So they now say Pluto is not a planet!

13567

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    They have everything to do with the fact that science has never proven anything.

    I invite you to attempt to prove this statement without using science.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    RainDog wrote:
    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Much like the ones you make...

    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?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    i'm pretty sure most scientists would go out on a limb about gravity. hey, i'm sort of a scientist, so i'll say it.

    the gravity theory WILL be applicable tomorrow.

    That's great, but you don't know for sure. Therefore, you're admitting faith in the unknown. Hmmm...kinda sounds like religion.
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    I can't prove it, but it's my opinion.

    Then what are your opinions based on?
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    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.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    know1 wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    69charger wrote:
    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?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    69charger wrote:
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    69charger wrote:
    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?

    Uhh...none, but I don't see how you made the connection from what I said to that.
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What is your standard for proof? I'll be more than happy to help demonstrate how science can prove something.

    My standard is that there is no guarantee that anything science claims will hold 100% true in the future.
    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.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    My standard is that there is no guarantee that anything science claims will hold 100% true in the future.

    That's not a standard. That's simply a fact. There is no such guarantee either way.

Categories