Certain posters have expressed their discontent about others taking a stand-point on an issue and then seeking evidence to support this position.These posters express the need to remain open minded until all of the evidence has been looked at. However it is these posters who worship science yet 'debase' others for using a different system. It is science though that uses the first system! In science a hypothesis is made and then evidence is collected to see if the hypothesis or null hypothesis should be supported. There is also the added bonus that the researcher cannot be heading in the wrong direction because one of his two hypotheses will be correct! Science tries to find truths. At the conclusion whichever hypothesis is supported is deemed to be pointing us in the right direction and subsequent research can build on this. What is so wrong with making a decision and then trying to prove this position?? Viewing topics from a particular angle and then providing a case for it can, i think, give light to ideas and opinions not previously uncovered.
Anyone who does not like science can stop useing anything invented. Go, please give up your homes, appliances, clothing, etc. I will gladly take them off your hands.
Science's other great strength and most novel characteristic compared to other attempts to understand reality is the idea that no scientifically constructed idea can ever be considered finally proven, hence all scientific ideas are subject to perpetual extension, modification or rejection at any time if falsifying data is found. This requires an admission of earlier error, which has proven to be one of the hardest skills for the practitioners of science to master. Robert Day *arrogant dogmatic fools! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
While it seems clear that science has done a lot for us it has been assumed that certain posters are 'anti-science'. However I think it should be pointed out that the struggle is against 100% faith in science because this is in complete opposition to what was once 100% faith in 'God' which we know advocated many outragous acts; killings etc. Posters of this position cant help but feel that while the first belief focused on humanity and put it central stage, the one which the new western countries adopt takes humanity out of the loop. To not account for humanity, it appears, is tantamount to killing the heart and soul of people. A leap here may attract some attention but isnt it the new western countries which have the worst social problems!? In a country where the death penalty has settled it has surprising statistics for violent crime. And while eastern countries may have more basic problems such as flooding; a lack of food, are their problems more fundamental than the stealing of mans soul? (i am aware that a lot of this may be conjecture and unfairly causal in its accusations however I feel that there is a fundamental difference between the two societies which cannot be attributed to anything other than what man has done to itself)
When one knowingly commits a crime one accepts the punishment. A murderer forfeits his life the moment he tries to kill someone.
Could you elaborate on your point please Clockwood? Does this include someone who commits murder to a truly evil person?? To someone who has been responsible for countless, unpinished, serious crimes??
convergence In recent years, Allan Sandage, one of the world's leading astronomers, has declared that the big bang can be understood only as a "miracle." Charles Townes, a Nobel-winning physicist and coinventor of the laser, has said that discoveries of physics "seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law." Biologist Christian de Duve, also a Nobel winner, points out that science argues neither for nor against the existence of a deity: "There is no sense in which atheism is enforced or established by science." And biologist Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, insists that "a lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings." Ever so gingerly, science has been backing away from its case-closed attitude toward the transcendent unknown. Conferences that bring together theologians and physicists are hot, recently taking place at Harvard, the Smithsonian, and other big-deal institutions. The American Association for the Advancement of Science now sponsors a "Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion." Science luminaries who in the '70s shrugged at faith as gobbledygook — including E. O. Wilson and the late Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan — have endorsed some form of reconciliation between science and religion. Meanwhile, decades of inconclusive inquiry have left the science-has-all-the-answers script in tatters. As recently as the '70s, intellectuals assumed that hard science was on track to resolve the two Really Big Questions: why life exists and how the universe began. What's more, both Really Big Answers were assumed to involve strictly deterministic forces. But things haven't worked out that way. Instead, the more scientists have learned, the more mysterious the Really Big Questions have become. Initially, scientists found the big bang's miraculous implications off-putting. When, in 1927, Catholic abbé and astronomer Georges Lemaître first hypothesized that existence began with the detonation of a "primordial atom" of infinite density, the idea was ridiculed as a transparent ploy to place Genesis on technical grounding. But Lemaître enclosed a testable prediction — that if there had been a bang, the galaxies would be rushing away from one another. This idea, too, was ridiculed, until Edwin Hubble stunned the scientific world by presenting evidence of cosmic expansion. From Hubble's 1929 discovery on, science has taken big bang thinking seriously. Of course, not every scientist is ready to don choir robes. Hard science's attempt to explain our anthropic universe without any reference to the divine has led to the emerging theory of the multiverse, or multiple universes. Andrei Linde, a researcher at Stanford, has argued for a decade that the big bang wasn't unique. Universes bang into existence all the time, by the billions. It just happens in dimensions we can't see. Linde starts from the assumption that if the big bang was a chance event driven by some natural mechanism, then such events can be expected to happen repeatedly over eons. Ergo, billions of universes. With each bang, Linde supposes, physical laws and constants are determined anew by random forces. Huge numbers of universes end up with excessive gravity and are crushed out of existence; huge numbers end up with weak gravity and no stars; huge numbers lack carbon. Once in a while, an anthropic cosmos comes about. Several variations on the multiverse theory are popular in academia because they suggest how our universe could have beaten the odds without a guiding hand. But the multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text. Townes has said that speculation about billions of invisible universes "strikes me as much more freewheeling than any of the church's claims." Tenured professors at Stanford now casually discuss entire unobservable universes. Compare that to religion's proposal of a single invisible plane of existence: the spirit. Linde admits that we can't observe or verify other universes in any way; for that matter we can't even explain how they might occupy alternate dimensions. (As a scientific concept, extra dimensions are ambiguous at best; none beyond the familiar four have ever been observed, and it's far from clear that a higher number is possible.) Thus, the multiverse theory requires as much suspension of disbelief as any religion. Join the church that believes in the existence of invisible objects 50 billion galaxies wide! To be fair, the dogmas embraced by science tend to be more flexible than those held by theologians. If empirical evidence of God were to appear, science probably would accept it eventually, if grudgingly; while religion, if presented with an empirical disproof of God, might simply refuse to listen. Nevertheless, while cosmology seems more and more to have a miraculous aspect, the scientifically approved alternatives require an article of faith. These and other mystery forces seem to function based on nothing. That notion, now a fact of life among physicists and cosmologists, would have been considered ridiculous just a few generations ago. Yet Judeo-Christian theology has been teaching for millennia that God made the universe ex nihilo — out of nothing. Maybe these forces work in a wholly natural manner that simply hasn't yet been determined. Certainly, there's a better chance of finding observational evidence for theories of physics than theories of theology. But for the moment, many believers find physics trending in their direction, while physicists themselves are left to ponder transcendent effects they can't explain. convergence
interesting, but science and invention are not the same thing... i should build my case now, but am too lazy... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Um, Frank Zappa was the Mother of Invention. Neville: Go back to school. You haven't the foggiest notion of what is Science. Your bias is neither scientific nor logical. Your diatribe isn't even well-crafted English composition.
Posted By Mr. G: I think fast, i type fast and i need you guys to act fast..... Science is the elimination of variables to find a cause and an effect.Science 'finds' that x causes y. But every single variable is never eliminated. Science may prove that something is ,maybe 98% likely but people print such things as 'fact'. I agree that science has done a lot for us. There is no doubting that but all i am saying is 100% is science is not good for us. Take the example of the speed of light. Science has 'found' the speed of light. A lot of 'scientific discovery' has been based upon cetain things such as the speed of light. The assumption that the universe is expanding is one. These things might be true but it is not fact. An example regarding the speed of light. It is relative to the speed of the observer (apparently). So when this was 'discovered' was it taken into account the speed of the earths movement through space. the speed of the earths spin. The movement of our galaxy itself, in space!?? If the universe is expanding then light will have farther to travel between 2 points. Even the earths wobble on its axis!!! Were these variables eliminated?? how can alot of the things i have mentioned be known?? Scientists have predicted the distance the moon is from us. Well the only way they 'knew' this is by knowing the speed of light which itself could be wrong. Does the speed of light slow down when it passes through our atmosphere!??? Well you tell me cos no-one actually knows! How many succesful space missions to other planets have their been?? I doubt if there is one. Getting into space is one thing. Guiding a space-going vehicle to a point in space (a planet, a moon etc) is another. To recap; science is the elimination of all other variables so it can be positively known that x causes y. When has every single variable ever been eliminated?? Again im not saying that science is useless im just saying that 100% faith in science will only take us so far. We need more (IMO) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And how do they know the universe is even that old!!!?? http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/science/geology.html
You seem confused neville. Do you think the death penalty is only a western practice? Do you think 'western social problems' are the result of science? If you do not know, the US is highly religious. If you think the US is 100% science you are quite misinformed. The fact is science in itself is not an overarching value system. Nobody thinks science is the only answer. How can science dictate ethics or laws? Many scientic people ascribe to secular humanism which seems to be the missing link you are looking for. Blaming the problems you describe on science is a copout. Lastly, I am not sure what you mean by the stealing of a man's soul. Could you explain?
no becuase i dont have a clue what i was on about Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can clarify what i meant.Certain periods in history can be characterised by overwhelming beliefs. Providence refers to the period when everyone believed that God alone would provide for them. There was no faith in humanity itself. Other periods have been passed through including ones (The Renaissance i believe) where there is no faith/belief in God but pure faith in humanityn itself.When I said 'stealing mans soul' maybe the description was wrong. i meant more along the lines of supressing mans soul.Crushing it.Science has been what the western societies appear to have put their belief in.So while America may have a large religious population if the Laws do not account for this then there is going to be frustration. If the laws are based on science (a science which has decided that someone is not responisible enough to drink until they are 21!!) then this is going to suppress people desires. Their natural instinct. that is what i meant.
That is too funny. Especially after you posted a link to the Mars Pathfinder web page. So how do you think they got photos from the surface of Mars? How many successfull missions to other planets? Quite a few you ignoramus and that is only a partial listing not including other groups and Russia. The Galileo probe has been looping around the moons of Jupiter for a few years. The Voyagers and Pioneers, after visiting most planets, are know almost at the heliopause. They where putting probes around Venus and Mercury 30-40 years ago.
Neville: That is erroneous Absolutism not relevent beyond the local scale (agreement only in immediate, polite circles). Science is: "....experiments....conducted to test hypotheses empirically, ....such hypotheses provide criteria of relevance in the search for factual evidence, pro or con." Science is more about establishing relevence than finding absolutes. Which is why people can still argue over the merits and accomplishments of Science.
By killing an evil person you are doing an evil deed for the greater good. You still must accept the rules of the society you live in. If you disagree, find another society or try to change the current one by rational arguement.
