|
On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh. Show nested quote +
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Science isn't complete.... and it's not a timeline that has to have a beginning or end... and no we don't have to make a "leap of faith" with incomplete information and say "well nothing else works atm so it has to be god."
Well that's a good question what other answer indeed. Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that "the answer is god" until someone can prove otherwise though.
|
On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh. Show nested quote +
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
|
On April 02 2013 11:17 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it. Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead?
On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote:
Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though.
the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about  )
edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers.
|
On April 02 2013 11:17 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it. Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
A tree falls in the forest and makes a noise. It is trivially true to say that the reason for trees making noise as they land is that trees make noise as they land.
Reality is organized according to natural laws. Obviously it follows that this is "because" reality is organized according to natural laws. The question sam is asking is about whether these natural laws have any particular logical cause other than tautology. I mean, we don't use this kind of reasoning anywhere else in our studies. It's only when someone asks "why are the physical laws like this?" that someone else replies "because they simply are!"
Imagine we could do that elsewhere. Why is fire hot? Because fires have been observed to be hot!
|
Rational techniques are designed to reflect reality, not the other way around. One might as well argue that the universe is fine-tuned for B-2 Bombers, because B-2 Bombers work in our universe. (Which of course is proof of an intelligent designer, because B-2 Bombers are so specific they could not possibly have come into existence in a universe with even slightly different underlying laws... therefore God. QED.)
|
As a 28 yo, no, I don't expect I'll live forever. And frankly, the common understanding/concept of 'immortality' is not a state I'd like to exist in.
|
If we learn to stop ageing, would our bodies lose the ability to gain knowledge? Like, say we stopped ageing at 25... Would we stop developing? Mental and otherwise?
|
Yeah, machines have been made immortal, some rats have been made immortal, so it's pretty clear that given this current trend in technology, Humans will be next. The current trend in technology has not produced any of this. Even our attempts to make a self-sustaining ecosystem have been spectacular failures. It's faith in the utopia of scientific progress that goes from miracle drugs to miracles. I analyze the jump from finite lives to infinite as much different than slide rules to computers, mail to email, the horse-powered vehicles to modern cars. Earlier, we talked about how current technology would look to someone 500 years ago. Maybe someone of that time would ask, in his terminology, "Why do they have any expectation of soon becoming like gods?"
Source? They have been made live 5 times as long, in a lab.
|
God I hope not, I'm so waiting for a few people to die out.
|
Side note prior to actual statement: We have not observed all of reality, not even 1% of it. We have observed a very very small slice. We know what the scientific laws are here, where we are - but just as some constants are not really constants, we have no way of knowing what kinds of surprises science may have for us if we ever see a stranger slice of reality. That said, not beating any dead horses.
Actual statement on immortality - it's kind of irrelevant to me. I'm 36 - antigerone treatments that could stop the clock of aging and provide theoretical immortality, even if developed, would not be widely available to the masses. It simply cannot be - even with people dying, Dr. Malthus is quietly chuckling at the strain our population puts on our available resources. If any kind of immortality were to become possible, it would be hideously expensive or quite possibly seized and regulated by governments. If not outlawed quickly. Death is a very important, very common, and vital thing to our biome, our species, and our culture and arts. Sure, it sucks if you're the one that dies. But it happens.
Everything dies. Everything. Even if medical science could keep you alive for a long long time, something comes along. A meteor. A volcano. A bus crashing through the 3rd floor of your apartment building. The heat death of the universe. The only true immortality exists in fiction (some SciFi, some Fantasy, and of course religious works).
|
On April 02 2013 11:20 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:17 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it. Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem? that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead? Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote:
Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though. the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about ) edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers.
Here is the disagreement, what you call fundamentally religious (coping with death/longing for eternal life) others would just attribute to the conditione humaine. It is human nature I'd say. Some rely on religion to answer these questions, others rely on science. The 2 are/should be completely seperate because of the scientific method. You can prove a scientist wrong.
The "why" question on the natural laws is valid of course, but used to end a debate it seems like an argument of the gaps to me. Scientists can't throw in a ''because of something unfalsifyable".
|
On April 02 2013 17:42 Leafren wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 11:20 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:17 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it. Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem? that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead? On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote:
Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though. the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about ) edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers. Here is the disagreement, what you call fundamentally religious (coping with death/longing for eternal life) others would just attribute to the conditione humaine. It is human nature I'd say. Some rely on religion to answer these questions, others rely on science. The 2 are/should be completely seperate because of the scientific method. You can prove a scientist wrong. The "why" question on the natural laws is valid of course, but used to end a debate it seems like an argument of the gaps to me. Scientists can't throw in a ''because of something unfalsifyable".
but you cant prove the scientific method wrong. You can prove a scientist wrong only if you accept the method, which is something you have to do without rational reasoning. Its something called a fundamental choice, some people say that such a choice is irrational, imo its neither rational nor irrational.
and btw please stop talking about falisfication, it makes you (not you specifically, but people in general) look stupid. Falsicifation is an outdated theory with more problems than solutions and its no longer really used as a method to check for the value and truth of a scientific theory. there might be some diehard popper fans left but most scientists and philosophers of science have dropped it.
|
humans have the notion of God because humans are suppose to become Gods (in the most absolute sense of the word). <- the purpose of human existence.
this physical immortality thing = baby steps
|
My religion says my ghost will be absorbed by a tree after I die.
|
On April 02 2013 19:46 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 17:42 Leafren wrote:On April 02 2013 11:20 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:17 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On April 02 2013 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote:
The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote:
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it. Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem? that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead? On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote:
Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though. the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about ) edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers. Here is the disagreement, what you call fundamentally religious (coping with death/longing for eternal life) others would just attribute to the conditione humaine. It is human nature I'd say. Some rely on religion to answer these questions, others rely on science. The 2 are/should be completely seperate because of the scientific method. You can prove a scientist wrong. The "why" question on the natural laws is valid of course, but used to end a debate it seems like an argument of the gaps to me. Scientists can't throw in a ''because of something unfalsifyable". but you cant prove the scientific method wrong. You can prove a scientist wrong only if you accept the method, which is something you have to do without rational reasoning. Its something called a fundamental choice, some people say that such a choice is irrational, imo its neither rational nor irrational. and btw please stop talking about falisfication, it makes you (not you specifically, but people in general) look stupid. Falsicifation is an outdated theory with more problems than solutions and its no longer really used as a method to check for the value and truth of a scientific theory. there might be some diehard popper fans left but most scientists and philosophers of science have dropped it.
While you can't prove the actual scientific method wrong, you could come up with a better alternative. Which would obviously be pretty hard considering all the massive benefits the scientific method has brought us so far. And it's not like it stops there, the scientific method develops over time, it's not a dogma you have to live by even if circumstances change.
|
well when it comes to understanding the world its hard to talk about better alternatives. when it comes down to the pragmatic level, then yes, there are better and worse alternatives. but you shouldnt confuse the theory of science with the practice of science. and neither should you confuse the theology with practiced religion. theology does use proof and argument (though they are logical arguments and not scientifical ones), the dogma wasnt as rigid as many people want to believe (although it wasnt very flexible either ofcourse, but to be honest science has some dogmas as well, not that this a valid argument against or for anything, but its just an observation). everything changes over time, the catholic church was not the same around the time of Consantine as it was at the time of Galilei or now. There are many striking similarities between scientific theories and religious ones, though neither side is really willing to admit it  and in the end, the funniest thing is, its a futile discussion because its kinda based on a category mistake and 2 groups blatantly talking past each other.
|
Imagine in 400 years, you turn on the radio, and still hear new songs of Justin Bieber...
FUCK NO.
|
You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less):
I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
|
Life is already far too long and tiresome. By the time most people hit 30 they've stopped being curious about books, music, etc. It's just about raising your kids and preparing for them to take over.
|
On April 02 2013 21:53 Leafren wrote:
You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less):
I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
like i said, it was not aimed at you specifically, it just annoys me that many people randomly throw that word in without knowing anything about it. if that is not the case for you, then dont feel adressed.
I'm not claiming i know a better method on a pragmatic level, but what you described in your opening sentence, accepting a method that is better than the current one, that is a pragmatic decision. we would go for the alternative because it works better not because you can say it is better on a theoretic level (assuming that both theories/method are atleast adequately worked out). To compare practical science to practical religion is a futile exercise imo, they really have nothing in common and it is due to arrogance on both sides that they want to claim something about the other they have no right to claim. practical religion should shut up about science and the age of the earth, and vica versa science has really nothing to say about a potential existence of any type of god. or about a religious experience.
theoretic science and theology have more in common, but still they make use of different methods and usually discuss different domains. (to make a comparison, its like trying to explain certain social phenomenon through psychology or through economy or through biology.)
in the end science is based on a few fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method because it would be a circulary argument, and even if the method would change (which it has over the years) it is only a pragmatic change, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that the foundations (eg these assumptions) are touched. we can go into detail about it but i dont want to derail the thread further. you can pm if you want to talk about it some more
ps: i stumbled upon this  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Dogma_of_Molecular_Biology
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
