My pet peeve, Science is everything

Luke Shearer said:
What he (and I agree with him) is opposed to is illogical "religion" masquerading as science.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. May charlatanism endure all the scrutiny it deserves.

Luke Shearer said:
Science cannot prove many things just because of its nature, therefore it cant be the prime method for finding objective truth.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this.
No alternative to finding objective truth has been proposed. It may not be the only method. However that doesn't mean it isn't the prime method, or ought not to be.

Tai has proposed that subjective 'truth' (I prefer 'experience') is critically important. I concur. It should not be mistaken for, nor replace (or be replaced by!) objectivity.


Rick Marchand said:
This is one of those threads that get's you thinking which is good... but is also gets you talking... which can be bad.
Click to expand...

True dat.

-Daizee, signing off.
 
Alternatives to science for finding objective truth:

Accident, luck, chance, intuition, voodoo, meditation, imagination etc... but I think science will use those too in a pinch... I'm sure it happens a lot. :)

Science will use just about anything. It ain't as pure as you think. :)
 
Last edited:
How about "Weird Science"?
[video=youtube_share;st7ZBnk5wy0]http://youtu.be/st7ZBnk5wy0[/video]
 
So Tai, in simpler words, what you are opposed to is ideology and idealogues, coming to a consensus and calling it "science". If so, I agree with you, to me that is no different than idealogy in religion, politics, or any other subject. Unfortunately, that is how the human race has always functioned(and probably always will), humans want answers that confirm the beliefs they have already, and they want them right away. In other words people want to be told what they want to hear not what the "truth" is. Humans want to be "right" not correct.
 
Dave,

Well yeah, you can be correct, but still not be right. I found that out the hard way.

Good point!
 
Tai Goo said:
There haven't been any scientific studies on it that I know of. Do you?

Why stay away from the subjective? This is a subjective topic.

Is it impossible to let go of the objective?... at least you acknowledge that there is a subjective, I guess.
Click to expand...

Sure, insofar as we humans typically define subjective and objective 'things' there are certainly examples of each. I agree with you that science is not, literally, everything. It is a method. A very powerful method that, in my opinion, is our most successful means of establishing objective truths. That there are other things in this universe...of course there are.

An additional facet in these discussions is that there are several recent fMRI-based studies in neurobiology which suggest that the subjective/objective/consciousness distinction may be artifice. When and if the determinists triumph, we can all revisit this discussion...it may be inevitable ;)

Mark


said,
 
Tai Goo said:
I do declare.
Click to expand...

Yes you do. Over and over again. Which brings us right back to the fact thst just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. Even if you say so over and over again. I see nothing in this thread to support the notion that this demon you rail against is anything other than a creature of your own invention. You say science is over-hyped, but in support of that foundational claim, you advance nothing BUT hype.

Roger
 
If Tai Goo would use "pseudo-science," then it would be clear from the beginning. Also, scientific method is trying to prove that one hypothesis is wrong, versus proving it right, i.e. "falsification." Hence preventing confirmation bias. Too many people are trying to prove that their theories are right and gather only the evidences that support their theory. That is contrary to the scientific method.
 
As one of Tai's links said, science cant even prove science, so I cant see why you would believe that it should be trusted as the only way of finding truth. No one says that it isnt important; it is. But it cant even begin to shed light on many subjects.
 
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn is a great read if you haven't already gotten to it. It discusses much of what we are covering here.

Mark
 
I think I'll take a break and just let my thoughts hang there a while.

Tear into it guys! :)
 
Science and nature do not make a "Knife" only a human can. And humans with the their imaginations can use science to make wonderful knives. Without that imagination knives would not exist.
 
Tai has a big spoon.............

4468314290_77db2554b7_o.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 4468314290_77db2554b7_o.jpg
    4468314290_77db2554b7_o.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 1
its how you understand and behave things happen arround you. imo, the difference between science and faith is that science always leave a chance questioning and disbelive ourself; faith in another hand belived itself is the abslutly right. what i do is behaving scientifically, and do not turn "science" into a faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top