On 12 Jan, 03:48, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why do so few people (otherwise intelligent for the most part) have
> such a tweaked view of science? I'm so tired of hearing it described
> as a religion (oh ya, well you worship science!), a dogma (ya but
> since science says...then you have to believe it!), a choice (just
> because you like science, doesn't mean I have to!), ETC...!!!!!
> Science is a method of understanding the world around the person in
> question. It is not an alternate to religion. Dr. Robert Bakker is a
> well known and very intelligent scientist that happens to be a well
> known pastor as well. Why? Because he leaves god at home when viewing
> the world scientifically and leaves science at home when using
> religion.
> Science is the direct examination of evidence. It is only useful when
> contemplating something testable or checkable.
> Have you ever had a leak and systematically checked for which pipe it
> was? Welcome to science.
> Have you ever had question and looked for an answer or asked someone
> that has? welcome to science.
> Have you ever altered a recipe because something sounded good or you
> thought might work? welcome to science.
> If you have ever prayed for your pipe to stop leaking, prayed for an
> answer, or prayed for food to make itself, you aren't a scientist and
> very likely will never have the capacity for science.
>
{chuckles} Thus the phrase: God helps those who help themselves.
> Science is ONLY and specifically a method to find answers. If you pose
> a question that has no answer...science is mute. If you want to know
> how 2+4 =6, ask a scientist or grab 6 of something and find out
> scientifically. To know that it means 24 before the reasoning finding
> someone that will assist your misunderstanding ask a...well...someone
> else.
>
Through the concatenation of the string values '2' and '4', then 2+4
CAN equal 24. Also, 2+4 can equal 10 in a mathematical base 6 system
or 11 in a mathematical base 5 system. Science can be used, as I've
shown above, to manipulate data to 'prove' certain things others may
think unreasonable. So one has to be wary of science as well. 2+4
only equals 6 in mathematical bases higher than 7 and is ca completely
nonsensical statement in bases lower than 5 (because there IS no '4'
in a mathematical base lower than 5).
> Science does not tell you what comes after death, nor before birth.
>
Yet it does. The energy that was 'us' is simply transformed to other
forms. Which forms, though, well, now THAT requires speculation
followed by testing. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have spiritual
tools with which to make spiritual measurements. If we DID, we might
be able to make some progress there.
> Science does not "feel" it has answers. Science does not get offended
> or outraged when it is contradicted by evidence, the very act of
> contradicting with evidence IS science.
>
> If you have an opinion that can be contradicted by provable or
> scientific evidence, do not be angry at the scientist, be angry at the
> person that gave you bad or untested information.
>
Nah. It's still a waste of time to get angry. Just understand that
the person was misguided.
> Science doesn't hold your hand and tell you what to believe, it is a
> method to question yourself and your beliefs. If you are offended
> because science questions your "knowledge," you have 2 choices. For
> one you can test that "knowledge" yourself and look beyond your hopes
> into reality. For two, you can use science to find out how your belief
> might have accuracy or not have accuracy. Most people do not choose
> either, and for obvious reasons.
>
> Science does not give a damn about you or your feelings, it is a
> concept and a method, not a consoler for delusion or failure. If you
> hold to a belief that fish have gills in order to explore volcanos,
> well... sorry science will crush your hopes and dreams.
>
> Science does not care about oneness or deities. Since these are
> generally self defeating logical concepts and not concepts that appear
> in the natural world, science COULD NOT speak on them and never does.
>
That is where your argument falls over. The concept of Oneness is not
a self-defeating logical concept. It may well be currently
untestable, but that does not mean that it will always be. There was
a day when people had faith that, when they let go of an object, it
would fall to the ground. Then, one day (after Newton), there was an
explanation FOR it. The fact that, at one time, there was no given
scientific explanation FOR a mechanism does not imply that there isn't
one.
> Science does not care about whether or not you are confused on some
> philosophical concept. Science can however, allow you to explore and
> investigate an amazing world surrounded by a complex solar system, in
> a superbly beautiful galaxy.
> Science can allow you to understand that simply existing is such a
> beautiful and awesome concept, that no little metaphysical idea needs
> be entertained if one wants to be amazed, confused, or challenged by
> everything that they purport to search for.
>
But it can never tell you 'WHY' such a wonderfully amazing universe
exists. In fact, science is happy with the fact that energy is
neither created nor destryed, yet it is also happy that energy burst
forth in a Big Bang. From where? If the energy always exists, then
it had to be somewhere or in some other state than it was AT the Big
Bang. This is where speculation MUST take place. Without
speculation, i.e., the formulation of hypotheses, the process of
science never begins. By your own logic, don't be offended when
people make speculations/hypotheses that are unproven at this point in
time, for they may be laying the foundations for the proven science of
tomorrow.
> -Personal note:-
> It will take all of your energy and attention to understand even a
> small amount of the knowledge that awaits you and is literally just
> sitting there waiting for you to find it. Don't waste life on unproven
> concepts reinforced with prophets and people that are proven to be
> wrong and/or nonexistent.
Rather, investigate that which is unproven in order to prove or
disprove it. I know of no prophets that have been proven to have not
existed. Do you? Remember, a lack of evidence that a prophet existed
is NOT proof that he/she did not. That's simply bad science.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
