• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

epronovost

Well-Known Member
So what about behavior between humans? E.g. how to kill other humans effectively. Science is good at that,

Indeed, better than any other method to solve the problem of "that guy ove there is waaaay to alive for my taste".

Note that it's also better than any other method to solve the problem of "that guy over there is dying waaaaaaay too much for my taste, I should try and help".
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Indeed, better than any other method to solve the problem of "that guy ove there is waaaay to alive for my taste".

Note that it's also better than any other method to solve the problem of "that guy over there is dying waaaaaaay too much for my taste, I should try and help".

So it is good and bad depending on subjective POW.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
The issue is " to understand the world" or all aspects of life.

Well considering that there are sciences that also covers profoundly human subjects like emotions, group relations, health, biological development, learning, it's not blind to those subject.

Even humanities have developped "scientifically inspired" methods that mimics as close as possible the methods of harder sciences. That's how we ended up with pragmatism in philosophy, the historical critical method, most of modern economics and management. It's even common in question of aesthetic where careful framework of analysis to criticise atwork are commonly adopted. Of course, scientific inquiries are more adapted to certain types of problems and connundrum than others on which it's basically either silent or very highly dubious.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Well considering that there are sciences that also covers profoundly human subjects like emotions, group relations, health, biological development, learning, it's not blind to those subject.

Even humanities have developped "scientifically inspired" methods that mimics as close as possible the methods of harder sciences. That's how we ended up with pragmatism in philosophy, the historical critical method, most of modern economics and management. It's even common in question of aesthetic where careful framework of analysis to criticise atwork are commonly adopted. Of course, scientific inquiries are more adapted to certain types of problems and connundrum than others on which it's basically either silent or very highly dubious.
Even all these combined cannot encompass the whole of life, so it is a sweeping generalization, specifically when it does not claim to solve all problems of humanity. Right, please?
If it claims then please quote the discipline of natural sciences that has taken up this issue and when, please. Right, please?

Regards
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Even all these combined cannot encompass the whole of life, so it is a sweeping generalization, specifically when it does not claim to solve all problems of humanity. Right, please?
If it claims then please quote the discipline of natural sciences that has taken up this issue and when, please. Right, please?

Regards

Why only natural science? Social sciences are sciences too.

The only places where sciences, any sciences, can't help you is in question of morality (what you should do and why). In those cases, sciences can only provide you with a method to assess your success in doing what you ought to do and why.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Argument and coercive human behaviour is real...you all exhibit it every day.

The topic. Did you human living as a human only due to a stone planet existing owning an atmosphere...with you living inside of it, own the creation big bang and cosmic beginnings?

The answer is no.

Then you would ask, as a human doing all comparative reasonings about everything living inside of an atmosphere how would you inventor designer Creator the consciousness who uses the quote create, when conditions created and creation did not begin as an already taught scientific conclusion.

About Christ and Jesus revelations as stated by many male ancient groups in a human world community?

The basis of which, science all used the origin of science quotations from the ancients about the Moses, or other themed reviews....Gods, yet the Gods were given a male or a female thesis, when the real male and female were only humans, as humans.

Science in modern times updated how science was expressed for it stated in a known quanta that to infer male and female concepts was lying when using fact by defined self quantified human conscious idealism.

A male group stated, Moses era pyramid temple sciences is categorically stated to be voiced taught and by visionary idealism science. Archaeology then finds machines parts deep inside of the Earth body held in fusion. Knowing that when sink holes...original sin meaning God O the stone mass energy history of....opened up and the ground life fell into the Earth body.

Based on a pre existing science concept, Satan, the residue of mass burnt out, but energy cannot be destroyed completely fell to the floor of space or deep pit review by spatial vacuum suck down leaving space empty.

To copy, Earth sink holes opened into a space, residue fell to the bottom of the hole quoted as copying spatial information in the cosmos.

So how did science as science, human expressed copy the big bang thesis?

His answer is cold mass or some form of colder something existed before it bang blasted into the second law thermodynamic/heat. Don't know what that other something actually was. Factual.

For when you only live on a cold fused planet as cold mass. As a human and a male and a brother agree to take the mass, convert it by melt to cool it artificially to own a machine. Then your owned quote is I am copying God the planet as a secondary advice to a first advice a string theory concept about out of space exploding converting.

To quote no beginning and no end in creation as conversion is all that you knew and idealised. So it was never creation ever, it was just converting of a pre existing colder substance into a heated application to cool and gain a lesser amount of energy. Conversion the law of science.

You are only a human living on a planet and all you represent as a scientist is the Earth body evaluation for the application of copying, which you already stated was an Earth God reaction, fusion conversion, a study of the mountain ^ tip removal historic by vision.

So science was human brain mind learnt by vision...which is why today image/voice and vision is important in the life mind psyche of a male and his brothers about gaining scientific advice. Yet the visionary sacrifice of life detail was how you personally as a living male quoting all quotes about O God and the Earth sacrificed/attacked your own life.

For living humans are the scientists.
Living humans only quote real science information relating to the planet upon which they live, where they abstract the substances for human sciences.

And talking and using words in coercive lying arguments is titled Sophism how you all get conned in science and then destroyed. Actually.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You missed the difference between "good" and "good at".
Science is amoral. It isn't good or bad. It is efficient.

Correct!

Science is! It is neither the best or worst method. It is powerful and efficient, but limited tool, that in itself has no value.
The value you assign to science is something you do.

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

The first statement is not true. It is a definition but there are other ones. It is in the end philosophy and neither knowledge nor science.
The second statement is an opinion, which treats the first statement as a fact, which it is not.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
By definition a fact cannot be relative. It's an oxymoron.

A facile study of philosophy does this kind
of thing to people.

Those who have graced the ivy covrred walls with
their presence noted that the phil. manors are
the most tiresome people on campus.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What's a "relative" fact? Does my pen grow or shrink based on what I or anyone else thinks about it?
All facts are relative. Meaning that they are only true relative to other facts that are in turn also only relatively true. Thus, facts can be both true and untrue depending on relevance, and can therefor become very misleading.
 
Top