Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Sure it is. Just because you say it isn't, doesn't make it so. Maybe your conceptions of consciousness, reality, science and the supernatural are flawed? Have you considered that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks
- Thread starter Student of X
- Start date
Sure it is. Just because you say it isn't, doesn't make it so. Maybe your conceptions of consciousness, reality, science and the supernatural are flawed? Have you considered that?
Bingo. This is the crux--science explains things objectively, so to need science to effectively explain something claimed to be subjective is to effectively hold science in high regard.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So tell me, how does one test the supernatural?
"PSI" isn't necessarily supernatural, any more than the "unconscious mind" of psychoanalysis is supernatural. (Or any less.)
But any tests devised to employ empiricism that necessarily result in an outcome deemed "objective" would not be reliable either. Our methods for "mapping the mind" are a good example: hook a guy up to electrodes and ask him what a poke here in the brain translates into.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Well, is 'supernatural' a scientific term? What the heck is the supernatural, anyway? How exactly do you frame the 'search for spirit'?
[youtube]ktrf3msCA9U[/youtube]
SSE Talks - Scientific Search for Spirit - Charles Emmons - 1/3 - YouTube
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Good question. Mind defining those terms?
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
With a dowsing rod, tarot cards, and a copy of the Necronomicon I'd imagine. I'm sure those guys from that "Ghost Hunters" show on the SciFi network would tell you that it involves thousands of dollars worth the expensive equipment, a large salary(because of all the spiritual danger those brave individuals face), and a huge travel budget for visiting exotic locales.
The supernatural is by definition above and beyond nature, and as such could only possibly be understood by science via its interaction with nature. I have yet to see any natural phenomenon which can be best understood in terms of interactions with something beyond the universe. Its one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of the multiverse explainations put forth by some modern physicists...in my mind, they're starting to cross the line from "scientific" to "mumbo-jumbo".
McBell
Unbound
Starting to?
Seems to me that "multiverse" is quickly becoming the "scientific" equivalent to "god of the gaps".
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
I'm sure my definitions will be roughly the opposite of yours.
Did you watch the SSE vid? I would appreciate it if my opponents would watch all vids and read all papers that I post.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
One wonders why you are so ashamed of your definitions....
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
If you have definitions, present them. A video is not required if you truly understand your own definitions.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
So you can nit-pick? Naw, I'll just ask you again to watch the vid.
Is that a scientific fact?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes. Or do you have no faith that your definitions can withstand scrutiny?
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
How do I know that you're not just scared of watching vids I post, and so you are trying to goad me into giving you the room you need to just sit there and nit-pick about semantics?
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
McBell
Unbound
Please note that when I asked why he was so ashamed of his definitions I was completely ignored.
Do you think it's fair on your part to expect everyone in this thread to sit through some video you link to when you can't even be bothered to make yoir argument yourself?
It takes seconds and very little thought to copy and paste a URL. Don't expect anything more than a similar level of effort in response.
However, if you're still married to this unbalanced approach, I could find a video of my own, assert that it shows how wrong you are, and carp about how you're "afraid" of it until you watch it and respond to it point-by-point. Are you game?
McBell
Unbound
i suspect that this thread was originally intended to find choir members to pat him on the back.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Very true...the growing popularity amongst prominent physicists of both the multiverse and string "theory" both have me a bit worried. They mark the beginning of a departure from experimental evidence. Sure relativity and the quantum theory are weird, but they've got experimental observations backing up and pointing to that weirdness. The strangeness was only accepted after the experimental evidence was too overwhelming to ignore. I think a lot of theoreticians seem to be latching onto the multiverse and strings simply because they're weird ideas and it's "trendy" to be at the forefront like Einstein and Bohr instead of skeptical and "stuffy" like the old professors who opposed their ideas.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I think the title is misleading. Science is incapable of doing anything, anymore then the word peanut butter incapable of eating itself. Granted, I know you speak of scientist and not science but I thought I'd note that.
The problem with what you are saying is that the amount of ignorance with regard to these other areas you speak of is akin to right wing theist (of the Abrahamaic brand) and evolution. Instead, you have scientist being the priests and their apologist drones taking their every word at face value.
Ive argued before that scientist and the scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology (if they are even aware that is what they are doing) that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. That the evidence that exists can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.
That my dear watson is hippo turd.
The problem with what you are saying is that the amount of ignorance with regard to these other areas you speak of is akin to right wing theist (of the Abrahamaic brand) and evolution. Instead, you have scientist being the priests and their apologist drones taking their every word at face value.
Ive argued before that scientist and the scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology (if they are even aware that is what they are doing) that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. That the evidence that exists can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.
That my dear watson is hippo turd.