-
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!
The Absolutism of Science
- Thread starter deeoracle
- Start date
What precisely do you mean by "Absolute" in proper case like that?
If you mean to ask if the sciences dogmatically dictate "The Truth," as in prescribe reality, that's not what sciences do. They're descriptive, not prescriptive; nor are they rigidly dogmatic as constant re-evaluation of conclusions in the face of new evidence is built into its methodology.
If you mean to ask if the sciences dogmatically dictate "The Truth," as in prescribe reality, that's not what sciences do. They're descriptive, not prescriptive; nor are they rigidly dogmatic as constant re-evaluation of conclusions in the face of new evidence is built into its methodology.
Only mathematics & logic are "absolute", as in absolutely true, because they're a priori.
Theories (ie, models) using mathematics are not, since they're conditional upon
assumptions which are subject to change.
Theories (ie, models) using mathematics are not, since they're conditional upon
assumptions which are subject to change.
None of it.
All of it.
And "science" is not a singular concept, by the way. "The sciences" is more accurate.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Everything is considered tentative in science - nothing is considered an absolute.
I'm not sure I understand the question. The scale of studies of, say, quantum physics is extremely small, and yet our understanding of quantum physics has lead to advancements such as microprocessors and lasers. Likewise, the scale of relativity is extremely large, but has been essential in the development of satellite technologies such as GPS guiding systems. It is the aim of all fields of scientific enquiry to provide some tangible benefit for all people.
Mathematics is true also in a relative sense-
1 plus 1 is 2 but can it be 2.00000000000001 or 2.44444444444448
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Um, what?
Strictly speaking, that is incorrect.
1.0 + 1.0 (which is what's implied when decimals aren't used) will ALWAYS equal 2.0.
good, so we must make assumptions about what is absolute in mathematics to make absolute statements about results
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Simply put: No.
outhouse
Atheistically
much better then ancient mens mythology
If one deals in approximations, it is still "usefully true enuf" (within margins for error).
This is not about being "relative".
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
Not in any sense.
It was ancient men placing gods in the gaps of their knowledge.
Fitting evidence into a mythological preconceived conclusion :slap:
Not looking and studying evidence searching for the proper conclusion
Then mathematics is a system of defining absolutes- but it cannot tell us what is absolute without an imput -
can we say science and mathematics are an imput output system-
We get from them what we put in
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
So does chocolate ice cream, and it isn't a science either.
Which is a irrelevant, and nonsensical.
No, religions tell you what to think. Some encourage thought, but ultimately they are about adherence to tenets and practices and modes of thinking rather than actual enquiry.
Because it's nonsense. Science is a specific methodology used to analyze and observe the natural world; religion is a branch of (usually supernatural) philosophy usually guided by tenets, traditions and rituals. They are nowhere near alike - and religion has been largely detrimental to science throughout history. There was a time when the two walked hand in hand, but those were largely days in which an understanding of the natural world around is was inseperable from the concept of an understanding of God or Gods. Since science has become unwound from religious precepts, it has advanced leaps and bounds. It is not anti-religious, but it is now firmly a-religious, and much the better for it.
well I will say that last sentence is an assumption- perhaps they had some experience then we in this era are not privy to. That we have rationalized away
I mean perhaps theirs was a culture that new instinctively when and where to plant crops based on the moon. This is some 'scientific knowledge" isnt it