Sciences as a religion.

[outhouse]

flu shot vaccinations that have deadly side effects along with others effects. Especially with children with chemicals like mercury and everything else.

go google pandemic

that is your choice, pandemic or a few side effect you greatly exaggerate

 

[Gloone]

go google pandemic

that is your choice, pandemic or a few side effect you greatly exaggerate

Still doesn’t change the fact that people get shots sometimes that are “required” when they don’t even need them. You can make excuses for it all you want. When someone gets brain damage, starts drooling on themselves or starts to have other complications because of a vaccine they didn’t need that is a problem. Do you not agree with evolution and natural selection? If you can’t handle a little cold then you just get weeded out of the pack and ones more suitable and fit are left to live and carry on.


Now back to androids and dancing robots.

[youtube]9wcg6VWW7LE[/youtube]

 

[blackout]

But that's not the question. What do you get if you divide an apple into zero pieces?

applesauce?

 

[blackout]

the world of science
(ie, mans' measured observations and conclusions)
is (are) always changing/evolving.

I personally have no desire to even try to keep up.
I'll leave that to scientists.
It's what they do.

My observation as an outsider?
Whatever conclusions scientists put forth this year
will be different next year,
or the year after,
or the one after,
if you are patient enough.

 

[outhouse]

Still doesn’t change the fact that people get shots sometimes that are “required” when they don’t even need them.

you dont have the education nor intellegence to state that, I dont.

that is the CDC's job, without them you would already be dead.

google pandemic and see the results

 

[Gloone]

you dont have the education nor intellegence to state that, I dont.

that is the CDC's job, without them you would already be dead.

google pandemic and see the results

How about you go do some research and get back to me when know what you are talking about.

 

[Frank Merton]

Whatever conclusions scientists put forth this year
will be different next year,
or the year after,
or the one after,
if you are patient enough.

That point of view is common enough, and I can see how someone only slightly informed might come to think it, but it isn't accurate.

The view you have of science is that it is a house that the owners are constantly changing, so that one day it is painted white, the next day blue, and so on.

The reality of science is that it is a huge, almost unwieldy building, constantly being added to. Sometimes, to make something fit, an earlier part of the building is removed and replaced, but more often new wings and towers and parapets and whatever are simply constantly added to an ever-enlarging edifice.

 

[blackout]

the world of science
(ie, mans' measured observations and conclusions)
is (are) always changing/evolving.

I personally have no desire to even try to keep up.
I'll leave that to scientists.
It's what they do.

My observation as an outsider?
Whatever conclusions scientists put forth this year
will be different next year,
or the year after,
or the one after,
if you are patient enough.

That point of view is common enough, and I can see how someone only slightly informed might come to think it, but it isn't accurate.

Note that I said conclusions.

Last year it was not safe for pregnant mothers to eat tuna.
This year it is.

eh.

 

[Caladan]

Religions are based on beliefs. Science is based on beliefs

Wrong. science is based on physical and empirical test, observations and research.
it is a long and anguishing process in which your beliefs are being peeled off one by one until you get closer to the understanding of a physical phenomenon.
Science is based on verifying a phenomenon. not believing in a phenomenon. as the contemporary study of a phenomenon is going to alter and change again with time and with more anguish of research.

 

[blackout]

In the spirit of the OP...
(the "science as an edifice' post brought to mind the word "temple")

Sciences as a religion.

Definition of Temple from dictionary.net

Free online English dictionary. We define temple as NTemple \Tem'ple\, n.1. (Mormon Ch.) A building dedicated to the administration ofordinances

note: A building dedicated to the administration of ordinances.

Definition of ADMINISTER

transitive verb
1
: to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of

or·di·nance

noun \ˈȯrd-nən(t)s, ˈȯr-də-nən(t)s\
Definition of ORDINANCE

1
a : an authoritative decree or direction : order


3
: a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony

} See ordinance defined for English-language learners »

I found that interesting.
(in a way probably only I will. )

 

[bobhikes]

If science is a religion, then why are there not thousands of scientists who rape children? :run:

Most of the stuff was what I expected but this is just garbage.

Unfortunately some adults do bad things this is common in all fields. We do not however group them by jobs they do. There is no difference between fields religious and non-religious on how much harm they do. The difference is that religion has the ablility to hide it better for a while.

I am not going guess how many scientists, police officers, firemen, military or electronic technicians do harm to women, children or others but the numbers would be the same percentage as the numbers of priests.

Interestingly, police, firemen, military and such have been known to protect there own as well as priests. It eventually all comes out. Humans will be humans good and bad.

 

[bobhikes]

To all interesting comments.

To those that think I am religious I am not. To those that think I am nuts well maybe.:help:

I am a fact nilist

What does this mean to me. All facts are the creation of human kind. Nothing is objective. This means at best the individual can only know what his experiences have taught him.

Because nothing is objective everything at its root is a belief. Science is just the accepted current beliefs. In my opinion there is no empirical evidence. If empirical evidence doesn't exist how is science different than religion. It is not. To change my opinion one would have to prove that empirical evidence does exist. No matter what evidence I look at I can always find subjectivity at its root.

To try and present my view.
Why does 1 + 1 = 2

In sexual reproduction 1 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1=2, 1+1=3 etc
Sometime dealing with waves 1 + 1 = 0
In dealing with things 1a + 1b = 1a + 1b

In my view we were required to make a choice and the belief was/is the best choice should be 1 + 1 = 2 this is not empirical it is still a choice(belief) and sometimes it is wrong.

All empirical data's root is in belief. Science is rooted in belief.

 

[tumbleweed41]

All empirical data's root is in belief. Science is rooted in belief.

Well, that would be your belief. And according to your own logic, not a fact.

 

[PolyHedral]

Nothing is objective.

...Including that, presumably. Oops.

Why does 1 + 1 = 2

Because the symbols 1,2,+ and = are defined that way. Feel free to explore what happens if you define them differently.

 

[bobhikes]

...Including that, presumably. Oops.


Because the symbols 1,2,+ and = are defined that way. Feel free to explore what happens if you define them differently.

Exactly :angel2:

 

[Frank Merton]

Wrong. science is based on physical and empirical test, observations and research.
it is a long and anguishing process in which your beliefs are being peeled off one by one until you get closer to the understanding of a physical phenomenon.
Science is based on verifying a phenomenon. not believing in a phenomenon. as the contemporary study of a phenomenon is going to alter and change again with time and with more anguish of research.

There is no statute that religion cannot be based on reason and evidence, and there are several Asian traditions, including the main ones, that discourage dependence on authority and encourage what might be called a scientific approach.

I am not sure anyone can be clear exactly what "science" is.

 

[Looncall]

To all interesting comments.

To those that think I am religious I am not. To those that think I am nuts well maybe.:help:

I am a fact nilist

What does this mean to me. All facts are the creation of human kind. Nothing is objective. This means at best the individual can only know what his experiences have taught him.

Because nothing is objective everything at its root is a belief. Science is just the accepted current beliefs. In my opinion there is no empirical evidence. If empirical evidence doesn't exist how is science different than religion. It is not. To change my opinion one would have to prove that empirical evidence does exist. No matter what evidence I look at I can always find subjectivity at its root.

To try and present my view.
Why does 1 + 1 = 2

In sexual reproduction 1 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1=2, 1+1=3 etc
Sometime dealing with waves 1 + 1 = 0
In dealing with things 1a + 1b = 1a + 1b

In my view we were required to make a choice and the belief was/is the best choice should be 1 + 1 = 2 this is not empirical it is still a choice(belief) and sometimes it is wrong.

All empirical data's root is in belief. Science is rooted in belief.

Has your mind been contaminated by post-modernism? It rather sounds like it.

 

[outhouse]

There is no statute that religion cannot be based on reason and evidence, and there are several Asian traditions, including the main ones, that discourage dependence on authority and encourage what might be called a scientific approach.

I am not sure anyone can be clear exactly what "science" is.

WHAT! ???? you make no sense at all. scientist are very clear on what science is. Only the uneducated are lost.

most religion's are myth based and they are not nor have ever been based on reason and evidence.

this is fact and shows in most all of the written text we have

 

[outhouse]

Has your mind been contaminated by post-modernism? It rather sounds like it.

I agree

 

[Frank Merton]

WHAT! ???? you make no sense at all. scientist are very clear on what science is. Only the uneducated are lost.

most religion's are myth based and they are not nor have ever been based on reason and evidence.

this is fact and shows in most all of the written text we have

There are two questions here: first, how do we define "science," and, second, can religion be rational and evidence based? (What "most religions" are is a red herring).

I would suggest that "science" is a slippery concept, and defining it usually grinds down to something circular, such as "what scientists do."

I would also suggest that there is no reason on Earth why a religion could not be rational and evidence based. I think that many religions meet that test: mainly some forms of Buddhism, but also Unitarianism, the Friends, reform Judaism, Jainism, classical Confucianism, Zoroastrianism and, with a broad definition of "religion," Christian Communism, stoicism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism, no doubt others.