The Absolutism of Science

[Revoltingest]

Then mathematics is a system of defining absolutes- but it cannot tell us what is absolute without an imput -

As they say, if "garbage in...garbage out".

can we say science and mathematics are an imput output system-
We get from them what we put in

Science & math are different.
Science, as in understanding the natural world, is a posteriori knowledge, & subject to revision as new information is discovered.
Math is a priori, & the basic assumptions are not subject to change.
When science uses math, the result is only as good as the scientific assumptions.

 

[deeoracle]

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 r.

I think science is wonderful mind you, but i think it sucks when it comes to the topic of emanations and beginnings

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think science is wonderful mind you, but i think it sucks when it comes to the topic of emanations and beginnings

And why is that? It has come infinitely further in answering questions about origin than religion ever has (or probably ever will).

 

[deeoracle]

True but it perhaps needs to accept that it is not in the business of really determining origin in anyway- because origin- creation ex nihilo is a scientific impossibility

 

[Riverwolf]

well quantum physics is highly complex and like you said science provides tangible benefits

My question then is religion a type of science

No. Religion is an aspect of culture, not a type of science.

 

[Riverwolf]

good, so we must make assumptions about what is absolute in mathematics to make absolute statements about results

There's a word for the "assumptions" you're talking about: axioms. There's only a few of them known.

 

[Riverwolf]

True but it perhaps needs to accept that it is not in the business of really determining origin in anyway- because origin- creation ex nihilo is a scientific impossibility

Show your work.

 

[deeoracle]

No. Religion is an aspect of culture, not a type of science.

it could be cultural science- a kind of streetside, armchair science

 

[Riverwolf]

it could be cultural science- a kind of streetside, armchair science

It wouldn't be a science in that case. To qualify as a science, an inquiry must follow the scientific method. That's not even what religion is supposed to do.

 

[deeoracle]

It wouldn't be a science in that case. To qualify as a science, an inquiry must follow the scientific method. That's not even what religion is supposed to do.

I agree it would nt be like science in term of its imput but in terms of its output yes

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree it would nt be like science in term of its imput but in terms of its output yes

Input, process, and output must all be in line for something to be considered a science.

Besides, not really. I use the scientific method to get completely different things than my religion.

 

[outhouse]

well I will say that last sentence is an assumption-

It is not, nor did you demonstrate why or how with any credibility.

. This is some 'scientific knowledge" isnt it

Nope.

Your moving goal post

 

[Riverwolf]

It is not, nor did you demonstrate why or how with any credibility.

The evidence available is only as good as the sophistication of the tools and methodology by which it is obtained.

Our ancestors were absolutely studying the evidence available to them and reaching the conclusions most proper to what they consistently were finding.

Evidenced by the mass bodies of work they left behind in the later times.

Simply put: if it weren't for our ancestors' religions, modern scientific methodology simply would not exist. You have to walk before you can run, and from what I've been reading lately, we've barely begun to crawl.

 

[deeoracle]

The evidence available is only as good as the sophistication of the tools and methodology by which it is obtained.

Our ancestors were absolutely studying the evidence available to them and reaching the conclusions most proper to what they consistently were finding.

Evidenced by the mass bodies of work they left behind in the later times.

Simply put: if it weren't for our ancestors' religions, modern scientific methodology simply would not exist. You have to walk before you can run, and from what I've been reading lately, we've barely begun to crawl.

agreed and well put. Im going to stretch iyt a bit to say religious thought was a precursor to scientific thought- and still is a primitive form of investigative experience

 

[Riverwolf]

agreed and well put. Im going to stretch iyt a bit to say religious thought was a precursor to scientific thought- and still is a primitive form of investigative experience

I wouldn't go quite that far, however.

Rather, certain religions inspired the inquiries that were the ancestors of modern scientific thought.

Modern chemistry, for example, has for its ancestry the practice of alchemy. The microcosm of that practice was transmutation of base metal into gold. That wasn't for wealth, however; it was because gold is so perfect, that it is a stone representation of God's perfection. Transmutation, therefore, was a physical method of getting closer to God.

 

[deeoracle]

That makes me think Science might be going in a specific direction that is beneficial for the sake of science itself- this is an error religion made- perhaps it is time we replace science

 

[metis]

I agree it would nt be like science in term of its imput but in terms of its output yes

One major difference is that, generally speaking, religious beliefs are not falsifiable. If I say that I believe we were created by the Cosmic Godzilla and that all the stars and planets were made from his spit-wads, some of which caught fire, what evidence could you possibly provide to prove me wrong?

OTOH, scientific hypotheses and theorems are potentially falsifiable.

 

[Riverwolf]

That makes me think Science might be going in a specific direction that is beneficial for the sake of science itself- this is an error religion made- perhaps it is time we replace science

Again, "science" is a misnomer. "The sciences" is more accurate, since scientific inquiry involves hundreds of thousands of different fields of study.

Besides, no. The sciences feed in on each other, sure, but at worst their purpose is the satisfaction of someone's geeky curiosity. Not generally a bad thing, because such satisfaction is pretty much what created the Information Age we're transitioning into now.

Most of the time, the sciences have specific goals of their own, but the general goal is pretty much the same among all of them: make life better.

 

[metis]

That makes me think Science might be going in a specific direction that is beneficial for the sake of science itself- this is an error religion made- perhaps it is time we replace science

Replace it with what?

 

[deeoracle]

Replace it with what?

perhaps with some form of philosophical materialism mitigated by a religion al about human dignity