mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Just answer about if there is any form of best knowledge.
I get your point about the book in Dansih and I move on.
-
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!
"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
Just answer about if there is any form of best knowledge.
I get your point about the book in Dansih and I move on.
You’re asking me to explain what your link explains. Did you not read your own link?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, how do you know that my link is irrelevant to science?
Even if you are baking a cake the best knowledge resource will be subjective. An inexperienced baker will need something different than an experienced baker.
If you want explanations of evolution you will look to reputable sources and avoid creationism since it is fraud.
So the “best” in generic terms is vague.
Because we know that values, morality, aesthetics, beauty, meaning, etc are not absolute. They are abstractions that humans adopt and assign meaning to. These are all products of human evolution.
Don’t you know this?
Your post continue to be obtuse, and too vague to be meaningful. You argue from the perspective of a best in a previous post and the fog it up as there is no best, Best is a comparison which you have not responded to from a previous post as to what is best,
Your argument philosophically is out there somewhere with an illusive slippery Idealism or Vedic view that our physical world is an illusion of our minds, and there is no physical reality.
There is actually no way to respond to this slippery vague argument that does not make since except form the perspective of an obscure reference of a Danish book.
You are the one that brought up the issue of the "best" and have since dodged in responding your post making a comparison to "WHAT?"
As far as the objective predictable nature of our physical existence science is the only contender that I know of. You have failed to present an alternative.
Down Alice's rabbit hole to the Tea Party.
Last edited:
Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.
Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science.
Last edited:
Comradio251
Member
Really, how? I guess Jyotisha Astrology, Vedic Science, Aryuvedic Medicine etc. are all based on real confirmed scientific data? A large majority of India practices those things and has seeped into their real science community and you're telling me Hindus, especially, get science right? Even their core beliefs? This is laughable.
All of those non physical elements obviously exist or else you wouldn't be able to 'experience' them but science cannot literally observe them happening. Metaphysical concepts such as how the human mind came to exist cannot be answered by science either.
Feel free to make an argument. Hindu beliefs are vastly different than the religious beliefs of the West. The primary difference is that many concepts in Hindu belief are representative of real phenomenon, and these don’t conflict with science.
Religious fervor is an experience, but it isn’t driven by interaction with supernatural entities. It is mimicked social behavior. We don’t see anyone outside of Pentecostal churches speaking in tongues.
Metaphysics answers nothing. It has claims that are invalid since they assume a supernatural at work.
Science does have valid models based on facts and data.
And I am thrilled about the number of dwarf planets! Pluto, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, Quaoar, Orcus, Salacia, Gonggong, not to mention Ceres.
Yes. And still there. it still exists even if nobody knows about it.
I did a little research on this book, and find not representing your conclusions you present there concerning science, At present I consider it a non-controversial reference dealing primarily on understanding social sciences in academics, It also addresses different approaches to science in a non-controversial manner,
All his books I have reviewed primarily deal with Philosophy and Social Science.
I will be researching this book and Finn Collin more.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."
It needs some correction, please, right?
Science, as per the Scientific Method , is a tool to reckon reality, only in the physical and material realms; to reckon reality in issues that fall in the ethical , moral and spiritual realms, the proper methodology is the Religious Method, please, right?
One may like to click my post #182 in this connection which I wrote some times ago in these forums, please, right?
Regards
It needs some correction, please, right?
Science, as per the Scientific Method , is a tool to reckon reality, only in the physical and material realms; to reckon reality in issues that fall in the ethical , moral and spiritual realms, the proper methodology is the Religious Method, please, right?
One may like to click my post #182 in this connection which I wrote some times ago in these forums, please, right?
Regards
From a summary of the book in English
Humanistisk videnskabsteori, 4. udgave - Køb den hos Polyteknisk Boghandel
Polyteknisk Boghandel - ***- og studiebøger til det professionelle Danmark
www-polyteknisk-dk.translate.goog
Humanistic scientific theory is a teaching and information book. It is a classic in the subject element Theory of Science on the BA courses, and can be included in the master's courses and up to PhD level, where its extensive references to further literature will also be valuable.
Ten researchers write in fourteen chapters about the history and trends of the humanities in recent times, about the role of the humanities in modern society, about the relationship between the natural sciences and the human sciences, and about the individual scientific theoretical schools and basic concepts.
The book also contains a name index, an annotated bibliography for each chapter and a detailed glossary with explanations of terms
Book chapters:
1. INTRODUCTION by Finn Collin, Simo Køppe and Rasmus Helles
2. THE HISTORY OF THE HUMANISTIC SCIENCES FOUR SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS by Finn Collin
3. POSITIVISM by Jan Riis Flor
4. CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND PARADIGM by Bo Jacobsen and Finn Collin
5. PHENOMENOLOGY by Dan Zahavi
6. HERMENEUTICS by Mogens Pahuus
7. HISTORISM by Bernard Eric Jensen
8. STRUCTURALISM by Frans Gregersen
9. PSYCHOANALYSIS by Simo Køppe
10 . COGNITION AND COGNITIVISM by Thomas Wiben Jensen
11. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE HUMANITIES by Finn Collin
12. EMPIRI AND THEORY by Simo Køppe and Rasmus Helles
13. QUALITATIVE METHODS by Rasmus Helles and Simo Køppe
14 . FINAL CONSIDERATIONS by Finn Collin, Simo Køppe and Rasmus Helles
Comradio251
Member
The Indian scientific community says otherwise. India is facing quite the dilemma with pseudoscience right now. Nothing here invalidates my claims. What's your point? Plenty of people have lived independently from scientific thought for thousands upon thousands of years across all cultures, traditions and beliefs. I used Hinduism as one example. I could even use Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia as a unique example of forced divestment from academic and scientific thought as he only wanted obedient, low class peasants with no critical thinking skills.
Metaphysics is a part of philosophy. Both science and philosophy seek the endless pursuit of truth in their own ways. Science needs philosophy in order to make sense of the world in which we live in. You first asked about metaphysics and rejected it in your next message anyway. Fine, but science absolutely does not have a working theory about the mind as it deals with all of those non physical elements I described earlier. Here's why.
Last edited:
That's interesting, and apparently a new phenomenon that I was not aware of. I wonder what role social media and disinformation plays. If they continue to adopt pseudoscience then they will be ineffective in their nation, and also globally.
That's what dictators want, poorly informed citizens.
Only science has a strict methology.
Really? What philosophy do students rely on to understand science?
That science can't explain all elements of consciousness does not open the door to religious belief and claims.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
" Here's why. "
I find following in ones why. very interesting:
" There is growing suspicion that conventional scientific methods will never be able answer these questions. Luckily, there is an alternative approach that may ultimately be able to crack the mystery. "
Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
One day we will have a science of consciousness, but it won’t be science as we know it today
theconversation.com
Right?
Regards
Comradio251
Member
Yes. I don't believe they will be able to personally explain it fully though. And whatever" Here's why. "
I find following in ones why. very interesting:
" There is growing suspicion that conventional scientific methods will never be able answer these questions. Luckily, there is an alternative approach that may ultimately be able to crack the mystery. "
Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
One day we will have a science of consciousness, but it won’t be science as we know it today
Right?
Regards
is will be interesting itself.
I am not sure what the Religious Method is. Yes, subjects of spiritual realms would be Theology. Ethical and moral issues may overlap Philosophy, Theology, and some Behavioral Sciences such as Psychology and Sociology depending on the issue of the whether we are dealing with hypotheses and objective evidence,
The limits of Methodological Naturalism are fairly well defined and apply where hypotheses and theories ay be falsified by objective verifiable evidence,
The Social Sciences called Humanities are a gray area where Methodological Naturalism applies as the foundation, but subjective research and studies still make conclusions based on human observations and assessments where the strict standards of Methodological Naturalism.