs existed because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
My attacks on the ridiculous (in my opinion) faith in science have nothing to do with the bible. They have everything to do with the fact that science has never proven anything. They have only explained things based upon past observations. Tomorrow, a new observation could surface which would change the explanation.
I don't see why that is so hard for people to see.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My attacks on the ridiculous (in my opinion) faith in science have nothing to do with the bible. They have everything to do with the fact that science has never proven anything. They have only explained things based upon past observations. Tomorrow, a new observation could surface which would change the explanation.
I don't see why that is so hard for people to see.
Because advancements in science improve human life, often times. I think it is wise to base decisions on experience and past observations. They are clues to help us figure things out. And yes, theories are sometimes going to be proven false in light of new evidence. That's why science is so great, you keep learning more and more...it's never final. It's always open for further discussion, investigation and improvements. What should one have faith in other than past experiences and observations?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Philosophy is based on one's opinion and perspective. Science is based on current evidence and knowledge.
Philosophy is based upon rational analysis of a problem, or question. Not too disimilar to science, but also not strictly limited to the same restraints as scientific enquiry.
My attacks on the ridiculous (in my opinion) faith in science have nothing to do with the bible. They have everything to do with the fact that science has never proven anything. They have only explained things based upon past observations. Tomorrow, a new observation could surface which would change the explanation.
I don't see why that is so hard for people to see.
I agree that science is not infallable, but I think it is safe to say that with a very high degree of probability, we can say confidently, that we understand certain things about ourselves and our planet thanks to scientific inquiry.
So, next time someone needs serious surgery, or the government wants to contruct a new rocket, they should call up graduates of Harvard's philosophy program?
No, but when discussing issues, such as the rights and wrongs of genetic manipulation, or of what consitutes right conduct re: our relationship to one another, and/or our environment, for example, then philosophers should be consulted. Philosophers should be given a more authoritative position in our society, as Plato posited, although unfortunately it seems as though the opinions of mere businesmen are given more respect. Such is the age we live in.
Except for you of course, based on the very absolute claim you made.
Much like the ones you make...it's called a declaritive statement based on one's belief. I suppose you believe their are all knowing, flying, super humans since you can't declare that no one has these powers based on what you know.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I invite you to attempt to prove this statement without using science.
I can't prove it, but it's my opinion.
Think of it this way, gravity is basically a universally accepted theory, but scientists have no clue whether the gravity theory will still be applicable tomorrow.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Because advancements in science improve human life, often times. I think it is wise to base decisions on experience and past observations. They are clues to help us figure things out. And yes, theories are sometimes going to be proven false in light of new evidence. That's why science is so great, you keep learning more and more...it's never final. It's always open for further discussion, investigation and improvements. What should one have faith in other than past experiences and observations?
It's not faith if it's only believing past experiences.
I'm not denying that science does improve human life. What I'm saying that the science of today will be the equivalent of "let's bleed him with leeches" tomorrow.
In other words, science is continually proven wrong (or at least updated), so why do people laud it so?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes, but I'm not the one saying things like "no human has absolute knowledge" or "no one [can] claim absolute knowledge of anything".
it's called a declaritive statement based on one's belief.
And what are those beliefs based on?
I suppose you believe their are all knowing, flying, super humans since you can't declare that no one has these powers based on what you know.
I believe there are knowing human beings. They are the men and women who designed and built your home because they know how to. They are the men and women who grow your food because they know how to. They are the men and women who build devices to explore our galaxy because they know how to. They are the men and women who design and make our medicines because they know how to. They are the men and women who believe the opposite of what you say above. They understand that there are absolute truths in this world and that everyone has access to them. They are the men and women you take for granted whenever you suggest that the products of their minds and their hands belong to you at the cost of them.
An absolute is a statement of Truth. The acknowledgement of Truth is known as philosophy. The path to Truth is known as science. The analysis of Truth is called reason. The application of Truth is known as productivity.
Ask yourself, the next time it's below zero outside and you're huddled in your home near the heater, what keeps you from dying. Is it the denial of an absolute, or the acceptance and the discovery of one?
Think of it this way, gravity is basically a universally accepted theory, but scientists have no clue whether the gravity theory will still be applicable tomorrow.
Science has a very good clue that gravity will still be applicable tomorrow. It's called today. But certainly no one will make the definitive statement that gravity is immutable over time. I fail to see how this invalidates science anyway. What is true now does not have to be true tomorrow.
You seem to be hung up on the fact that sometimes science is wrong. Science is often wrong, yes. But that does not somehow demostrate that science cannot be right.
Science has a very good clue that gravity will still be applicable tomorrow. It's called today. But certainly no one will make the definitive statement that gravity is immutable over time. I fail to see how this invalidates science anyway. What is true now does not have to be true tomorrow.
You seem to be hung up on the fact that sometimes science is wrong. Science is often wrong, yes. But that does not somehow demostrate that science cannot be right.
No - what I'm stuck on is people who toss aside religious faith because it can't be proven and then hold up the almighty science on a pedastal....when it can't be proven either.
I have no problem with science, but I think too many people are hesitant (or too close minded) admit its limitations.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No - what I'm stuck on is people who toss aside religious faith because it can't be proven and then hold up the almighty science on a pedastal....when it can't be proven either.
I have no problem with science, but I think too many people are hesitant (or too close minded) admit its limitations.
How someone can use a fucking COMPUTER to type shit like this and not consider themselves a hypocrite is beyond me.
Aside from Genocide, what technological innovations has religion come up with?
No - what I'm stuck on is people who toss aside religious faith because it can't be proven and then hold up the almighty science on a pedastal....
And on that I agree with you.
when it can't be proven either.
What is your standard for proof? I'll be more than happy to help demonstrate how science can prove something.
I have no problem with science, but I think too many people are hesitant (or too close minded) admit its limitations.
Sure. Religion too, of course.
What you're grappling with is the attachment to faith. Many pretend that there is no faith in the application of science. Such pretense is foolish.
However, the purpose of science is the elimination or reduction of faith. The purpose of religion is the celebration of faith. The two are not equal, but practicioners of both can have much in common.
Yes, but I'm not the one saying things like "no human has absolute knowledge" or "no one [can] claim absolute knowledge of anything".
And what are those beliefs based on?
I believe there are knowing human beings. They are the men and women who designed and built your home because they know how to. They are the men and women who grow your food because they know how to. They are the men and women who build devices to explore our galaxy because they know how to. They are the men and women who design and make our medicines because they know how to. They are the men and women who believe the opposite of what you say above. They understand that there are absolute truths in this world and that everyone has access to them. They are the men and women you take for granted whenever you suggest that the products of their minds and their hands belong to you at the cost of them.
An absolute is a statement of Truth. The acknowledgement of Truth is known as philosophy. The path to Truth is known as science. The analysis of Truth is called reason. The application of Truth is known as productivity.
Ask yourself, the next time it's below zero outside and you're huddled in your home near the heater, what keeps you from dying. Is it the denial of an absolute, or the acceptance and the discovery of one?
I don't have heat because one single person has absolute knowledge of everything there is. Even things we think are truths can later disproven. My point is in this thread is that even though there is a chance a current truth can later be disproven, it doesn't mean that should take away any of its significance.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that like saying the Jewish faith is responsible for E=MC2?
Not really, no, since E=MC2 did not really emerge from a largely Jewish movement or way of thought but rather a casual Jewish man.
Islamic people developed Algebra. The Muslim religion did not.
Am I to understand your question then as "how can a religion invent something?" Since a religion is an abstract set of beliefs, it has no ability to invent. Only the men who hold those beliefs may invent.
Uhh...none, but I don't see how you made the connection from what I said to that.
You are trying to pass science off as just as fallable as religious belief. How you can do that while being surrounded by the fruits of the scientific method is, to me, the definition of hypocracy. If it's not hypocracy than it is the definition of ignorance.
Comments
That hoad nothing to do with the heavans and the earth. I just figured that the assaults on science were based on evolution arguments we have had. Somehow it reminded me of when baseballer Carl Everett said that he does not believe that dinosaurs existed because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
For a new rocket, of course. Everyone knows the prowess of Harvard's Outer Space Philosophy program. But for surgery? Get real, man. The best Body Imperfection Correction Philosophy programs are at Yale, Stanford and, for some reason, Middle Tennessee State.
My attacks on the ridiculous (in my opinion) faith in science have nothing to do with the bible. They have everything to do with the fact that science has never proven anything. They have only explained things based upon past observations. Tomorrow, a new observation could surface which would change the explanation.
I don't see why that is so hard for people to see.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
IMO, no human has absolute knowledge.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because advancements in science improve human life, often times. I think it is wise to base decisions on experience and past observations. They are clues to help us figure things out. And yes, theories are sometimes going to be proven false in light of new evidence. That's why science is so great, you keep learning more and more...it's never final. It's always open for further discussion, investigation and improvements. What should one have faith in other than past experiences and observations?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
yep..
Except for you of course, based on the very absolute claim you made.
Philosophy is based upon rational analysis of a problem, or question. Not too disimilar to science, but also not strictly limited to the same restraints as scientific enquiry.
I invite you to attempt to prove this statement without using science.
I agree that science is not infallable, but I think it is safe to say that with a very high degree of probability, we can say confidently, that we understand certain things about ourselves and our planet thanks to scientific inquiry.
No, but when discussing issues, such as the rights and wrongs of genetic manipulation, or of what consitutes right conduct re: our relationship to one another, and/or our environment, for example, then philosophers should be consulted. Philosophers should be given a more authoritative position in our society, as Plato posited, although unfortunately it seems as though the opinions of mere businesmen are given more respect. Such is the age we live in.
Much like the ones you make...it's called a declaritive statement based on one's belief. I suppose you believe their are all knowing, flying, super humans since you can't declare that no one has these powers based on what you know.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can't prove it, but it's my opinion.
Think of it this way, gravity is basically a universally accepted theory, but scientists have no clue whether the gravity theory will still be applicable tomorrow.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It's not faith if it's only believing past experiences.
I'm not denying that science does improve human life. What I'm saying that the science of today will be the equivalent of "let's bleed him with leeches" tomorrow.
In other words, science is continually proven wrong (or at least updated), so why do people laud it so?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes, but I'm not the one saying things like "no human has absolute knowledge" or "no one [can] claim absolute knowledge of anything".
And what are those beliefs based on?
I believe there are knowing human beings. They are the men and women who designed and built your home because they know how to. They are the men and women who grow your food because they know how to. They are the men and women who build devices to explore our galaxy because they know how to. They are the men and women who design and make our medicines because they know how to. They are the men and women who believe the opposite of what you say above. They understand that there are absolute truths in this world and that everyone has access to them. They are the men and women you take for granted whenever you suggest that the products of their minds and their hands belong to you at the cost of them.
An absolute is a statement of Truth. The acknowledgement of Truth is known as philosophy. The path to Truth is known as science. The analysis of Truth is called reason. The application of Truth is known as productivity.
Ask yourself, the next time it's below zero outside and you're huddled in your home near the heater, what keeps you from dying. Is it the denial of an absolute, or the acceptance and the discovery of one?
That's great, but you don't know for sure. Therefore, you're admitting faith in the unknown. Hmmm...kinda sounds like religion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Then what are your opinions based on?
Science has a very good clue that gravity will still be applicable tomorrow. It's called today. But certainly no one will make the definitive statement that gravity is immutable over time. I fail to see how this invalidates science anyway. What is true now does not have to be true tomorrow.
You seem to be hung up on the fact that sometimes science is wrong. Science is often wrong, yes. But that does not somehow demostrate that science cannot be right.
No - what I'm stuck on is people who toss aside religious faith because it can't be proven and then hold up the almighty science on a pedastal....when it can't be proven either.
I have no problem with science, but I think too many people are hesitant (or too close minded) admit its limitations.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
How someone can use a fucking COMPUTER to type shit like this and not consider themselves a hypocrite is beyond me.
Aside from Genocide, what technological innovations has religion come up with?
And on that I agree with you.
What is your standard for proof? I'll be more than happy to help demonstrate how science can prove something.
Sure. Religion too, of course.
What you're grappling with is the attachment to faith. Many pretend that there is no faith in the application of science. Such pretense is foolish.
However, the purpose of science is the elimination or reduction of faith. The purpose of religion is the celebration of faith. The two are not equal, but practicioners of both can have much in common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that like saying the Jewish faith is responsible for E=MC2?
Islamic people developed Algebra. The Muslim religion did not.
I don't have heat because one single person has absolute knowledge of everything there is. Even things we think are truths can later disproven. My point is in this thread is that even though there is a chance a current truth can later be disproven, it doesn't mean that should take away any of its significance.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not really, no, since E=MC2 did not really emerge from a largely Jewish movement or way of thought but rather a casual Jewish man.
Am I to understand your question then as "how can a religion invent something?" Since a religion is an abstract set of beliefs, it has no ability to invent. Only the men who hold those beliefs may invent.
Uhh...none, but I don't see how you made the connection from what I said to that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My standard is that there is no guarantee that anything science claims will hold 100% true in the future.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You are trying to pass science off as just as fallable as religious belief. How you can do that while being surrounded by the fruits of the scientific method is, to me, the definition of hypocracy. If it's not hypocracy than it is the definition of ignorance.
That's not a standard. That's simply a fact. There is no such guarantee either way.