Frank Merton
Active Member
That is a disgusting response. Are you a professional mud thrower? I did not say any such thing -- I only pointed out that the passionate people need to be viewed skeptically -- horrible consequences can ensue.
-
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!
Sciences as a religion.
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Hey, you brought it up. Your claims of "Testimony of miracles" meet the very definition of hearsay.
It is not that Astrology is obviously false, it is your claim that Astrology can make claims of being scientific. When it so clearly fails to meet even my basic definition of science.
Please explain the weakness in the following statement. (Not a "belief", just a simple method)
Science, in and of itself, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence?
Of course it is not a religion. It is a method of finding out facts about our natural world through the use of observation and objective empirical evidence.
One does not "worship" a method.
Again, I think you are confusing science with Institutions.
Frank Merton
Active Member
To focus on just one disagreement, first up, first served. When a person testifies to a miracle, that is testimony. If later that person dies and someone else records the testimony, that is hearsay.
In both cases, I think it is useful evidence. Of course in the latter one has the extra problem of being sure of the honesty of the recorder, but usually that is a minor concern.
It is not materially different from a telescope user reporting a transient event on the surface of the moon. That person's report is testimony; the newspaper story is hearsay. Most of the time we trust newspapers to be fairly accurate (depending on the journalistic integrity of the particular paper).
The reason you and I both tend to give more credit to the latter report than to the miracle is subtle. It is partly our philosophical attitudes about breaks with the order of natural events. Also, of course, reports or two-headed bicyclists require more evidence to us than reports of two-seated bicycles (the more extreme the claim, the more evidence we demand).
Still, an open-minded person does not dismiss either story without reason (evidence of fraud or delusion, etc.). Instead, we only file it away in our minds with a skeptical note, waiting to see what might develop in future.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I am not dismissing it because it is hearsay. I am dismissing it because it is an extraordinary claim that lacks any objective empirical evidence.
Thus in no way valid as science.
Frank Merton
Active Member
Yes, it is not science. But is it wise to dismiss all extraordinary claims like that? It does have the evidence of honest testimony from a sane individual.
Yes, of course testimony is unreliable, but it is not always unreliable.
In short, why do you have to be so dogmatic about things that don't fit your view of the world? Why can't you just say, "I don't know."
Frank Merton
Active Member
Although I agree with your result, I think your approach is unfortunate, if not closed-minded.
It's a big universe; all sorts of things are possible.
Frank Merton
Active Member
What is needed to do that are facts. Facts are measurement, observations, the outcome of experiments. To the extent that such activity is repeatable by skeptics, they become reliable enough as facts to allow us to think about them and hopefully construct a reasonable explanation of the facts -- a theory.
There is, then, a sense in which a given theory could be said to falsify another theory -- if the facts behind the first theory stand up and the facts behind the second don't. Often working scientists compare their theories rather than their data, to see where more observations or experiments are needed to resolve the competing theories.
(Fairly often the data we have is not enough to resolve competing theories. In that case honest scientists will present their own theory and then explain that there are other explanations that fit the facts too).
Renji
Well-Known Member
But isn't science "evidence" or "fact" based and that religion is based on faith or believing even the "unseen"? Those were two different things, right?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Thank you.
It is dismissed as Science because it is based entirely on testimony and hearsay.
But it is not science unless it can be backed by objective and empirical evidence. It must be independently verified. It must be repeatable, testable, predictive, and falsifiable.
"I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. But filling in "I don't know" with supernatural explanations that fly in the face of known scientific facts is not.
There is nothing dogmatic about requiring empirical evidence before accepting an extraordinary claim to be true.
Frank Merton
Active Member
I live in a world where nothing is "true" or "false." I try to not have so much ego as to think I can make such decisions. Instead, I live in a world where things are likely or unlikely, expected or not expected.
Your notion of "science" is extremely limited. I think almost any rational activity, including thinking about reports of things that don't fit into my preconceived notions, is still science. Whether or not it is of course is a matter of definition, and hence not all that important, so long as it is remembered that one cannot dismiss something when it is "not science" if one uses an excessively limited of the word.
Coincidentally, I read an item earlier today that historians are more and more thinking of alchemy as having been a science. As I read over the article, it hit me that astrology would also qualify for redefinition, since the criteria the historians were citing were much the same for both.
As practiced nowadays, astrology does not strike me as in the same league as astronomy (nowhere near), but that does not mean that, to those who believe it, it is not rational (internally consistent, supported by evidence). Dismissing people who have different opinions as "stupid" or whatever is to me entirely too judgmental. What you think is an extraordinary claim is largely cultural.
Your notion of "science" is extremely limited. I think almost any rational activity, including thinking about reports of things that don't fit into my preconceived notions, is still science. Whether or not it is of course is a matter of definition, and hence not all that important, so long as it is remembered that one cannot dismiss something when it is "not science" if one uses an excessively limited of the word.
Coincidentally, I read an item earlier today that historians are more and more thinking of alchemy as having been a science. As I read over the article, it hit me that astrology would also qualify for redefinition, since the criteria the historians were citing were much the same for both.
As practiced nowadays, astrology does not strike me as in the same league as astronomy (nowhere near), but that does not mean that, to those who believe it, it is not rational (internally consistent, supported by evidence). Dismissing people who have different opinions as "stupid" or whatever is to me entirely too judgmental. What you think is an extraordinary claim is largely cultural.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
- First, it is not about "different opinions". It is about what facts are supported by evidence.
- Second, I have never been so judgmental or insensitive as to call anyone of a differing opinion "stupid".
- Third, cultural beliefs do not change scientific facts.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
What a confusing and imprecise world you live in.
In your world, is it not true that the mass of an object determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field?
In your world, is it not true that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force or object?
In your world, is it not true that the force between any two charges is equal to the product of the charges divided by 4 pi times the vacuum permittivity times the distance squared between the two charges?
In my world, these are scientific facts.
Frank Merton
Active Member
- This is your opinion.
In that case I apologize. You take the same sort of tone that those who do use such words, so I may have made a too-hasty conclusion.
Of course not. Don't put words into my mouth: I say enough stupid things as it is.
Your culture, however, does influence the amount of evidence you demand before you will believe. Be realistic about this. It would be far easier for me to convince a Vietnamese that I had seen a ghost than the average American (although even in that case it wouldn't be too hard with many).
Frank Merton
Active Member
Well, they are facts if you disregard special relativity. Are you an engineer?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
LOL, no, but you do bring up an interesting point.
Special relativity and quantum physics deal with realms of reality that, since they do not immediately react with observable space or time, seem to follow a differing set of rules, if any, than what we see in our normal observations of reality.
I personally find it fascinating and an exciting new frontier in science.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
That's simply because humans are used to dealing with large things moving very slowly. Quantum Gravity (because standard QM and Relativity don't mesh at the moment) would be, if you'll excuse the mysticism, a "deeper" understanding than what we observe in our everyday life.
outhouse
Atheistically
thats is why you will never acomplish anything in your life that contributes to society, in my opinion.
people as whole cannot survive with that attitude