The Absolutism of Science

[Riverwolf]

And yet it can be proven that 0.999 BAR is equal to 1.0.

Well, now you're getting into mathematics beyond my understanding. I don't know what BAR is.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Well, now you're getting into mathematics beyond my understanding. I don't know what BAR is.

A bar over the last digit of a number signifies that the digit repeats. 0.9 with a bar over the nine would be 0.999999 with the 9 continuing ad infinitum.

 

[Thief]

In quick read I see a small distinction overlooked.

Science is a disciplined effort.
Discipline is a different topic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How much of Science is Absolute?
How much of it is only relevant to the scale of the studies from which it was gleaned?

Nothing in science is absolute. That is the point of science. Science is simply the tedious study of our universe by observations. Then we formulate theories of why or how things happen and use these observations to support the theories.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A bar over the last digit of a number signifies that the digit repeats. 0.9 with a bar over the nine would be 0.999999 with the 9 continuing ad infinitum.

But will never actually be equal to 1.0

We can make the leap and say that it is infinitely close to without "being" which would make it functionally 1.0 but it would not "actually" be 1.0

 

[Koldo]

But will never actually be equal to 1.0

We can make the leap and say that it is infinitely close to without "being" which would make it functionally 1.0 but it would not "actually" be 1.0

Actually, it is equal to 1.

Yeah, really...

 

[Koldo]

And yet it can be proven that 0.999 BAR is equal to 1.0.

Nevertheless, his point is correct. There may be different ways to represent the number '2' ( for example, 4/2 ), but the result is still equal to '2'.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

This is such a simple way to explain a VAST amount of religious debate.

You can apply years of study to doctrine, have some of the greatest minds of a generation believe in your religion of choice, literally have hundreds, if not thousands, of years worth of religious history and corresponding culture to back it and give it a sense of legitimacy, make some generally true statements dealing with the psychology of man, or even provide some profound insight into the human experience... But, at the end of the day, when you climb Mount Olympus, no one will be up there - Angry Volcano gods won't control the weather - Giants will never have existed - Animals won't be able to talk - Thor won't be the origin of thunder - Santa Claus won't visit every house in a single night ... It's just the way that it is.

A neat look into ancient culture, sure.
Supernaturally charged truth... not so much.

 

[Sapiens]

great, so science is not absolute, it is rational, but not absolute- and evolving-
I also read it is parsimonious- which makes me wonder how relevant is science in explaining complex realities

Highly relevant ... if only because it is all you've got if you require rationality.

Religion provides tangible benefits to humans, it is parsimonious, some religions tell you they are not exclusive, and they force all of us to think
The greatest scientific mysteries and discoveries are intertwined in religion - how is it any different from tentative Science?

The tangible benefits are wildly overstated.

Religion is anything but parsimonious, it requires numerous assumptions, steps, and/or conjectures.

The greatest scientific discoveries are not intertwined in religion, they are usually in opposition to religion and it is religions' reactionary nature that creates and appearance of "intertwining." It is sort of like the child who killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court on the basis of being an orphan.

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

Sucks? It's all you got besides fairy tales, especially when it comes to "emanations and beginnings."

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

Your very human drive for a simple explanation is drowning you in the logical fallacy of augment from ignorance.

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

You can't have one without the other, especially because religious output is never tentative, but always absolute.

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

No, it is not. What tied religion and science together, at least in the early days, is that both required literate practitioners.

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

"Science" does not have a direction. What would you replace science with?

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.

That is the key, that was to be my major point there.

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

Human dignity is in the eye of the beholder and is not an absolute, it is a concept that can be used support everything from universal brotherhood to the murder of apostates and infidels.

 

[Riverwolf]

A bar over the last digit of a number signifies that the digit repeats. 0.9 with a bar over the nine would be 0.999999 with the 9 continuing ad infinitum.

Gotcha.

That's definitely beyond my level. I basically flunked out of High School Trig. Nowadays, my exposure to mathematics is primarily through computer programming, which as far as I can tell only deal with infinity insofar as it's avoided like the ****ing plague.

 

[Riverwolf]

Nevertheless, his point is correct. There may be different ways to represent the number '2' ( for example, 4/2 ), but the result is still equal to '2'.

A number is just an abstract representation of a value.

Values have no intrinsic meaning in a calculation without the context of another value.

Basically, you're right. ^_^

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, it is equal to 1.

Yeah, really...

You are right. My bad.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You are right. My bad.

Yes

1 = 1

divide both sides by 9 yields

1/9 = 0.1111 BAR

multiply both sides by 9 yields

1 = 0.999 BAR

They are equal.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes

1 = 1

divide both sides by 9 yields

1/9 = 0.1111 BAR

multiply both sides by 9 yields

1 = 0.999 BAR

They are equal.

Hm.... interesting....

I gotta say, if the math teachers spent more time talking about some of the philosophical applications and interpretations of mathematics, it might have a better reputation among those learning it. Heck, that's basically the point of Carl Sagan's novel Contact, and to a more preachy-popcorn extent, Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. (The latter I've read many times and always find new insights in it; the former I read once and even after having seen the movie, had a lot of trouble following. PI in base-11 eventually results in a pattern... what?)

 

[deeoracle]

Not at all. No predictive or explanatory models. Its also rigid and absolute.

so there is no absolutism in science? isnt anyone bothered by the tentative nature of science
that we are in some situation where we are regaining iteligence we had lost from a time before-when we just knew

 

[ImmortalFlame]

so there is no absolutism in science?

Yep.

isnt anyone bothered by the tentative nature of science

Only people who are weak-minded enough to have to depend on the idea that their beliefs have to be "absolute", or who simply do not understand that science is a method - not a philosophy or creed.

that we are in some situation where we are regaining iteligence we had lost from a time before-when we just knew

What are you talking about? When did we "just know"? Knowledge is increasing. We've never known more than we know now, and there never was a point in time in which humans "just knew" anything.

 

[Riverwolf]

so there is no absolutism in science? isnt anyone bothered by the tentative nature of science

No. That nature is its greatest strength.

that we are in some situation where we are regaining iteligence we had lost from a time before-when we just knew

Except that we didn't "know". Human intelligence hasn't changed much, as far as I can tell, in thousands of years. What's changed is the sophistication of our observatory tools, and therefore the precision of the knowledge we have.

 

[deeoracle]

Robotizing? As in preventing and curing age-old diseases? Or, as in increasing the world's food supply?

thats only from one side

 

[deeoracle]

No. That nature is its greatest strength.

Except that we didn't "know". Human intelligence hasn't changed much, as far as I can tell, in thousands of years. What's changed is the sophistication of our observatory tools, and therefore the precision of the knowledge we have.

so Science is tentatively true or we can say tentatively false

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

so Science is tentatively true or we can say tentatively false

Either would be incorrect.