Hello All!

I've been 'lurking' here for a little while and have made a minor observation. And it leads me to ask a question. Of course, i don't want to offend anyone, but sometimes that's not as easy as it may seem. And i think this question may offend. Sorry in advance.

After crunching a few numbers from this and other science related forums, i've noticed a very high ratio of non-science related posts. In fact, there's almost a whopping 2.5 - 3:1 ratio, with religion taking a very high percentage. Other science forums generally run closer to a 1:1 ratio.

Why is that? Is this ratio similar to other science forums you may frequent? :confused:

Again, I'm not trying to offend. Just a minor observation.

we have gathered here a very large community.. Each has different views. Some may look at the theory of big bang from a religious perspective and some may from a scientifical.
We enjoy talking and if there is not smth very exciting in other themes we talk about smth other. Why to go to different forums to do that. Many of us here have become friends. So we stick together and enjoy talking about everything tht feeds our mind.

Disclaimer. This is only my opinion. If someone doesen't agree or disagree with me, he is welcome to post it at any time he finds connvenient.:)

Maybe because we have a wider range of interests and there are forums
catering to every area one might be interested in?

Guess those who end up here have a social/science mindset ;)

Take care, and welcome to Sciforums.

Thank you for the warm welcome!

I tend to agree that there is quite a diversity of interests and views and that there is a very large community here (close to 4000 strong). And that most have probably been here for a time and have developed good friendships.

But I can't help but notice the number of religious posts. Even if you added up all the posts in the 'Science' forum, they still don't add up to the 'Religion' board.

I have nothing against ones religion. That is of a personal nature with each induvidual and should not be contested.

But perhaps sciforums.com should be categorized as a religious board with science as an aside. It may have begun as a science board but has now drifted.

No offence. Especially to the admins.

I realized a long time ago it is far more difficult to 'discuss' science - You either
Know what you're talking about (at least some of the time) or you get shot
down quick like. Other areas are far more forgiving.

And lets face it, a hot discussion where neither looses 'face' can be fun at times.

Take care. ;)

it how you say"driffted" not so long ago and may as easyely as it did drift back to science. so I think there is no need to change it to religforums.com, I think tht me and a lot of others will then go away. It is our identity sciforums.com .


Disclaimer: see above

No, I wouldn't suggest something so radical as to change the name to religforums.com. That very well may drive some away.

But I was, for a better term 'recruited' by someone here posting in another science forum. I did not actively go out and seek this forum. It was linked from another site.

At first I read the science boards and found some great reading, in fact some of the best I've seen (you know who you are). After that, i started to use the 'read latest posts' feature. That's when I noticed the huge amount of religious material. It was (is) overwhelming.

From a newbies perspective, it certainly appears that religion is the number one topic here. But perhaps you're right avatar, it may just drift back to science. However...

a rose is a rose is...

Another point is that events drive posts. The Political threads have experienced an immense interest during the time of the WTC and terrorist war events.

Some of the Sciences are not so much in the news; often requiring dedicated searching to nose out those advances. Other Science sites deny access if you are not in that group due to information protection.

Religion is much in the lives of everyday citizens across the world. Most dedicate at least 1 day a week to this activity in some form or another. These boards reflect real life in what moves people. Occasionally in the religion forums you find the preachers and laymen who believe that spreading the word is a requirement and they practice that. But it is not truly a religion board.

It is the diversity of topics that drives the board. New members supply a steady flow of ideas and questions. This has to be one of the most "civil" boards on the net. It is rare that you find the heated argument and even more rare that you find mudslinging. It has been remarked on time and again. As such it holds attraction to lots of the members and draws ever more into the community. The new are encouraged to contribute. They are not ostracized because they just arrived on the scene, as many other boards seem to practice. These things are rare here and usually frowned upon by the members themselves. No enforcement is required; no guidance is needed.

Welcome to Sciforums, (Q). Thanks for the observation.

"a rose is a rose is ... " and Sciforums is, IMHO, sweeter than many.

Take care ;)

Hey (Q), welcome at Sciforums.:)

Don't you think it is fun at the Religion Forum? All the different meanings of the members and the discussions there?

We have a few great members who post there.

Did you meet our 'beloved' Tony already? Well, he is the 'greatest'. :p

The Science Forum is pretty good here at Sciforums. You can post every theory you have and make a nice discussion about it.
And you can learn a lot of it also.

Sciforums is a wonderful community to hang around. Just post a little. You will see for yourself.;)

Different personalities with different opinions, but all welcome...

Thank you once again for all the welcomes. Your candor and patience are appreciated.:)

(Q),

Welcome to Sciforums.

I think Chagur alluded to this earier, but I believe that the reason you see so many posts on religion is that you cannot "prove" someone wrong on a religious point, you can only discuss it, while in science discussions, the proof tends to be quite factual and distinct(but even then you may see discussions about that proof):D

This may be why there are soooo many more discussion threads on religion.

seekeroftruth,

Perhaps it's just me. I come to science forums to read and discuss science, theories, observations, empirical proof, facts. I don't mind the odd bit of religious discussion. Some scientists have a very firm belief in their religion. They wrestle with what is truth and what is fact continuously. So its interesting to hear their side of that conumdrum. But there's a limit.

And as you say, "you cannot prove someone wrong on a religious point, you can only discuss it." Frankly, I don't see the point of discussing it at all. Each individual has their own belief. And that is that. It's interesting to hear what that belief may entail, but discussing it ad nauseum is moot. And from what I've seen, it usually turns from a discussion into a flamewar. Almost always.:D

But don't try to deny that it is not fun my son
For thee shall burn in flames enternal
So says the lord.
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
trytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytrytry
oh my god, I turn into another fundie, opleeeeeeez noooooooo
:D:D:D:D:D:D

Q
I think science and religion are very closely related. Historically religion fought against the advance of science because both were stated to hold the truth and were not always in agreement. Science is theoretically based on proof and Religion typically based on faith or belief.

Personally I think they are siblings that people need to think more about how to integrate the two. Socially they both inform our perspective on the world. They address similar issues like where the universe and humans came from.

In the past much of the inanimate world was personified to make it intelligible and a kind of social perspective was applied to the world. Science has steadily been replacing that and in my view it is sad that it seems sometimes to objectify the human part. What I liked about this site is that it seems to consist of people who have a foot on each side and struggle with integrating to often conflicting world views intelligently.

Then again I've only been visiting the site for a few weeks. So this is just my (most likely warped) perspective. In that vein I think an awful lot of science is based on belief. Hypotheses are only belief -> so science is guided by belief. Thomas Kuhn, the popa of science historians, has many interesting examples of scientists accepting theories that were incorrect, yet useful as a stepping stone to the next layer of truth.

Only math really involves proof. Science just has theories, evidence, assumptions, and lots of fun gizmos. Very little proof ... lots of evidence and conjecture.

Religion has another kind of truth that is equally important, but much more abstract. If science and religion disagree I personally feel that science is often more accurate at the level of details, but religion more accurate at the level of wisdom. Not including jackass bible thumpers and the like who have there own perspective which is pretty divorced from the original.

my 2 cents. Maybe $2.

scilosopher,

We should be careful not to confuse fact with truth. Fact is to truth as observation is to belief, imo. There is no room for truth in science, only fact.

Yes, religion did fight against the advance of science. That was simply a power/money struggle. They knew that if the masses were to become knowledgeable about the world, their power would diminish.

Religion precludes science therefore they cannot be integrated.

Ok maybe I shouldn't have said truth. There is less fact in most science than you seem to believe. Almost everything is approximate. Even raw data as it has measurement error.

I'm not so convinced that anything in society is simple ... though I'm sure the mower/poney thing was part of it, I'm quite sure there was more to it than that.

Many religions don't preclude science at all. Just as science changes as we learn more about the world why don't you think religion can grow. Every important religious leader I can think of put forward there own ideas that advanced man's understanding of what had been said in the past.

The funny thing is that the real godbelievers are using a computer to express their (fanatic) beliefs.

That is rather peculiar though, for a computer is based on scientific inventions. How the hell does that stroke with their beliefs in the holy bible?

And so you can go on in the Religion Forum.

Religion is Opium for the people - Marx.

Every sheep follows the herd.;)

I dunnno. Maybe it's because (as mentioned before) we are such a diverse community....maybe the other forums are more specific---here you have the "free thoughts" and anything goes. I find that more appealing because speaking for myself, I think about A LOT of things (maybe too much sometimes) about stuff that isn't really relevant to anything as far as I can tell---so maybe if I share it with other people they can think about it, tell me their views and I may learn something new or see things from a different angle.

Having a well-rounded forum attracts different people and different points of views and communication among these different groups (okay, civilized posts, rather) can help us better understand eachother and where we are coming from. Understanding can lead to acceptance and acceptance can lead to a more peaceful "world." I think people that come to this forum (okay, maybe not everyone) are intelligent people who "come here seeking knowledge"---and these people aren't your typical "nerds" (no offense!) so to speak....they are well-rounded individuals who ponder on things---they aren't satisfied with your typical yes or no or black/white answers...they are interested in gray areas and are open-minded enough to at least look at other possible explanations for observations they make.

It's more of a semi-formal forum, in my humble opinion.....more formal forums may not attract so many people because people might be too afraid of looking like a complete fool for voicing out their non-scientific ideas or thoughts....other forums can be very limiting in the kind of posts they make and therefore frustrate people "no you can't talk about that here because it's a science forum only." If you get to know people from different angles, you can understand where they are coming from when they answer other more science related posts. yeah?:D

Like I said, I dunno...:confused:

Ana,

Great post! However, I don't buy it. What you're infering imo is that people are actively searching for a message board, and wind up finding this one and immediately start thinking, "Here's a science forum. Great! Now I can talk about non-scientific ideas and thoughts without looking like a fool. Oh look! There's a HUGE religious section. I think I may have found a home."

Should I therefore be searching religious forums to find " the keepers of the GOO?";)

<i>It's more of a semi-formal forum, in my humble opinion</i>

In that case, I'll remove my hat and tails.:D

Will you please reread Ana's reply? For she explains it very well and I agree with her in this totally.

If you are only looking for a Science Forum, then you only have to post at the Science Forum.

She took the time to give her opinion, now you are saying that this Forums are in her eyes the only good Forums? That is not what is in her reply.

She gives her opinion. Isn't that what you were looking for?

Reread it well please.;)

Thank you.

banshee,

If i misunderstood ana's post, i apologize.

My mind must not be working very well. Probably from having to wade through mountains of religious chaff.

You mean there actually IS a science forum here?

Oh yes, there it is, underneath that pile of cobwebs. ;)

There is a disproportionate amount of irrational thinking in evidence here at Sciforums.

Such is life.

Hang and find enlightenment where you can. Be patient. ;)

"He that can have patience can have what he will."
Franklin.

And the will *is* strong!

...but the flesh is weak. :D

oooooookay then. So, what you are implying then is that people do NOT actively search for a science forum? People all of a sudden decide to type in www.sciforums.com for the hell of it and see if there is a webpage that matches??? ;)

A friend of mine guided me to this forum. She thought it was cool, I came in and agreed so I stayed....I like diversity....even if not all of it is rational. At least you can see where the irrationality is coming from once you get to know the people a little bit better by reading their posts (it can be entertaining after you get over the frustration they give you). If you don't appreciate the "irrational threads" then don't read 'em--skip on to the ones that you find worthy of your time...quite simple.

Funny you should say that, ana.

I was guided here by the "Hand of Providence." ;)

Thanks, I'll take your advice and 'slash and burn' my way thru the underbrush. There should be signs of growth somewhere. I'm starting to sound like Chauncey Gardner.

btw, "irrational threads" are not entertaining. imo.:)

how bout rational discussions of the irrational?? Emotions are a big part of human life and there is a method to their madness ...

also, if what a person says isn't explicitly interesting considering their motivation for saying it may be ...

People all of a sudden decide to type in www.sciforums.com for the hell of it and see if there is a webpage that matches???

YOU WON'T BELEIVE, Ana. That is just what I did.
I wanted to talk about science and stuff and typed in this adress. So I found this wonderous place.
Bye!

Well, this is my first post and I hope I am doing it right. I am interested in a lot of things, and when I wonder about something, I look it up. Something I was looking up had a link to this site, so I came over, read a little, liked what I saw, and joined.
I just wanted to point out that a lot of 'scientific' debate leads to 'religious, moral' debate, for example, cloning, and stem cell research. I also believe that a lot of people have a more emotional investment in their religion than they do their science, and I think it is natural that where you have discussions about scientific advances, you will also end up with religion thrown into the mix. My suggestion would be to skim the threads, read what you want, and skip the rest.
ee

Hi Eeyeor, welcome at Sciforums.:)

I agree with you totally. From out my feelings.;)

Enjoy Sciforums, it is a great place to be. With and without 'rational thinking'.:p

Have a nice day you all.

Welcome to Sciforums, Eeyeor. I think you have hit on the essence of the forums. There will be that which interests you and that which doesn't. No matter what your interests though, there will be something for you.

Q,

The interests at sciforums seem to be representative of world opinion, although perhaps more biased towards American opinions since most here are from the USA. And in that sense the bias towards religion is understandable.

The USA is one of the most religious countries in the world, and I believe South America has been identified as the most superstitious. The distinction is not very significant.

Regarding the USA: At the same time it is recognized that the quality of science education has fallen in recent decades and the number of University admissions to science courses has also declined.

This is very sad and we need to work harder to correct this as soon as we can. It doesn’t help that current prominent USA politicians seem to be pushing religion before science and that is a very disturbing trend. While I live in California I am originally from the UK and there, and in most of Europe, the trend is away from superstition and religion. The USA seems to be an exception in the western world but then the America culture also seems to be relatively inferior and unsophisticated when compared with Europe, I hope I don’t offend anyone here but I can’t help but notice the differences.

The things people are taught, or not taught, are reflected in how people live their lives and what they want to talk about. And many people, especially Americans, have come to expect instant answers. Science requires hard work, diligence, attention to detail, strict logic, and a grueling search for evidence and proofs. Unfortunately most people don’t want to either wait or are too lazy to apply themselves. The result is the easy way out, they believe what they want to believe and ignorance and superstitions are becoming the norm.

Many, if not most, of the posts in the religion forum are not about religion but about how we determine what is real and not real. I think at the moment non-believers outnumber the believers. The religion forum is certainly not a preaching area, and those that try that are severely rebuked. Many of the battles are about science versus religion (or reason versus faith, or rational thought versus irrational thought) and in that sense you could divide the number of total posts in the forum by 2 and add one half to the side for science.

There are no limitations or restrictions at sciforums, except perhaps an expectation that everyone is courteous to each other. And with a large number of members from all walks of life and ages then you must expect that the proportions of the discussions represent similar proportions in the real world.

Science is about a search for knowledge. Religionists believe that faith also discovers knowledge. If you support the scientific method then you should have an interest in logic, reason, and the importance of evidence and proofs. The religion forum offers you an opportunity to test your skills of reason and logic against those who do not hold such things of much value. The rational thinkers among us know we can never win a logical argument against those who do not think rationally. But boy it really helps to put effort into a well thought out reasoned argument. Perhaps in the hope that it might sway the irrational, but more because it is fun to think things through and try to explain what one really believes and understands.

So don’t see the religion forum as a place for bible study or similar. At sciforums it is a battle of logic and requires the same skills as those required for science.

But of course all of this is from my personal perspective as one who requires evidence and proof before believing a hypothesis as truth.

Cris

I just wanted to point out that a lot of 'scientific' debate leads to 'religious, moral' debate

Please don't confuse morals with religion. Nary the two shall meet. ;)

Stem cell research is a perfect example of the confusion between moral and religous debate.

And while moral debates are quite interesting, religious debates are complete nonsense. They have little if anything to do with science. They are simply a front for denial.

I also believe that a lot of people have a more emotional investment in their religion than they do their science, and I think it is natural that where you have discussions about scientific advances, you will also end up with religion thrown into the mix.

I don't think so. Religious discussions about scientific advances culminates from those who would view these advances detrimental to their beliefs.

My suggestion would be to skim the threads, read what you want, and skip the rest.

I'm attempting to do just that. So far i've managed to glean a whopping 5 percent rational thought. The rest is jibberish. :eek:


it is a great place to be. With and without 'rational thinking'

Blissful, isn't it?

At sciforums it is a battle of logic and requires the same skills as those required for science.

Please pass this link along to the religious protagonists. God knows they need it. :D

http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/introlog/PROP.HTM

As an aside, I quickly conducted a search thru the New Testament (Rheims 1582) for the words 'moral' and 'ethic' produced this response;

"Your simple query produced no results."

http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rheims/

Hmmmm...

Q,

Perhaps I should have said the battle FOR logic.

Thanks for the link. As for religious morality I guess you need to search for commandments; Christian morality is based on authoritarianism rather than reason and ethics, but even then you might not find much since such commands are not highlighted in any one place. What constitutes such rules is a matter of interpretation of largely ancient superstitions and older mythologies.

There are actually few real scientists here at sciforums. Boris was certainly in that arena but we haven’t seen him here for a while. An infusion of real science would be valuable for everyone, not only in the science forums but also if they could lend their expertise in the occasional and relevant religious topic.

So, really, what are your interests, and are you likely to stick around?

Cris

Well, welcome (Q) and Eeyeor! :)

Of course we discuss science here! But maybe your definition if science differ from ours. But I should of course not say ours, because all of our definitons of science is probably EXTREMELY individual. But that´s what makes it fun. The diversity of opinions and worldviews.
So what is your definition of science?
:D

Study and understanding of that which is.
Put simply :)

For me, anyway.

Bebelina, Thanks for the 'giant red fonts.' It gave me cause to clean my sunglasses. :rolleyes:

all of our definitions of science is probably EXTREMELY individual

I think you may have spotted the flaw here. The definition of science is, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

The only other definition of science I know of is science with the prefix, "pseudo."

But that´s what makes it fun.

Yes. I certainly puts the 'fun' back in fundamental.

I don't care what anyone says, I think your big colourful fonts are great...

The definition of science is, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Q

The theoretical part bothers me...
Does not theory become science when proven?
Isn't theoretical explanation pseudoscience until proven?

Q, apart from that,your definition is valid...
:cool:

But what would you have us do?
Be so exclusively rigid in what is allowed in discusion here that anything without a definite scientific root has to be discussed elsewhere?
Surely that's why the forums are split so that you can go where you want.

If science doesn't involve theory it's generally considered phenomenology.

The interesting part is that what theory science considers valid can change as it progresses. All explanations we have right now are most probably approximations. Like newton's laws. Amazingly accurate at a certain accuracy of measurement under certain conditions.

Science also is broadly interpretable. The proposed definition does not give any criteria for determining what is good and acceptable scientific inquiry vs. flawed nor specific details as to the exact scientific method.

Science actually is subject to debate. It's a very social enterprise when it comes down to it. Thomas Kuhn, an important science historian, has even argued that for science to advance it sometimes requires a new generation of scientists as the last generation cannot come to accept the evidence before them so stuck in a specific way of thinking. That's where paradigm shifts come from. The whole way we view the world changes at that point - what would be considered the scientific answer from a theoretical stand point changes.

If not for theories and beliefs (or curiosity) to suggest new experiments there would be no scientific advance. Both of these things can be flawed (curiosity is never flawed).

Here's to Kuhn
:)

esp,

Here are some points about facts and theories.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.

When evolution was mentioned President Reagan stated before an evangelical group in Dallas: "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Hope that helps
Cris

OK.
:)
But consider this:

In the British vernacular, theory means an unproven hypothesis.

Cris,
I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about you quoting Reagan to make points concerning fine haired distinctions in scientific terminology.

Other than that good points.

sci,

No real offense meant towards Reagan. The point is that even at the highest level misunderstandings about science, facts, and theories occur.

Cris

I think I have proven my point here...EXTREMELY individual!
:D

Bebelina,

Ok but most of us here aren't scientists so most us don't know what we are talking about. We really reflect what we have observed from the popular media.

This implies that if we can change the quality of the media then we could change the quality of the world. Hmm, I like that thought.

Cris

Yes, media has power today, great power. Control the media and you control the modern physical world. Sounds alluring? ;)
But if we can´t seem to agree upon the definition of science, then how can we ever define a scientist? :D
I think we all are scientists, only specialized in different areas. :)

The theoretical part bothers me... Does not theory become science when proven?


A theory is an organizing principle which connects facts. A theory cannot be demoted to a mere fact. It is like saying a political system is a voter. The categories are different.

But what would you have us do? Be so exclusively rigid in what is allowed in discusion here that anything without a definite scientific root has to be discussed elsewhere?


No, just flexible enough to allow the root to grow. Currently however, the tree of religion is the topic one must "bark up." :D

But if we can´t seem to agree upon the definition of science, then how can we ever define a scientist?

Those definitions have been agreed upon some time ago. Where have you been? :rolleyes:

Oh really? Then tell me what they are, because I don´t remember ever agreing to any such definition. :)

Oh really? Then tell me what they are, because I don´t remember ever agreing to any such definition.

Unfortunately, you and I were never invited to agree. But for your benefit, Ill repost the definition:

The definition of science is, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Do you need help with the definition of a scientist or can I assume you'll take it from here? :D

Well, if I wasn´t invited, I will not agree ! :D
As the story goes, new definitions are needed all the time, evolution wouldn´t exist otherwise.
But that is a pretty good definition though, but not as simple as it may seem at a first glance. The separate words need their own definitions too.
What is classified as phenomena for example? And how do you indentify it? And what kind of theoretical explanations are we talking about here?
Let´s take a cup for example, how do you prove its existance in scientifical terms?

:)

It appears you'll need to start with the basics. Allow me to show you a new world:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/introlog/PROP.HTM

Enjoy.

No, no, no... I wanted to hear YOUR definition!

:D

What is classified as phenomena for example?

Phenomena: Occurrences, circumstances, or facts that are perceptible by the senses.

And how do you indentify it?

The senses. There are five of them.

And what kind of theoretical explanations are we talking about here?

Any theory. Take your pick.

Let´s take a cup for example, how do you prove its existance in scientifical terms?

A cup helps to keep my coffee in bound. Therefore it exists. It does not however help to keep the coffee from spewing out my nose while reading your posts. :D

Q,

So is string theory science? Most physicists don't think it can be experimentally verified or disproven for the next 10 years at least and more likely 20-50. In the meantime is it science or not?

Jose Wudka, at least, insists that scientific theories are falsifiable. It is quite possible that a string theorist will be able to last their whole career without their theories being falsifiable ...

Regardless, I would also repeat my statement that there is still a lot of grey area as I stated in my earlier post which you deemed unworthy of response. I don't feel I'm illogical either.

Science is not what the mainstream thinks it is and you're way of approaching the discussion isn't helping. There are ways in which science is wrong and not the correct way of viewing the world. For example when dealing with people. Sociology and psychology ... nueroscience or whatever can't explain human behavior. That doesn't mean that we should ignore certain feelings that don't fit in with psychological theory and tell the person they just can't be feeling that. I think science is a useful tool, but I got other tools in my tool box and what we don't understand still is much larger than that which we do.

That isn't to say that I'm down with all psuedo-science, but there are limits to what science can address, which I refuse to place on my world of thought.

So is string theory science? Most physicists don't think it can be experimentally verified or disproven for the next 10 years at least and more likely 20-50. In the meantime is it science or not?

Are you implying that string theory is NOT science simply because it has not been verified or disproved. That would be an argument to ignorance.

Jose Wudka, at least, insists that scientific theories are falsifiable.

That is true. One must show that any new theory should explain the existing data, provide new predictions and should be testable to falsify or replace another theory.

I think science is a useful tool, but I got other tools in my tool box and what we don't understand still is much larger than that which we do.

That isn't to say that I'm down with all psuedo-science, but there are limits to what science can address, which I refuse to place on my world of thought.

You can refuse any aspect of science you wish. There very well may be limits to what science can address, but that is simply a hindrance due to our level of current technology.

Q,
My implication of course was that string theory can't be falisfied NOW and yet is still considered science. Personally I agree with that classification. I wouldn't argue to ignorance as you suggest.

I would suggest that you stop acting like you know everything and being so jugemental.

I also do refuse to accept a lot of published science. Try reading some developmental biology papers sometime. A lot of published science that is useful and good is not really right. At least in biology. In biology it is due to them lack of information that can be effectively gathered in relation to the complexity of the phenomena.

This was true of all science at one point or another. In fact the vast majority of theories in science were wrong. That doesn't mean I reject the practice of science. My point is that it has limits and there are grey areas about what is science. Until those grey areas are filled it is understandable for people to have beliefs and wonder about things. There can be gems of wisdom in those beliefs and ideas even if they are not possible by what we already know from science. That doesn't mean some part of the thought is incorrect [oops I meant isn't correct ...]. The part that is right might need a lot of observation before it can be understood and the explanation that keeps it consistent is found.

Please, don't argue with my words before you think about them or play stupid. It doesn't make for interesting conversations.

Q

Your original post seemed to say that there was too much crap in the forums to trawl through.
Yet you've stayed at least long enough to have a three page open debate; it cant be that bad.:)
Seriously, if you just want to debate pure science, why not stay in the general science forum, don't go where you don't like!
:)

After reading all the 'crap' written down by you [Q], I must come to the conclusion that you are posting under an alias, just to mess up with the members.:(

What you say here in this thread has nothing to do with your 'love' for Science.

I agree with Bebelina, everyone is a 'scientist' on his/her own path in life. It is just what you see as Science. And with that I don't mean the literal definition from the dictionary. There is more in life than only the simple facts.:)

I suggest you go do some posting at the Science Forum...

My personal belief is that [Q] and Mr. G. are one in the same. There are too many similarities in writing style, grammer, and syntax.

scilosopher,

I find it quite difficult to carry on any conversation, interesting or otherwise, with someone that attempts to integrate religion with science. You've already made that clear. And I've already made it clear that religion is complete nonsense.

There are no 'gray areas' in science. Science is the one pure thing we all share. If you feel that religion MUST be a part of science, then I cannot help but think you'll never accept science for what it is. You must dissimilate them.

I'm not saying you should let go your religious beliefs. That is entirely your business. But you should, at the very least, put your beliefs aside while viewing science. If you do, I'm sure those 'gray areas' will soon disappear.

Uhm ... I actually have never said science should be integrated with religion.

Personaly I integrate my knowledge of science and some social policies and broad perspectives in various religions as part of my quest to find balance and direction in the world.

I think it would be a horrible idea for religion to be integrated into science. I do however think that religions need to integrate understanding that comes from science into their beliefs if they want to stay current.

Secondly, as far as I remember I have never made a post regarding my religious beliefs and I am an agnostic. I don't practice any religion, though I do try and learn about and from their teachings. I think the social policies and perspectives that are espoused in many religions are the result of a lot of human thought and experience and should not be dismissed out of hand for their short comings.

For instance the concept of forgiveness lends robustness to social relationships, much as a certain degree of insensitivity to conditions is important in many biological processes.
Although I have not found any religion completely satisfactory, I don't think you've made it clear that religion is complete nonsense. You have made it clear that you think it is nonsense, but no one else has to accept that view as valid when they have something to say.

My main problem with organized religion is incarnations of it where freedom of personal belief is not accepted, like catholicism.

As to whether there are grey areas in science, believe what you want. I'm curious though, when there are two competing theories which both have some experimental evidence is that a grey area, not science, or what?

I'm sorry if you find it difficult to have a conversation with me. If you can give me a reason why, that I can make sense of, I'll try and make myself more clear. There has obviously been some misunderstanding, because you seem to think I'm saying things I'm not.


If I can make a general suggestion, I would recommend not being so reductionistic. It certainly makes thinking about things easier, but you lose a lot of the wonderful parts of life.

Nothing but accusations. First I'm Mr. G. Then I'm Tony1. Now its back to Mr. G.

I know neither of these individuals.

Similar writing style, grammar and syntax? Again, I'm flattered. Thank you. But i've already mentioned in another thread that i'm not in the same league as Mr. G. That should be obvious.

Banshee, Thank you for considering what I write is 'crap'. But are you sure it's you talking and not someone else controlling your thoughts with a mind-control implant? :eek:

scilosopher

Uhm ... I actually have never said science should be integrated with religion.

I had to go back and collect a few of your thoughts:

I think science and religion are very closely related.

Personally I think they are siblings that people need to think more about how to integrate the two. Socially they both inform our perspective on the world.

If science and religion disagree I personally feel that science is often more accurate at the level of details, but religion more accurate at the level of wisdom.

There is less fact in most science than you seem to believe.

If not for theories and beliefs (or curiosity) to suggest new experiments there would be no scientific advance. Both of these things can be flawed (curiosity is never flawed).

Heres an interesting quote:

“For the last 400 years science has advanced by reductionism... The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole” (John Holland).

What´s up with the hostility? I just don´t get it why some people seem to be so totally unable to carry on a civilized conversation without taking to personal insults and sarcasm....it just makes it boring to talk to those persons.... Does it make you feel "cool" or what is it? :rolleyes:

The first three are relevant, but the last two have nothing to do with the integration of science and philosophy.

Being closely related does not mean they should be integrated. And I think they both come from the common root of humans wanting to understand the world around them and their place in it. When I said people should THINK about how to integrate them, I meant socially as it is placed by the next sentence. Thinking about integrating them would not involve bringing religion into the lab. I never meant science should actually integrate religious beliefs into it. I don't pray when I do experiments, even when they fail and I might want to.

Reductionism has been useful for science, and I think it still is to some extent. However as we figure out the more simple phenomena the ones left to study are the more complex, which aren't always as well approached through reductionism. When there are lot's of nonlinear interactions, you must study things more on the system level. Reductionism can miss a lot of major effects there. I said you should be less reductionistic and I was speaking in a context of having discussions with other human beings. Which are pretty complex and being reductionistic can miss important aspects of what they have to say.

So does taking things out of context, though I'll certainly admit, I'm not always rigorous about going through everything I write and seeing if it can be interpretted in ways I don't mean.

I'm trying not to be hostile and I hope I don't come off that way ... I actually have had similar beliefs to Q at one point, but my perspective has changed ...

esp quoted:

Your original post seemed to say that there was too much crap in the forums to trawl through.
Yet you've stayed at least long enough to have a three page open debate; it cant be that bad.
Seriously, if you just want to debate pure science, why not stay in the general science forum, don't go where you don't like!

You may or may not have noticed that I began a thread here:

http://www.sciforums.com/t5137/sb8224470a8c7804d3379480ae7710f44/thread.html

Wet1 was the only member to respond. He graciously added that the topic was interesting. So why hasn't the topic received the attention it deserves? Why have you not contributed your thoughts?

Perhaps your time is better spent dreaming up ideas that I'm part of a userid conspiracy theory.



scilosopher, I'm not sure but I think babelina is directing her comments at me, nes't pas? You certainly have not been hostile. You're posts have been well written and tempered.

Perhaps I *should* change my userid to "Evil Q"

Q,

Awe you have a sweet side too ... bebelina can't be too mad at you now.

Sides you put yourself in a frustrating position when you made your minor observation. I guess some people thought it was significant.

In the first place I am not religious. Hell. I hate it.:(

Why can't you leave other members on the boards be in peace with their own way of living? Keep an open mind and look some closer to what humans have to say here at the Forums.
Science is not only a case of evidence and facts. A lot has to be discovered yet and there is more to life than only scientifical facts.:)

You sounded as a nice person when you came in at Sciforums, but I have to admit that you show little respect for the members who have another way of thinking and living than you do.

And you really sound like some other member here on the boards. I can't help but stay on thinking that because you really sound and write in the same way.

Further I can't care less about what you think of me, just have a little respect please. That is all I ask from you.

Is that to difficult for you? I give you the benefit of the doubt for now. But please, try to have an open mind for other posters here at Sciforums. :)

Do you have a 'sweet' side? Tell me more about it...;)

In the first place I am not religious. Hell. I hate it.

Don't hate religion. Just don't think about it. You'll be a happier person for it.

Why can't you leave other members on the boards be in peace with their own way of living?

Am I not allowed to have an opinion? Can I not point out to someone that perhaps their way of living is irrational? Subtlety only works to a certain degree. Then you have to bring out the sledgehammer.

Keep an open mind and look some closer to what humans have to say here at the Forums.
Science is not only a case of evidence and facts. A lot has to be discovered yet and there is more to life than only scientifical facts.

I agree with you that much has yet to be discovered. But science will ultimately lead in those discoveries. Would we, by any other means, be able to converse so pleasantly if it were not for science?

You sounded as a nice person when you came in at Sciforums, but I have to admit that you show little respect for the members who have another way of thinking and living than you do.

And you really sound like some other member here on the boards. I can't help but stay on thinking that because you really sound and write in the same way.

You called my writing 'crap.' You accuse me of creating multiple userids. Respect?

People will go on living the way they do regardless of what I may bleat at them. Rationality can be taught however.

Further I can't care less about what you think of me, just have a little respect please.

I *don't* think of you. :)