Does the 'throw out science' argument work

[molly bloom]

Re: Does the 'throw out science' argument work

Originally posted by johncmcleod

But still, even using the correct scientific methods, what is found to be true is not necessarily true, for further advances in technology help us understand it better and may change our beliefs about it. One could say that science helps us understand things better, but we can't understand something perfectly and completely, and therefore knowledge gained through science isn't infallible.

The point is, surely, that science gives us a framework, or a method, or tools to help us understand the processes or structures in and underlying our environment.

It also provides the means whereby scientists not yet born may revise or challenge earlier findings, or discover better ways to explain things.




Religion doesn't, by and large- something 'is' because it is, or because somebody says that a god said it was, and that it is forbidden to say it isn't, or that questioning it is punishable by death or torture.

[Nostromo]

I believe someone like the Buddha came to that conclusion - not to worry about whether there is a god. Quite explicitly, in fact.

I think I'll go sit under a tree...

[Mr. Harley]

It's just giving up the sex that sucks - or doesn't, so to speak.

[Nostromo]

That's the deal breaker

[Provost Harrison]

The bollocks continues...

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Does the 'throw out science' argument work

Originally posted by molly bloom
The point is, surely, that science gives us a framework, or a method, or tools to help us understand the processes or structures in and underlying our environment.

It also provides the means whereby scientists not yet born may revise or challenge earlier findings, or discover better ways to explain things.

This is excellent. Now we can all just copy-n-paste.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The bollocks continues...

I think a comment like this, if youve made at least one constructive comment in the thread, is ok but in this case why even post this?
BTW Im a scientist like you, and would like to know if there are reasons for this opinion?

[johncmcleod]

My understanding of science is very limited, so sorry if this is really elementary, but here is my understanding of the origin of the universe. Because energy and matter are interchangeable (Einstein's theory of relativity), originally there was only energy, then some cosmic accident occurred and large quantities of energy were transformed into matter. If this is incorrect, please explain it to me. My two questions though are a) where did the energy come from and b) how did this accident occurr, what caused the change?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


I think a comment like this, if youve made at least one constructive comment in the thread, is ok but in this case why even post this?
BTW Im a scientist like you, and would like to know if there are reasons for this opinion?

Why bother? There are people who are just so thick-skulled that it is impossible to try and explain. If you explain the 'errors of their ways' you get hostility and defensiveness and they just retreat back to their fictitious religions and come out with the same nonsense all over again...it's too much like hard work to rehash this stuff...

[Lul Thyme]

I agree, but then why bother posting at all?
The two sensible things in my mind, is to post your argument or not post at all...

[Provost Harrison]

Because it is just so irritating how people can be so dense, that is why...

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ideally none, however if God can be refuted then the 3000 year old bull**** that says that if you're not heterosexual, male and belligerent then you're inferior, can finally be consigned to the history books.

Yes, but rejecting the religions based on that bull**** in favour of deism would serve the same end.

[Whaleboy]

Deism is naturalistic religion, still a form of theism. If theism can be undermined then that end would also fall, at least logically speaking. Undoubtably people would still believe it but if they questioned it they could see God = false .

[civman2000]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
My understanding of science is very limited, so sorry if this is really elementary, but here is my understanding of the origin of the universe. Because energy and matter are interchangeable (Einstein's theory of relativity), originally there was only energy, then some cosmic accident occurred and large quantities of energy were transformed into matter. If this is incorrect, please explain it to me. My two questions though are a) where did the energy come from and b) how did this accident occurr, what caused the change?

My knowledge is a bit shaky too, but my understanding is that the universe was a singularity--space was discontinous and all collapsed in a single point. As a result, it is impossible to know anything about what happened before the singularity, if it even makes since to talk about "before" at all. In other words, there is no explanation of where it came from (I don't see any reason to expect we would be able to know that) and the "accident" occurred because, given the structure of the universe immediately after the singularity, the laws of physics required that it happen. Indeed, it's hardly an accident in any sense at all: my understanding is that in a singularity there can be no mass and only energy, while under any other circumstances energy will transform into mass (and vice versa, but at different rates depending on the situation).

Don't take this as solid fact; I probably don't have it completely right and someone knowing more physics should correct any errors I've made.

[Whaleboy]

Civman, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. It doesn't help to think of it in a spacial sense... rather the singularity was a situation where time didn't exist.