Incredulity in the supernatural.

[PureX]

Within the scientific community, someone who falsifies his lab data and lies about his findings to get a grant --and is exposed-- will be considered to have lied --saying things that aren't true. No relativity involved. The fact that the person lied will be accepted as such universally. If the data is moved to the other side of the Andromeda Galaxy and read there. it will still be considered false. If we wait ten years it will still be considered fraudulent.

Say want you want about the scientific method, but the scientific community works with absolute truth.

That’s called scientism, not science.

 

[ppp]

Within the scientific community, someone who falsifies his lab data and lies about his findings to get a grant --and is exposed-- will be considered to have lied --saying things that aren't true. No relativity involved. The fact that the person lied will be accepted as such universally. If the data is moved to the other side of the Andromeda Galaxy and read there. it will still be considered false. If we wait ten years it will still be considered fraudulent.

Say want you want about the scientific method, but the scientific community works with absolute truth.

Science is not about absolute truth. There is no scientific methodology for achieving Absolute truth, nor of recognizing such if achieved. As far as I can tell, no one has the ability to recognize absolute truth.

The goal of science is to build testable reliable models that provide explanatory power, as well as reliable predictability for novel events.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Oh, yes, we have larger brains than most (but not all), and we have developed language -- though I think you'll find other animals have also developed quite sophisticated means of communicating with one another.

I remember watching a video (vsauce I think?) that explained a hypothesis whereby our human brains developed the ability to use sophisticated language at the expense of environmental awareness. So there's that.

As impressive as it is (to us) the things that animals are able to communicate certain things, our command of language is far superior to theirs. But it's interesting that this does not extend to all kinds of mental acuity. Other animals (like chimps) are able to do mental tasks on a touch screen that we are not.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Other animals (like chimps) are able to do mental tasks on a touch screen that we are not.

Do tell.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I pretty much agree with you word by word I don't feel we need religion anymore, the universe is way more fantastical, and we are much more free than they make us believe

When you say that you feel we don’t need religion anymore then your definition of religion must be very different to how I understand it. Religion, as brought by a Prophet of God teaches the virtues such as to love all humanity unconditionally, to be free from prejudices, to love all nations, races and religions and work for the betterment of humanity. To be humble, selfless, compassionate, merciful, just, kind, thoughtful, courteous, look at others with a sin covering eye, not to fault find or backbite, to treat others how we would ourselves wish to be treated, to be generous, thankful, to be truthful and honest, to be trustworthy, to be loyal and faithful, to keep one’s promises. And much, much more too much to mention here.

From where I stand the world today sorely lacks religion. The further humanity goes away from religion the more barbaric, hostile and cruel we are becoming.

Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness and justice, of tranquillity and peace cease to shine. (Baha’u’llah)

 

[vulcanlogician]

Do tell.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

Hey hey, Atheist here, when i was young i believed in ESP powers and ghosts and stuff, but with the years i felt insufficient evidence (although very entertaining) was being provided, and kinda put it away, i still think there's things out there i cannot explain, but if i need to leap into supernatural phenomena to justify it... i don't care that much
So, i see you are quite religious, i don't know what religion, probably mostly Christian, or at least God believers. U have a book that's a collection of books, that has surely been edited time and time again, translated from ancient languages that nowadays we have a pretty good idea what they meant, but a lot of time has passed since.
Your deity is Infinitely powerful, knows all that has happened, happens, and will happen i assume Everything in this world is like it is, because this deity set it that way.
In your world view, what is our purpose? i assume we are fundamentally different from the rest of the animal kingdom? i do have my own responses but i'd really like to know yours
Cheers!

If you were alone in the universe, would you create things to entertain yourself, amuse yourself, things to love.
With our limitations we can when bored paint a picture or create a sculpture, look at it with pride.
But with unlimited power in a lonely universe what would you create.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Interesting.
Thank you for that.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Religion, as brought by a Prophet of God teaches the virtues such as to love all humanity unconditionally, to be free from prejudices, to love all nations, races and religions and work for the betterment of humanity. To be humble, selfless, compassionate, merciful, just, kind, thoughtful, courteous, look at others with a sin covering eye, not to fault find or backbite, to treat others how we would ourselves wish to be treated, to be generous, thankful, to be truthful and honest, to be trustworthy, to be loyal and faithful, to keep one’s promises.

Are you suggesting that those virtues are only teachable by a prophet and/or a god?

Are you suggesting that only those that have a belief in a prophet and/or god are capable of learning those virtues or understanding them to be of value?

The further humanity goes away from religion the more barbaric, hostile and cruel we are becoming.

There are statistics that appear to run contrary to that conclusion.

From where I stand the world today sorely lacks religion.

If I recall roughly 85% of the global population is religious.
Or do you mean the right religion?

 

[Pete in Panama]

So what you're saying is that the sciences are a form authoritarian dogmatism?...

How about we set aside name-calling and look at what is.

Science as a method of inquiry works if someone makes observations and shares. To test the validity of the observations someone else will replicate the observations for confirmation. (please let me know if we're not on the same page here) If the observations can not be confirmed that puts the first scientist in a bad light. If it's later found that the first scientist lied about his observations then he's banned.

All this points to the idea that "true" and "false" are independent of individuals and exist outside of people. We still together?

 

[Pete in Panama]

...fwiw, please understand that there are a LOT of folks that see some things as good and they see other things as bad. Cognition does not seem to be relevant to them. Like, I could go up to people, smash their big toe w/ a hammer, and virtually every single one of them would say THAT'S BAD!!! If I could magically undo it and give them a $million, most probably every single one of them would say THAT'S GOOD!!!...

Really? I guess I'll have to rethink all of this.

My bet is that if someone hit your toe w/ a hammer you'd probably do your rethinking fast enough to agree that IT'S BAD!!!

I believe that it is true that gravitation attraction between two bodies is a function of their combined mass and the distance between them. I think it meaningless to categorize that relationship as good or bad.

Interesting. Are you aware that there are many who'd argue that gravitational attraction does not exist? They argue that what we're observing is that massive objects curve space/time in such a way to provide the appearance of an attraction. I see that issue as being controversial. I see my toe being hit w/ a hammer as something that's clearly bad.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Within the scientific community, someone who falsifies his lab data and lies about his findings to get a grant --and is exposed-- will be considered to have lied --saying things that aren't true. No relativity involved. The fact that the person lied will be accepted as such universally. If the data is moved to the other side of the Andromeda Galaxy and read there. it will still be considered false. If we wait ten years it will still be considered fraudulent.

Say want you want about the scientific method, but the scientific community works with absolute truth.

That’s called scientism, not science.

A common definition of "scientism" is...

scientism /sī′ən-tĭz″əm/​

noun​

1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.
2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.
3. The views, tendency, or practice of scientists.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik​

Somehow it seems to me that the definitions wouldn't apply here.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Science is not about absolute truth. ...

If someone is found to have falsified his data he's banned from further scientific believability. This is an observable fact. It's reality. If you ever want to explore scientific findings you need to understand this.

 

[ppp]

If someone is found to have falsified his data he's banned from further scientific believability. This is an observable fact. It's reality. If you ever want to explore scientific findings you need to understand this.

Did you intend to present that as adversarial? If not, cool. If so, none of those sentences are in conflict with my statement that, Science is not about absolute truth.

 

[ppp]

My bet is that if someone hit your toe w/ a hammer you'd probably do your rethinking fast enough to agree that IT'S BAD!!!

Ya'll seem to be equivocating "morally" bad with "i don't like it" bad

 

[Quintessence]

How about we set aside name-calling and look at what is.

Science as a method of inquiry works if someone makes observations and shares. To test the validity of the observations someone else will replicate the observations for confirmation. (please let me know if we're not on the same page here) If the observations can not be confirmed that puts the first scientist in a bad light. If it's later found that the first scientist lied about his observations then he's banned.

All this points to the idea that "true" and "false" are independent of individuals and exist outside of people. We still together?

So long as you understand that science does not operate like some sort of authoritarian dogmatism that works with "absolute truths." Because that's Scientism, not science. And as a scientist, I rather dislike Scientism as being ironically un (if not anti) scientific.

 

[Audie]

Science is not about absolute truth. There is no scientific methodology for achieving Absolute truth, nor of recognizing such if achieved. As far as I can tell, no one has the ability to recognize absolute truth.

The goal of science is to build testable reliable models that provide explanatory power, as well as reliable predictability for novel events.

If someone is found to have falsified his data he's banned from further scientific believability. This is an observable fact. It's reality. If you ever want to explore scientific findings you need to understand this.

We've not seen evidence that you are
a source for reliable information about
the nature of science. Quite the contrary.

Trying to concoct the existence of simple
binaries- on / oft, 0/1, true / false, into a
metaphysical construct proving science
is involved in a Quest for Absolute truth,
absolute anything is flat out ridiculous,
and shows profound misapprehension
of the nature of science.

We know this in China, they know it at Oxford
and Timbuktu.

Why some "theists" cannot know it may be
explainable in terms of their wish to drag
the legitimate down to the level of their
flights of fancy.

Or maybe its worse than that.

How do you explain it?

 

[Muffled]

Hey hey, Atheist here, when i was young i believed in ESP powers and ghosts and stuff, but with the years i felt insufficient evidence (although very entertaining) was being provided, and kinda put it away, i still think there's things out there i cannot explain, but if i need to leap into supernatural phenomena to justify it... i don't care that much
So, i see you are quite religious, i don't know what religion, probably mostly Christian, or at least God believers. U have a book that's a collection of books, that has surely been edited time and time again, translated from ancient languages that nowadays we have a pretty good idea what they meant, but a lot of time has passed since.
Your deity is Infinitely powerful, knows all that has happened, happens, and will happen i assume Everything in this world is like it is, because this deity set it that way.
In your world view, what is our purpose? i assume we are fundamentally different from the rest of the animal kingdom? i do have my own responses but i'd really like to know yours
Cheers!

I believe our purpose is to be at peace with our creator.

 

[Muffled]

You're kind of pitching this at Abrahamics I think but anyhoo. For me "supernatural" does not exist. There is a universe, it is "natural" and if humans cannot yet explain something that's all it is, nothing "supernatural" about the current ignorance of the human race. I can't explain Donald Trump, but that doesn't make him supernatural. I hope.

I believe rivers flow down hill naturally. So if they travel uphill something supernatural is happening even if it can be explained.

 

[PureX]

If someone is found to have falsified his data he's banned from further scientific believability. This is an observable fact. It's reality. If you ever want to explore scientific findings you need to understand this.

Data is just data. It's anything BUT absolute truth. It's all relative to context, and subject to interpretation. And interpretations are always prone to error. Science is clearly not the magic lantern that delivers to us the absolute truth of anything. Mostly all it does is provide us with the next logical question.