Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Student of X]

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?

I'm asking people to think completely outside the box that being raised in our scientific culture has put them in. To do that I need to try to build a case, and so I need to submit things like short vids and papers. They help me answer the question, 'why I think science kinda sucks.'

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.

That's true, but these are materials that I have taken the time to check out and they contribute to my case.

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?

Since I was born and raised in a scientific culture I already know what it is to think inside the tiny little mainstream box, thanks.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Since I was born and raised in a scientific culture...

...and stop. You are misinformed.

 

[Student of X]

...and stop. You are misinformed.

No, you're nit-picking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm asking people to think completely outside the box that being raised in our scientific culture has put them in. To do that I need to try to build a case, and so I need to submit things like short vids and papers.

... to support your argument, maybe. To replace it, no. A link is not an argument.

That's true, but these are materials that I have taken the time to check out and they contribute to my case.

Just from this thread alone, you've given me quite a bit of reason to question your judgement... even when it comes to something as simple as whether a video is worth my time to watch. I have absolutely no reason to accept your say-so that a video is worth watching without something more substantial behind your assertion. If you want me to expend the effort, then you yourself will have to expend some effort to convince me that it's worth it.

Since I was born and raised in a scientific culture I already know what it is to think inside the tiny little mainstream box, thanks.

I'm not so sure of that. I think what you've said in this thread has shown a misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

No, you're nit-picking.

No, I'm not. Science is not a culture. It is not a religion. It is not an opinion. It is a method. A method with analyzes data and constructs models to best explain the data. You may have lived in an environment which blindly followed on the footsteps of outspoken scientists, but that is not science. To conflate the two is blatantly false.

 

[Student of X]

... to support your argument, maybe. To replace it, no. A link is not an argument.

I've already made my argument. Now I am only trying to help you to understand it. In order to understand where I am coming from, I really think one needs to have a good grasp of parapsychology, mysticism, philosophy, comparative religion. But none of my opponents in this thread demonstrate a background in these fields. Science doesn't value them. So, I try to present a little bit of material. Sue me.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I've already made my argument. Now I am only trying to help you to understand it. In order to understand where I am coming from, I really think one needs to have a good grasp of parapsychology, mysticism, philosophy, comparative religion. But none of my opponents have backgrounds in these fields. So, I try to present a little bit of material. Sue me.

You won't even define your terms. How have you explained anything?

 

[Tristesse]

Well, seeing as how science is the best discovery we've made for determining the nature of reality, and it's the most consistent. I think it's pretty awesome.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I’ve 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.

Easy now.

I've never heard anyone say that the scientific method proves that God or the supernatural doesn't exist. Science is just an approach to knowledge that deals with phenomena which can be independently verified, i.e. the material universe. If there exists anything extra-material, empirical inquiry won't be able to make any claims one way or the other about the subject.

In fact, it's the mystics who make all sorts of claims about phenomena that are allegedly supernatural and beyond the reach of empirical inquiry. And their belief in these super-realities is usually based on experiences that they consider "spiritual" simply because they don't accept conventional medical explanations for them.

-Nato

 

[Student of X]

Well, seeing as how science is the best discovery we've made for determining the nature of reality, and it's the most consistent. I think it's pretty awesome.

Oh? What has science determined is the nature of reality?

 

[Quiddity]

No, I'm not. Science is not a culture. It is not a religion. It is not an opinion. It is a method. A method with analyzes data and constructs models to best explain the data. You may have lived in an environment which blindly followed on the footsteps of outspoken scientists, but that is not science. To conflate the two is blatantly false.

I agree with you to an extent but I think it's a mistake to ignore that a method can't apply or interpret itself; It takes people to do that. These people have dreams, desires, and yes........even biases. Do I think they normally do a good job of seperating their opinion of existance of God with science? Yes, in general; but some of them simply can't help themselves but to think of the boogie man when looking into the depths of space and the unknown.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Oh? What has science determined is the nature of reality?

Math.

I agree with you to an extent but I think it's a mistake to ignore that a method can't apply or interpret itself; It takes people to do that. These people have dreams, desires, and yes........even biases. Do I think they normally do a good job of seperating their opinion of existance of God with science? Yes, in general; but some of them simply can't help themselves but to think of the boogie man when looking into the depths of space and the unknown.

As I said, conflating the beliefs of a group of scientists with the method of science is false. It's all about the most accurate model.

 

[Tristesse]

Oh? What has science determined is the nature of reality?

I'd say giving us a better understanding of the universe, we may not know everything, but thats not a failing of science, thats a failing of our understanding at the moment. We'll probably never get to the point where we understand everything, but the process known as science is constently giving us more knowledge. And how can more knowledge be a bad thing?

 

[Quiddity]

Easy now.

I've never heard anyone say that the scientific method proves that God or the supernatural doesn't exist.

In this thread you can read Richard Lewontin (Atheist and Evolutionary Biologist) describe the problem.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/120189-scientism.html

Here is anther example:

"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us."

<snip>

"The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue."

The Godless Universe.....This link used to work.... But I'm sure Google can help.

Thoughts?

 

[Quiddity]

As I said, conflating the beliefs of a group of scientists with the method of science is false. It's all about the most accurate model.

Why is it false? Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, and others are noted to have done exactly what I'm noting. It's not like it's without merit.

Now if you want to say that not all scientist do this, that's fine, but it's a diservice to science to pretend it's not there.

 

[Tristesse]

Why is it false? Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, and others are noted to have done exactly what I'm noting. It's not like it's without merit.

Now if you want to say that not all scientist do this, that's fine, but it's a diservice to science to pretend it's not there.

It's false because sceintists try as best they can to have their theories and hypotheses be objective, by having peer reviewed papers by numerous scientists. It's not exact, but nothing in life is.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

"The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue."

So do you disagree that it's a scientific issue, or do you just disagree with the scientists who claim they find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God exists?

I'm at a loss to understand exactly what religious people want. Either their faith has nothing to do with facts and evidence, or their standard of evidence is so low it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe in God.

What's your take?

-Nato

 

[Quiddity]

It's false because sceintists try as best they can to have their theories and hypotheses be objective, by having peer reviewed papers by numerous scientists. It's not exact, but nothing in life is.

I don't see how anything I said contradicted otherwise. Perhaps a second read of my posts?

 

[Skeptisch]

I'm at a loss to understand exactly what religious people want. Either their faith has nothing to do with facts and evidence, or their standard of evidence is so low it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe in God.

What's your take?

Carl Sagan: You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.

 

[Quiddity]

So do you disagree that it's a scientific issue, or do you just disagree with the scientists who claim they find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God exists?

I'm at a loss to understand exactly what religious people want. Either their faith has nothing to do with facts and evidence, or their standard of evidence is so low it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe in God.

What's your take?

-Nato

Let me ask you something. Do you think one can follow the scientific method to disprove something doesn't exist? Do you believe God's existance to be a legitimate scientific issue?

Those questions should make it radiantly obvious. If you don't see it, I don't know what else to tell you.