You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[Revoltingest]

The whole concept of "perfect knowledge" is bogus.
Anyone who thinks he has it, doesn't.
But he'll be filled with pompous piety, & be unable to ever change his mind because that would signal imperfection & failure.
It's a trap.
An inquisitive mind & lack of certainty will fare better in the real world.

 

[jarofthoughts]

My argument is based on the axiom that God exists. If you accept this then there is no reason why He can't give us perfect knowledge.

As should be obvious from my last post, I do not subscribe to the notion that a god or gods exist.
And as I have mentioned earlier in other treads; every religion on earth (with the possible exception of certain forms of Buddhism, but I consider those more as philosophies than religions) fails and is refuted on exactly the same premise: They have no objective, empirical or scientific evidence for their central claim.

 

[I-Ching]

As should be obvious from my last post, I do not subscribe to the notion that a god or gods exist.
And as I have mentioned earlier in other treads; every religion on earth (with the possible exception of certain forms of Buddhism, but I consider those more as philosophies than religions) fails and is refuted on exactly the same premise: They have no objective, empirical or scientific evidence for their central claim.

Well what empirical evidence do you have for the opposite? If you think that life emerged from matter then why has such a living entity never been found and why can't they produce one artificially? You also have nothing but faith.

 

[I-Ching]

The whole concept of "perfect knowledge" is bogus.
Anyone who thinks he has it, doesn't.
But he'll be filled with pompous piety, & be unable to ever change his mind because that would signal imperfection & failure.
It's a trap.
An inquisitive mind & lack of certainty will fare better in the real world.

Yes the real world is looking really great at moment now that is under secular leadership.

 

[PolyHedral]

Sounds like a pigs "philosophical work"

How dare you!

Yes the real world is looking really great at moment now that is under secular leadership.

All hail Friend Computer!

 

[blackout]

Science provides a measured method of insight into the physical world
from the perspective (observational vantage point) of "man".

There are many questions 'science' can't answer.
(ie, man can't answer through science)

I'm not sure what this "perfect knowledge" is (supposed to be).

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes the real world is looking really great at moment now that is under secular leadership.

It sure beats theocracies.
Even Hitler invoked Gott to be on his side.
(We all knew he had to make an appearance eventually.)
At least now, there hasn't been an auto de fe in many a year.
You can let a self-proclaimed guru tell you what to think, but that ain't for me.
As even the Devil himself said to humans, "Given brains you have been....use them!".

 

[McBell]

I know this from the Vedas.
"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion — at that time I descend Myself." Bhagavad-Gita 4.7

Wait, so you are saying you "KNOW" based on something written by humans who have senses that are limited and imperfect, make mistakes, are in illusion, and cheat?

Can we say "hypocrite"

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like a pigs "philosophical work"

The pig is an intelligent & noble animal.
And, it gives us bacon.
I accept your compliment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtA-FpTZOQw

 

[Acim]

I don't require any faith. I believe the model sending data to me is consistent, but that's only by inferring from a track record. If it stops being consistent, then I'll stop believing it.

A - How do you know the model is not lying to you?

B - Your belief rests on faith. It may be perpetuated by sense of rational thinking. It rests on faith.

 

[PolyHedral]

A - How do you know the model is not lying to you?

It might be.

 

[Acim]

They have no objective, empirical or scientific evidence for their central claim.

Scientific materialism has no objective, empirical or scientific evidence for its central claim.

As of page 33 of this thread, I am yet to see any, and have asked more than 3 times for it. Evidently, proponents of (ahem) science, can not provide objective evidence of material world.

Denying even, that their (or our) evidence for physicality rests on faith (entirely).

 

[idav]

Evidently, proponents of (ahem) science, can not provide objective evidence of material world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only a single face palm for that one?
Yer such a diplomat.

 

[YmirGF]

Scientific materialism has no objective, empirical or scientific evidence for its central claim.

As of page 33 of this thread, I am yet to see any, and have asked more than 3 times for it. Evidently, proponents of (ahem) science, can not provide objective evidence of material world.

Denying even, that their (or our) evidence for physicality rests on faith (entirely).

I'll take science, any day, over the vaunted revelations of psychologically challenged people, thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

Scientific materialism has no objective, empirical or scientific evidence for its central claim.

As of page 33 of this thread, I am yet to see any, and have asked more than 3 times for it. Evidently, proponents of (ahem) science, can not provide objective evidence of material world.

Denying even, that their (or our) evidence for physicality rests on faith (entirely).

You seem to be conflating scientific materialism with scientific naturalism. Did you learn about science from those buffoons at the Discovery Institute, then? And if so, why should anyone take your claims seriously?

 

[Acim]

I'll take science, any day, over the vaunted revelations of psychologically challenged people, thanks.

Self reinforcing logic at work.

You're welcome.

 

[Acim]

Did you learn about science from those buffoons at the Discovery Institute, then?

No. But nice to see your prejudice at work.

And if so, why should anyone take your claims seriously?

My claims that science cannot back itself up and that no one here has shown otherwise. I dunno why you would take that seriously, other than to maybe establish that scientific materialism (or science as I think some are using it) is based entirely on faith. Since some have scorn for all things spiritual and argue it is "not intelligent, because it rests on faith" they apparently get a little unnerved by idea that science might also rest on this.

How you perceive claims I am making is up to you. I'll do my best to clarify what I mean, how I derived such ideas, and etc. etc. But will admittedly have little tolerance for those who do not answer questions I pose. Just as you can ignore my inquiries, I can ignore yours. Since I have posed a consistent inquiry on this thread, and no one has provided objective evidence to back up fundamental claims of science, or proponents of what looks and talks a lot like scientific materialism, I may not entertain inquiries that are aimed at me, especially if I recognize, "wow you are really off base on that assertion (i.e. affiliation with Discovery Institute) and have essentially written me off with (idiotic) prejudice."

Scientific materialism, is me putting particular version, or limitation, of science into a conceptual framework; whereby 'world' is seen as independent of mind. I understand this in various other terms. I think latest one I came to is "scientific realists." Whatever term I use, I do intend to make it as neutral or even 'supportive' of those who hold to the idea that world is independent of mind. I feel very willing to change the term to advance the discussion if for some reason that term doesn't jive with you.

I partly get my understanding of scientific materialism from here (Wikipedia), but when I say partly I mean less than 20%. Much of my understanding comes from countless discussions / debates I've had on this, plus own spiritual readings, and inner truth.

 

[PolyHedral]

What claims do you think science is making? Because it doesn't actually claim that the world is "real," only about how it behaves.

 

[Otherright]

I still stand by this statement in regards to both science and religion, but as I see it neither one is going to give you absolute knowledge.

Science does not back itself to the point that is can be taken as fact. You have to take a measure of faith with the person's observation, hoping that they are making the best, hoping that their method is sound.

If scientists were dead on in their observations, there would never be need for revision. Take DNA for instance. It was thought in the early fifties that DNA was too small to hold complex information, so hereditary traits were known to come from protein. Well, this is wrong. It required more observation, as the initial observation was wrong.

I'll give you a current example: the distance of stars. The distance of stars is still greatly debated, yet every time you read something about astronomy, there it is, "... a star 7,000 light-years away."
Do you know the most common method for measuring distances. Its called parallax, and it isn't that accurate, especially the further away you get, because you are measuring how far you think you observe something in motion. The cross point of a distant star in parallax is ridiculous. How are you going to find an accurate parallax for a star when you don't initially know the distance to the reference point?