The wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing.

[Useless2015]

What?! Scientific discoveries have made monumental strides in the fight against cancer and the vast majority of other major diseases. It has allowed for monumental improvements to communication, travel, economic stability, and understanding in pretty much every part of our physical reality. So, how can you possibly even ask this question?

Well i know for a fact that the most deadly types of cancer haven't changed since the seventies..You should do the research.

The most common causes of cancer death worldwide have changed little over the last 40 years. Lung, liver, stomach and bowel cancers have been the four most common causes of cancer death since 1975.

Source:http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...istics/worldwide-cancer/mortality#heading-Two

 

[Brickjectivity]

Socrates advice can be heard without being absorbed. I heard it when I was young and thought it was a clever puzzle. Its not as if telling someone this advice will make them any wiser, and is it really possible for people to believe they are not wise? We all have to make decisions, and how can we do that without thinking ourselves wise? Doesn't the scientist have to trust their observations and calculations? Most people hate indecision, too. Indecision is considered to be foolishness, and decisiveness gets more credit than caution.

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"evidence and superior argument........ supercede (sic) what I believed before."

This is the attitude everyone should have, willing to change their view in the face of opposing facts. It takes humility.
Well done!

 

[leibowde84]

Well i know for a fact that the most deadly types of cancer haven't changed since the seventies..You should do the research.





Source:http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...istics/worldwide-cancer/mortality#heading-Two

No one said anything about the causes of cancer, buddy. We are talking about treating cancer, which has improved monumentally due to scientific research.

 

[leibowde84]

Socrates advice can be heard without being absorbed. I heard it when I was young and thought it was a clever puzzle. Its not as if telling someone this advice will make them any wiser, and is it really possible for people to believe they are not wise? We all have to make decisions, and how can we do that without thinking ourselves wise? Doesn't the scientist have to trust their observations and calculations? Most people hate indecision, too. Indecision is considered to be foolishness, and decisiveness gets more credit than caution.

Credit doesn't mean that it's reasonable.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well i know for a fact that the most deadly types of cancer haven't changed since the seventies..You should do the research.





Source:http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...istics/worldwide-cancer/mortality#heading-Two

I'm always a little saddened, and incredulous, when I see doctors smoking cigarettes -- and that's quite a few! I just shake my head.

 

[Useless2015]

No one said anything about the causes of cancer, buddy. We are talking about treating cancer, which has improved monumentally due to scientific research.

 

[allfoak]

Can't you at least try?

Evidence based on experience is the way to solve the religion problem.
They all say do what i do and you will get what i got.
Some how this is translated into, believe in me and i will save you.

To know ones self we must learn the art of experimentation.

 

[leibowde84]

Why did you quote this? Troll?

 

[leibowde84]

Treating cancer is what I'm talking about. And, without scientific progress, we wouldn't even know what causes cancer.

 

[allfoak]

One who is practiced in the art of experimentation understands that the answer to the question is only obtained after the experiment not before.
Any thought of knowing the outcome beforehand ruins the integrity of the experiment.
To learn, is to first understand that you don't know.
A child understands this instinctively.

 

[George-ananda]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

Well, I'll go with what is 'most reasonable' to believe and call it the 'most reasonable' belief. In that way, I would say I have little or no doubt in evolution. But using that same method I think it is 'most reasonable' (from the evidence of some I have studied in the eastern tradition) to believe advanced soul teachers have come among us to teach and we can learn from them things our minds and our science can not determine alone.

If there were only normal people like you and me around I would agree with all you said.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trillions of dollars are raised to fight cancer and still zero result. So, what did science actually achieve? Where are the priorities?

Sure, cancer still exists, but this does not mean "zero result".
There have been great results for both cancer therapy & avoidance.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, I'll go with what is 'most reasonable' to believe and call it the 'most reasonable' belief. In that way, I would say I have little or no doubt in evolution. But using that same method I think it is 'most reasonable' (from the evidence of some I have studied in the eastern tradition) to believe advanced soul teachers have come among us to teach and we can learn from them things our minds and our science can not determine alone.

If there were only normal people like you and me around I would agree with all you said.

I think I agree with that.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, cancer still exists, but this does not mean "zero result".
There have been great results for both cancer therapy & avoidance.

Thank you.

 

[Etritonakin]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

Apart from the fact that we often need to make decisions based on incomplete data (perhaps always, generally), it is certainly best to wait for supporting evidence if possible.

Religion cannot explain how God is eternal -what that actually means, etc..... And if they could, the explanation would be quite scientific.

Believers should understand that they probably know less about the actual nature of God than science does about the Big Bang.

They should also consider why God essentially hid himself in the first place.

Knowing that God exists -that miracles are possible, etc... would not change a thing. According to the bible, it did not change a thing (at least not immediately or in and of itself).

Some knew God quite personally, but, as they say...... How well do you really know someone?

It was necessary that we reach certain conclusions ourselves -and even learn the nature of God by experience.

One might liken God to the Big Bang.... Both rather far removed.... known about indirectly and over time. The bible says "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" -which is a rather scientific approach compared to some ideas about faith being blind.

With God, however, the important part is not whether or not God exists, but what is correct to do. It is important to acknowledge God eventually, but certain things had to be before that -before all could do so.

If one cannot produce God for examination, one can still consider the commandments, for example.

Even if God did not exist, the basis for the commandments would still be valid, would need very little tweaking if reflecting that situation......and that is the whole point -that is the whole "thing" with the truth.
So... Even if we cannot scientifically prove the existence of God, the truth is essentially apparent, and we can essentially know God before we meet him and confirm his existence.

Even if there was not a self-aware creator God, the basic nature of right and wrong would be the same, based on what has come to pass and the situation which exists.
We would still need to reference a universal truth -and have no other Gods before it, not take that truth in vain, etc.....

It is also written that the things of God are apparent in what was made -so that we are without excuse .....which is to say the even though we cannot produce God for examination, we can generally know what is good and not good -and can generally understand his nature.

Therefore, any true scientific discovery should be viewed by a believer as a detail about God.

 

[BSM1]

Well, according to Socrates, I'm not even close.

 

[outhouse]

When people are born into fanaticism and fundamentalism, supporting evidence never comes into play.

It goes a long the lines of you cannot use reason and logic on people who did not use either to gain their current beliefs

 

[Thief]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

settle for a declaration?.....you don't know yet....
take stance in position of ignorance and then say?....you're better off

I think you just undid yourself.

 

[Thief]

Exactly!! Its hard to imagine someone thinking this. There was a time when pancreatic cancer meant a death sentence but that is no longer the case at all.

breathing is inherently fatal