What do You Think Science is...

[QuestioningMind]

Nature exists naturally in any one body type that exists as it is its owned end. It lives survives until it dies a second destructive end. Two ends one is natural the other caused by effects.

First human sciences notification.

So you ask why if the environment our infinite space body refilled in by gas water mass heavens that supported life did we die.

Because earth moves through changed space on a journey same heavens but inherits not the same space.

Egotists all humans as humans first.

Then are thinkers and word users storytellers only as the egotists. The theist know it all by want a story only. As subject object is natural first.

Then you use human use of invented measures and apply those measures to living and dead destroyed bodies claiming you are intelligent.

Human assessed why life got sacrificed by non existent machines you manifested built yourself as beyond the storyteller is why science is life's destroyer.

Most of your advice was looking at dead things rationally. Or you destroy some body while taking it apart to learn.

Then you pretend a taken apart destroyed body can be put back together by thinking why you know why. Yet it remained destroyed is lying.

And you blatantly lied.

Science.

The relevance of negative influences on popular mythology is prone to disruptive ingenuities. In fact, obvious inconsistencies exist, if not forbidden by gastronomic relevancies that can be measured in real time.

 

[rational experiences]

The relevance of negative influences on popular mythology is prone to disruptive ingenuities. In fact, obvious inconsistencies exist, if not forbidden by gastronomic relevancies that can be measured in real time.

Blah blah blah Nasa.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Blah blah blah Nasa.

Exactly!

 

[lukethethird]

Einstein would not entirely agree, it seems:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

From: Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1939)

This is what I was thinking of in post 8. He makes the point that science requires faith in the existence of an order in nature that is simple enough for human beings to comprehend. (Though perhaps he placed more faith in determinism than has proved justified.)

I don't see Einstein's faith to be much of a leap, nor do I understand what he means by religion half the time. I think his ideas of faith and religion, at least as he applies them to himself, are very different than the common usages. I don't know if it's a language or a translation thing since English was not his first language.

 

[firedragon]

To understand more about views other than my own.

Thats fine I respect that. But why is it "as opposed to science"?

Science is your "religion" and theism is the opposition?

 

[lukethethird]

Thats fine I respect that. But why is it "as opposed to science"?

Science is your "religion" and theism is the opposition?

Science is not anyone's religion. Science appeals to our intellect while religion appeals to our emotions and prejudices, so they are not opposites in that respect, just very different approaches as to how we might formulate our world views.

 

[rational experiences]

A scientist lying said some changes to a pre colder mass form reacted once that involved a big bang blast burning.

Then he says by man's consciousness how I came into being.

So you walked out of a burning blast as first a man scientist walking through space? Evolved bodily by a space walk?

No.

Yet lots of scientists said they had.

So you query human conscious theorising. Plus owned human first parents memory. Only being sperm and ovary yourself.

That says.

Infinite space surrounded God earth body. Erection thesis ∆ blasted out alight hot gases. Beginning heavens crossing in space evolving. From infinite state.

Not any human crossing. Not owned by infinity either.

Just thinking heavens cold gas forms amassed that caused water held to ground cools to no light.

Earth. Not a sun.

Sun blasts lights earth. Water flood changes it. The ground eventually bared.

No life to discuss. All statuses except extra oxygen by nature.

A human says I crossed from an eternal state into inheriting human.

Eternal being converted into the highest inheritance in creation a human.

So you aren't water mass.
You aren't nature garden.

You were once an eternal being. Whose body takes on its highest transformation into gods heavens baptism.

You argue I own my parents memory they came from spirit and were not created by burnt cooled creation.

How are you wrong?

Because a human scientist thinks you didn't get created by your story.

His thesis he says is correct. Once you were a whole bodied ape.

Being correct is being.

I am a hu man. I can never be an ape.

Reasoning. A human looks at a human then compared a human to the ape.

Says I am not wrong a human is one higher life form to an ape.

The information is correct as a human did both body comparisons.

Yet you cannot compare a human to an eternal body. Why science says I'm wrong because they prove they want to.

 

[Clara Tea]

To me, there's essentially no overlap between science and religion. They're about as different as is possible. Their agendas, methods, and values are unrelated, as are their output and its utility. The religious will say that they are two ways of acquiring truth, and that they address different realms, but I don't agree with that. I don't count unjustified belief as truth, and that includes the belief in realms other than nature.

So what do I think science is? Science as most people understand the word is formal empiricism, or the systematic examination of nature often performed by specialists in laboratories and observatories in order to extract rules that embody observable regularities and allow one to more accurately predict outcomes.

I say formal, because I eventually noticed that that is what we all do in the normal course of daily life. We observe our world and make inductions that inform our actions in an effort to achieve desirable outcomes. It's learning by experience. We learn how to treat people this way. We use experience to generate rules of conduct and test them empirically, keeping those that facilitate desired outcomes and modifying or rejecting those that lead to undesirable outcomes. Isn't that the same thing the scientists do, but more formally?

My dogs do this as well, albeit without language or explicit reasoning. They make an observation, then generalize (induction), then apply the knowledge to achieve desired outcomes. I recall one that would look out a window and see a cat, and want to chase it. The most direct route to outside required moving away from the window to change rooms and use the dog door. Isn't this what scientists are doing, but instead of figuring out how to get to a cat, they work on how to get to the moon using empiricism just like the dog? They observe the world, generalize, confirm the induction with empirical testing, and use the information to achieve desired outcomes.

I consider the latter informal science now. Unlike formal science and religion, which have nothing in common, formal science and informal science as I've defined them are essentially the same thing.

No overlap of science and religion? Big bang was sudden beginning (like God made sudden beginning).

God made Adam from mud (theology). Microbes were made in chemical goo and evolved (science). The two agree.

A recent scientific paper (not yet vetted) says that the walls of Jericho were knocked down by an icy meteor. A 5 foot layer of ash exists from impact to Jericho, and it happened at the same time that the walls were knocked down. Diamonds (indicating extreme heat and pressure) are embedded in the ash (they are small).

Most theists don't realize that science agrees with them.

 

[firedragon]

As opposed to religion?

A good question by @9-10ths_Penguin I think.

If you wanted to contrast the two,

If you were to contrast the two, which is a methodological approach, religion maybe taken as a philosophy if its thought of naturalistically. Today, science takes the scientific method, which is another type of philosophy. The approach to science has changed through time philosophically. E.g. Popper to Hume. And of course science will evolve. So far science has dominantly taken over most of philosophy of science.

Religion maybe taken naturalistically as a philosophy that serves the purpose of giving metaphysical answers to human questions. If you take it as given by religions as if they are true, then its of course God given and still serves the same purpose.

From a religious perspective science is not opposed to religion so this was done methodologically.

 

[Clara Tea]

What do you think pottery is, as opposed to poetry?

Nah, that doesn’t work; science and religion don’t even sound the same.

I give up. Ask me one on sport…

You mean I spent all that time memorizing pottery for nothing?

 

[firedragon]

Science is not anyone's religion. Science appeals to our intellect while religion appeals to our emotions and prejudices, so they are not opposites in that respect, just very different approaches as to how we might formulate our world views.

Some people call their religion as Scientism. Just that they don't use the word religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

Your position is that the 2400 most elite and prestigious scientists (and the people you know). is better representative of the general population of scientists than an organization whose fellows and members come from the general population. Is that correct? If I have misrepresented you, please correct me. If not, then can you see why I am dubious?

Does an organization of fellow scientists, with similar educations, approve of scientists more than an organization that hates scientists? Hmm....let me think about that one.

 

[Clara Tea]

If you were being scientific you did not see a ship sailing through the air.

The facts were that you saw an optical image of what seemed to be a ship, above the horizon, by a certain number of degrees, at such and such a location and at such and such a time, under such and such weather conditions. Those are facts, provided someone else also confirmed your observation, i.e. it was not a hallucination on your part or a reflection in a pane of glass you were looking through. In fact, if you observe scientifically, you have to record exactly how you made the observation, in case it turns out that your observation was due to an artifact of some kind, such as a reflections in a pane of glass.

But calling it "a ship sailing through the air" is a piece of interpretation.

The fact that you saw this image might well have led you to start thinking how such a thing arises, I agree, given that ships do not normally float about in the air. And then you might think about mirages in the desert and wonder if something could cause an opposite effect at sea, and then you would quickly realise the sea is colder than the the air and hence what was responsible. If you thought scientifically, I mean.

At the horizon there are optical illusions (bent light), that cause things to appear to hover.

Read about Venus in Wikipedia, and you will find that the thicker atmosphere causes this effect to be much greater.

 

[Clara Tea]

No, it can't, because your preferences are a matter of personal opinion, not a matter of objective fact.
At best, it can make a few general statements, but even then it's hardly objective or universal.

Like for example: it's a safe assumption that most people will like chocolate sweets, but plenty of people simply dislike the taste of chocolate.

These are not matters of objective fact.



Explaining why something tastes the way it does, is exactly what I said: it can explain how your sense of taste works but it can't tell you what tastes "good".

Like for instance, I don't like mint. Except in a mojito. When it's covered in sugar and rum.



So?

If you think that mint tastes good, and if a computer, based on the ramen band frequency, says that a certain chemical tastes like mint, then that chemical would taste good.

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't see Einstein's faith to be much of a leap, nor do I understand what he means by religion half the time. I think his ideas of faith and religion, at least as he applies them to himself, are very different than the common usages. I don't know if it's a language or a translation thing since English was not his first language.

Einstein was famous for physics, not religion. He might not be the best person to ask about religion (though a genius in other ways).

 

[rational experiences]

No overlap of science and religion? Big bang was sudden beginning (like God made sudden beginning).

God made Adam from mud (theology). Microbes were made in chemical goo and evolved (science). The two agree.

A recent scientific paper (not yet vetted) says that the walls of Jericho were knocked down by an icy meteor. A 5 foot layer of ash exists from impact to Jericho, and it happened at the same time that the walls were knocked down. Diamonds (indicating extreme heat and pressure) are embedded in the ash (they are small).

Most theists don't realize that science agrees with them.

We are biology living in gods water.

Water owned microbiology. Water owning microbiology first causes mud sludge ooze owning chemistry itself...as first as chemistry. In rocks.

Eroded rocks produce dirt or sand.

Science says God created his machine from dusts. The God of the theist who says in the beginning nothing existed.

In term nothing it meant what existed as the origin presence was not yet present. Changed.

When in the life of mans conscious theist all things existed.

He however knew god owned metal in deep earth cold pressure seams. To release it he caused the mud.

Reason. Clay pots from mud were used in his science machine invention also. To battery power his machines transmitting.

When dinosaurs died their footprints were found in slush ooze as water flooding proves it flowed beneath their feet before ice instant snap froze the forming chemical ooze. Imprinted causes.

Men's foot prints found in the same state proved men did it to themselves snap froze instantly then life saved thawed.

Science of man's science memories said I came returned back from death. As he thought he would die but survived. Where his science memories emerged as a man's consciousness as a man.

Running water was first said men of science as water was running all over gods earth body. Our life water.

Father said earth has lots of tunnels emptied of mass inside of it. Water flows into it and fills it up. Changing earths balances. It cools heated radiating stone deep in earths body so earth the planet cools it's mass.

Earth cools til earths instant snap freezes from inner cooling if you keep melting sacrificing gods ice saviour.

Now science challenges the Baha'i message how were you a saviour? The asteroid was predicted Satan's return? From Romes experience.

Ends and plagues and disasters.

Because gods life water of man's lifesaver life living water was by ice the saviour a sacrifice. The part of the advice he had not man discussed.

Ice gods saviour saved us from the received satanic star shroud attack about 1000 years ago. Not the star.

The advice said Satan's star was returning. No man is God no science allowed.

A human man's theories did not invent nor own the creation of creation or human life.

The alien God is his machines god. It even manifests like a machine had....man conjured his machine physically God of the sun manifested it instantly.

Father said if men lived on the sun they would claim all universal powers were theirs. By the wisdom the suns force can attack change convert any cold evolved created mass.

Theme how I get to own the powers created in the space universe.

Why sun theists are named by men Satanists life destroyer.

2012 was the predicted end of the falling star. Old known advice. Mayan Egyptian attack.

Life saving biology was by ice the God body saviour taught yet ignored. Reborn renewed end of every year remassing.

Living biology is separate from chemistry.

 

[exchemist]

At the horizon there are optical illusions (bent light), that cause things to appear to hover.

Read about Venus in Wikipedia, and you will find that the thicker atmosphere causes this effect to be much greater.

Yes I know about inferior and superior mirages, thanks. Can you get back to me on my question to you about the relevance of Raman spectra to the taste of mint?

 

[PureX]

Since they cannot become facts in science,
they dont become bias in science.

They become religion.

Unless one has succumbed to 'scientism'. Even scientists, or supposed/wanna be scientists are not immune to the cult.

 

[PureX]

If you were being scientific you did not see a ship sailing through the air..

Now you're just being silly because of knee-jerk defensiveness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you think that mint tastes good, and if a computer, based on the ramen band frequency, says that a certain chemical tastes like mint, then that chemical would taste good.

Either you really aren't getting it or you are being deliberately obtuse.

The "good" part is OPINION