Who hear thinks..........

[Madsaac]

No. Experience is the best way to know our lungs help us to breathe. Science is the best way to know lungs are what helps us breathe how and why our lungs work.

Seriously?

Yes, maybe 'semantics' isn't the right term but in relation to the response above. It's clear that without science, what we know about the lungs would be greatly reduced.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I avoid thinking whenever possible.

It saves calories. I keep saying this, but people don't get it. They don't get it because they think as little as possible to save calories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes or No answers only please.

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

H2O is water, so you are saying that water is made from water. But I get the point. Science is the best means we have for determining the molecular makeup of water and that it is composed of molecules composed of atoms and so forth.

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?

Experience is the best way in my view. Science explains why it seems to "come up".

Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

I would give that to science.

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

I have some questions about your questions, but I think science provides the best answer based on the evidence.

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

Again, experience tells me that I and others cannot walk on water in a liquid state, but can walk on it in a solid phase. Science provides the information on why this experience is so.

There could be a million of these but you get the picture.

I hope I have gotten the point. A system, condition or cycle that has elements or evidence that can be experienced (observed) can be understood applying the methods of science so that we better understand these things and the details about them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

H2O is water, so you are saying that water is made from water. But I get the point. Science is the best means we have for determining the molecular makeup of water and that it is composed of molecules composed of atoms and so forth.

Experience is the best way in my view. Science explains why it seems to "come up".

I would give that to science.

I have some questions about your questions, but I think science provides the best answer based on the evidence.

Again, experience tells me that I and others cannot walk on water in a liquid state, but can walk on it in a solid phase. Science provides the information on why this experience is so.

I hope I have gotten the point. A system, condition or cycle that has elements or evidence that can be experienced (observed) can be understood applying the methods of science so that we better understand these things and the details about them.

You make the excellent point that the sun doesn’t come up at all, and that it was science which discerned that.

In particular, recent generations of scientists have recognised that previous generations of scientists were, despite all their carefully recorded and analysed observations, wrong about something so apparently obvious (but misleading) in nature.

Knowing this should encourage humility from future generations of scientists.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, maybe 'semantics' isn't the right term but in relation to the response above. It's clear that without science, what we know about the lungs would be greatly reduced.

You moved the goal posts from your OP question...

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

"What we know about the lungs" is not the same as "know our lungs help us beath [sic]."

 

[SalixIncendium]

My reply is to Salix who in previous conversations has denied the independent existence of any one or any thing beyond his own mind. Because of this, when Salix answered "I would test it", that does not include any others. It is only his mind testing, and only his mind observing the results of the test. I think it's important to point this out when interpreting Salix's answers. It would be wrong to understand it from the point of view of anyone other than Salix. That point of view has significant limitations which need to be applied.

First, if you are going to talk about me in a post, do me the courtesy of tagging me so I have the opportunity to correct your errors.

Second, if you are going to speak of what I have posted in "previous conversations," please, after obtaining my permission, quote that material rather than inaccurately interpret what I've said in other threads.

None of what you said above accurately relays my position in previous conversations or how they relate to this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

Not just the best. I'ld dare say it seems to be the only way.

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?
Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

There could be a million of these but you get the picture.

I'ld say yes to all.

Even though we knew about heliocentrism etc before "modern" standardized science.
However, the way we finally figured out things like a spherical earth and heliocentrism and alike, was through applying scientific principles. Independently testable things. Science as a standardized method was established from experience of what type of inquiry yielded accurate results and which didn't.

Independent testability, observation, experiment, etc all play a big role here.
And it's through stuff like that that our ancestors figured out that the earth is a sphere and that it orbits the sun.

 

[Quintessence]

It wasn't obvious to people hundreds of years a go and so people believed in the supernatural for explanations

But many now believe science is the best way to answer these questions, however some people try and confuse the notion without any logical reasoning. For example, type of language used, or a subjective perspective, or the type of knowing

It's obvious we wouldn't know what water is made from without science, or the rotation of the Earth and so on.

Are you familiar what mythos is? And how it differs from logos?

See:

https://www.npr.org/2005/11/07/4992705/karen-armstrong-myths-and-the-modern-world

 

[Quintessence]

You make the excellent point that the sun doesn’t come up at all, and that it was science which discerned that.

In particular, recent generations of scientists have recognised that previous generations of scientists were, despite all their carefully recorded and analysed observations, wrong about something so apparently obvious (but misleading) in nature.

Knowing this should encourage humility from future generations of scientists.

It does. It just doesn't seem to for adherents of scientism, who by and large are not actual scientists. I don't get what it is with non-scientsits wanting to make science their god and their religion. I mean, I do, but that they don't realize that this is what they're doing is... interesting yet unsurprising.

 

[Nakosis]

Just for arguments sake lets say that observation is part of the scientific process, which it is, the what do you think?

I find it surprising that people just won't say that without science we wouldn't know what H2O is, or how our lungs work, or knowledge of the solar system and that we can't walk on water, especially if I couldn't try it myself.

Yes, observation is part of it. Originally people thought water itself was an element. Without the principles of science, whether formally understood or not it be hard to consider a need to break water down further. We all do "science" sometimes folks don't recognize it as such.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. They don't 'help' us breathe. They are 'why' we breathe(try breathing without lungs).
Science can tell us how they work.

If we go this route the diaphragm is why we we breathe. It contracts and relaxes to cause our lungs to fill with air and exhale it out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, this is why I ask about specifics. Doing exhaustive methodological observation and statistical analysis for something that's pretty darned obviously the case through basic life experience is a waste of time for most humans. That makes it firmly suboptimal (aka, not the best) unless you specifically want exhaustive methodological observation and statistical analysis.

And yet many times we discover what seems super obvious isn't exactly how things are working. This is why this exhaustive methodological observation gan be so good, especially for figuring out if things can work better.

 

[We Never Know]

If we go this route the diaphragm is why we we breathe. It contracts and relaxes to cause our lungs to fill with air and exhale it out.

We can go all kinds of routes, all the way down to because we are 'alive'
Fact is the lungs are why we are able to breathe air.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's obvious we wouldn't know what water is made from without science, or the rotation of the Earth and so on.

We did observe that long before science.

 

[Madsaac]

Are you familiar what mythos is? And how it differs from logos?

See:

https://www.npr.org/2005/11/07/4992705/karen-armstrong-myths-and-the-modern-world

No not really, mythos are often stories that are not true, used to help make sense of the world we live in.

Whereas logos, is more rational, where observations are made with more logical deductions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes or No answers only please.

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?
Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

There could be a million of these but you get the picture.

Science is the best way by far to know facts about the natural world. But science says absolutely nothing about erthics or whether God exists. That is the purview of Religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We did observe that long before science.

No we didn't. Mankind was completely blind for most of its history to the nature of atoms, and how they combine into molecules. Nor did they understand that gas/liquid/solid had anything to do with how far apart those molecules are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We did observe that long before science.

And we figured it out through application of scientific principles before they were known / standardized as such.

Which is to say: through independently verifiable evidence, empiricism, testing, experiment, observation, etc.

The one who figured out the earth was a sphere could actually demonstrate it to others in such a way that they could verify for themselves that this was the case.


It's through the success of such methods of inquiry that modern science was born and standardized in a methodology to be used by all scientists.
Because throughout history, it had become clear that such a way of inquiry actually works and yields reliable answers.

 

[Madsaac]

Science is the best way by far to know facts about the natural world. But science says absolutely nothing about erthics or whether God exists. That is the purview of Religion.

Yes but in regards to ethics, social cohesion, human emotions and so on. Would you call the countless beneficial studies done in these areas 'science'?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is the best way by far to know facts about the natural world. But science says absolutely nothing about erthics or whether God exists. That is the purview of Religion.

Can't say I fully agree with this, on various levels.

First, I disagree heavily that ethics is the purview of religion. Ethics is the purview of reason. And I'll add that this reason is also heavily informed by science - likely in far more ways that people who like to claim it in the domain of religion would care to admit.

Ethics / morals is fundamentally about well-being. Science has quite a few things to say about well-being. About how to distinguish well-being from suffering. In the extremes it's obvious, but there is a lot of less obvious things also. Also about what the causes of certain types of suffering are. To say it simplistically: if you don't understand the consequences of your actions, you will not be able to tell if and when you are inflicting suffering if it is not mega-obvious. So you actually need a good understanding of the world in order to be able to make intelligent and ethical decisions. You also need to understand the nature of suffering and well-being (both in physical as well as in mental / psychological terms). I'ld say that science is a quite important aspect to figuring that stuff out.


Secondly, I don't see how religion has anything useful to say about anything in general. I can certainly see value in story-telling, which is something that also commonly happens in religion - but by no means is it exclusive to it. And it that sense, I can see value in it. But not in a dogmatic way. I see it as a nice way to open a discussion about certain aspect of "the human condition", but by no means would I consider such to have any kind of "truth value" by default, just because it is "religion" or in the sense of "moral of the story".