• 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!

You can't have perfect knowledge through science

gnostic

The Lost One
i-ching said:
You can't have perfect knowledge through science

Who said that science has "perfect knowledge"?

It's not scientists. It silly religious people who attach the word "perfect".

There is also no such thing as "true science" as many Muslims like to use.

There is however science and pseudoscience.

The claims of religions, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or even Creationism or Intelligence Design does not scientific method, or rely on evidences to support their claims, hence all these religious claims are either theology or pseudoscience. PERIOD!

i-ching said:
Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

These religions rely on twisting words from their scriptural passages to fit in with science, but they in no way contribute to the understanding of science. It is bad enough they tried to convince about superior invisible being may have created everything...without a shred of evidences of this being's existence...but they also like to lie about what is science and what isn't.

So forgive me if I don't hold this "higher authority" of yours with high regards in science. Your higher authority have no more credence in science than that of Yahweh, Allah or Brahma.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Who said that science has "perfect knowledge"?
There is however science and pseudoscience.

The claims of religions, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or even Creationism or Intelligence Design does not scientific method, or rely on evidences to support their claims, hence all these religious claims are either theology or pseudoscience. PERIOD!

IMO, there is smugness and there are honest enquirers. Some say "I tell you the truth. PERIOD".

For an example, science supposedly tries to explain nature and has law of thermodynamics in place. In the same nature exists the scientist himself, disobeying the rule of thermodynamics. And yet, the smugness does not allow him to recognise these two aspects of nature. He explains everything and yet explains away his own existence by resorting to chance.
 

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

How can we trust our senses when we are listening to the higher power? You can't have it both ways. Maybe the higher power is telling you lies. Or maybe you heard it wrong. Can't trust our senses, remember?
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
IMO, there is smugness and there are honest enquirers. Some say "I tell you the truth. PERIOD".

For an example, science supposedly tries to explain nature and has law of thermodynamics in place. In the same nature exists the scientist himself, disobeying the rule of thermodynamics. And yet, the smugness does not allow him to recognise these two aspects of nature. He explains everything and yet explains away his own existence by resorting to chance.

I'm getting a strong feeling that you don't really understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor how they relate to the Earth.
Please, could you explain what you mean in somewhat more detail?
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
IMO, there is smugness and there are honest enquirers. Some say "I tell you the truth. PERIOD".

For an example, science supposedly tries to explain nature and has law of thermodynamics in place. In the same nature exists the scientist himself, disobeying the rule of thermodynamics. And yet, the smugness does not allow him to recognise these two aspects of nature. He explains everything and yet explains away his own existence by resorting to chance.

Please check out the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
:eek:

Then kindly explain that to me.

Well, without you giving me more to go on, this is a shot in the dark, but a common misunderstanding involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Many people think that it prohibits order from forming since it states that any closed system will deteriorate into entropy moving towards the lowest form of energy, and that is true.
However, the Earth is not a closed system.
It is continually being fed energy from the Sun and this source of energy allows for an upward progress towards order.

Which means that there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Thermodynamics.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Well, without you giving me more to go on, this is a shot in the dark, but a common misunderstanding involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Many people think that it prohibits order from forming since it states that any closed system will deteriorate into entropy moving towards the lowest form of energy, and that is true.
However, the Earth is not a closed system.
It is continually being fed energy from the Sun and this source of energy allows for an upward progress towards order.

Which means that there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Thermodynamics.

Thank you.

It was Bertalanffy who postulated that "spontaneous order...can appear in [open] systems" (systems with energy flows running through them) by virtue of their ability to build their order by dissipating potentials in their environments.

That does not however answer how living beings have this abilty to build their order.Why living beings are permitted to exist away from equilibrium because they feed off "negentropy"? To explain this, autocatakinetic systems have been prposed, But these are observations and concepts and not answer to the why of existence of Self-organising entitities.

What I am saying is that these concepts are not the finality. The questions still arise and scientists have many opinions. To say that all is known is actually anti-science.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
....why of existence of Self-organising entitities.

What I am saying is that these concepts are not the finality. The questions still arise and scientists have many opinions. To say that all is known is actually anti-science.
The more important question is "how" which is what science goes for. Asking why a rock acts like a rock vs why a cell acts like a cell seems a bit redundant.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
To explain this, autocatakinetic systems have been prposed, But these are observations and concepts and not answer to the why of existence of Self-organising entitities.
Because the laws of physics allow them to. If your "universe" allows self-replicators, and you begin with a truly random mix of entities, of course the self-replicators will be left after a very long time. That's what a self-replicator does.
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Thank you.

It was Bertalanffy who postulated that "spontaneous order...can appear in [open] systems" (systems with energy flows running through them) by virtue of their ability to build their order by dissipating potentials in their environments.

That does not however answer how living beings have this abilty to build their order.Why living beings are permitted to exist away from equilibrium because they feed off "negentropy"? To explain this, autocatakinetic systems have been prposed, But these are observations and concepts and not answer to the why of existence of Self-organising entitities.

What I am saying is that these concepts are not the finality. The questions still arise and scientists have many opinions. To say that all is known is actually anti-science.

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here, nor can I in any way connect it to the topic we were discussing.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Because the laws of physics allow them to. If your "universe" allows self-replicators, and you begin with a truly random mix of entities, of course the self-replicators will be left after a very long time. That's what a self-replicator does.

That is OK and fine yet is only 1/3rd correct and is also stands in relation of object to the self that knows the laws.
 
The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

Science does a way better job of explaining the universe than religion or higher authority does. And being in a physical reality, all we have to rely on is our senses and ways to measure the authenticity of what we observe through testing.
1.) Our senses are limited and imperfect- that's why we make machinery that can expand those senses. There are robots that can smell and detect any trace of a scent, right down to the chemical level. There are telescopes bigger than my house to see into the universe. Hell, there are even 3D printers now that can create material. We can make almost every kind of machine or invention to further our senses in understanding the universe.
2.) Yes, humans make mistakes. That's why there is trial and error. That's what makes science an ever-evolving and expanding field. Once we figure out something is wrong, we figure out a way to fix it. It's always changing according to new discoveries about the world.
3.) I don't quite get what you mean by we are in illusion. Illusion of what?? Please verify.
4.) Yes, humans cheat. But the scientific community at large has policies and ways to check for cheating. You don't think they let someone publish an article that completely fabricates findings without letting other peers review their work for authenticity and verification?? If you can't reproduce the same results of an experiment, then that experiment is false. If it is true, then scientists can use the same exact methods to produce similar or exact results.

Nobody can achieve perfect knowledge. Knowledge is changing all the time. All we can do is look at the facts of the universe that we already know and keep looking for more answers to questions that we postulate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top