Yup.....Bornerdogge wrote:(think about creationists in schools in the USA)
Thats the sort of people I meant....
Yup.....Bornerdogge wrote:(think about creationists in schools in the USA)
Actually I'm sure we do. If you are saying that Ivan is a product of my imagination I'm going to get offended !Thein wrote:You and I do not know is we even exist;
Pardon ?? I look forward to your proof of 1 + 1 =27 or blue is red.Thein wrote:anything, after all, can be proven.
No, you prove they are true. Yes you have to trust that other scientists have checked it properly but when you have a large enough community this is pretty much a given.Thein wrote: You have to trust that your scientific evidence and calculations are true, and you have to trust that they can be built upon, by other scientists, after you die.
Again not sure I agree. I believe Science is the underlying set of laws that govern the universe. So science has always been there. In the same way religion suggests that their God has always been there.Thein wrote:Religion came before Science, and stemming from religion came science.
Again I disagree. Why do you need faith in evidence ?Thein wrote:People wanted to know the answers to the universe, with evidence. You must have faith that the evidence even supports your hypothesis and builds on your theory.
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.Bornerdogge wrote:I generally agree with you on all of what you have said, except the "science has always been there."... Science is not the universe, science is a human construct, a set of methods to help us understanding the universe!
Well this is getting rather esoteric. Ultimately evidence is what you observe and if I see evidence that convinces me the bridge is there then why should it not be ?Bornerdogge wrote: I think what Thein said was not to be understood in the superficial manner. He merely asked the question of "what is reality", "what is evidence"... If we stood in front of a suspension bridge, and I asked you "Are you sure there's a bridge? It could be a giant picture..", you'd probably go and touch the bridge. But again, the "touching" is merely a set of electrical impulses traveling through our nerves. So there's always some kind of faith in evidence...
There are many people who make a living out of things that you can't see or touch and will insist they are definitely real and that they are mentally healthy. I believe they are wrong about their first point but probably right about the second, indeed for many people belief in the insubstantial in whatever format is better for their mental health than the alternative.Bornerdogge wrote: But if you want to live a mentally healthy life, you'd better take the assumption that reality is what we can see and touch (and measure, in an extended way...).
Which is what I call science.Bornerdogge wrote: Of course, given the principles of quantum mechanics, or the possible insights of superstring theory and brane cosmology, the "reality" we're used to disappears, but there's still some kind of fundamental we can rely on...
Then I don't agree with your definition of science :p What you say implies that we humans posses the ONLY and ULTIMATE way to understand the mysteries of the universe... A little anthropocentric and arrogant isn't it?DCWhitworth wrote:Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.Bornerdogge wrote:I generally agree with you on all of what you have said, except the "science has always been there."... Science is not the universe, science is a human construct, a set of methods to help us understanding the universe!
I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Of course it's esoteric (well, perhaps not that much, see "brain in the jar"...)! But I wanted to show you that we are human beings, and we possess only means to get to the evidence, not the evidence itself. What we understand as the evidence for something could also be some misinterpretation of a not fully understood phenomenon (for example: Young's double-slit experiment was supposed to show definitely that light IS a wave and nothing else... Then came Einstein).DCWhitworth wrote:Well this is getting rather esoteric. Ultimately evidence is what you observe and if I see evidence that convinces me the bridge is there then why should it not be ?Bornerdogge wrote: I think what Thein said was not to be understood in the superficial manner. He merely asked the question of "what is reality", "what is evidence"... If we stood in front of a suspension bridge, and I asked you "Are you sure there's a bridge? It could be a giant picture..", you'd probably go and touch the bridge. But again, the "touching" is merely a set of electrical impulses traveling through our nerves. So there's always some kind of faith in evidence...
If you ask 'How do I know anything is real ?' my answer is 'Because the evidence says it is and there is no evidence for an alternatively theory'
I disagree that there has to be faith in evidence, i.e. that there has to be some unverifiable doubt in everything.
Well I was talking about rational people here... A scientist should question his findings, because they have no reason to be THE perfect answer, but I won't start questioning things like "is the bread I'm eating really bread?"...DCWhitworth wrote:There are many people who make a living out of things that you can't see or touch and will insist they are definitely real and that they are mentally healthy. I believe they are wrong about their first point but probably right about the second, indeed for many people belief in the insubstantial in whatever format is better for their mental health than the alternative.Bornerdogge wrote: But if you want to live a mentally healthy life, you'd better take the assumption that reality is what we can see and touch (and measure, in an extended way...).
[/quote]Bornerdogge wrote:Then I don't agree with your definition of science :p What you say implies that we humans posses the ONLY and ULTIMATE way to understand the mysteries of the universe... A little anthropocentric and arrogant isn't it?DCWhitworth wrote:
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.
I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Go and tell that to a mathematician. Theories may be proved and disproved, but there are some things which are fundamentally true. It's how those truths are built upon and combined that is the subject of theory.Bornerdogge wrote: You seem to have quite absolute views of science and human beings... Be careful! Thruth is never absolute because of the very nature of human beings... What is generally taken for true now could very well be dismissed in the future...
I'm sorry but the word is clearly misused there... Cf. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sciencetswsl1989 wrote:I'd agree with DCWhitworth - Science is the workings of the universe, and we study those workings. At no point has what DCWhitworth's said implied we possess the only or ultimate way of understanding the universe. Merely that the workings of the universe are what we study. The majority of that, on a universal scale, is Physics.Bornerdogge wrote:Then I don't agree with your definition of science :p What you say implies that we humans posses the ONLY and ULTIMATE way to understand the mysteries of the universe... A little anthropocentric and arrogant isn't it?DCWhitworth wrote:
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.
I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Math isn' science... Science implies experimentation, balance between theory and observation. Math deals with theoretical constructs. You can argue about the fact if wether or not hypothetical beings in other universes or simply other beings in this universe would have similar mathematics. This touches the subject of why the universe behaves mathematically; I will not dive into this!!tswsl1989 wrote:Go and tell that to a mathematician. Theories may be proved and disproved, but there are some things which are fundamentally true. It's how those truths are built upon and combined that is the subject of theory.Bornerdogge wrote: You seem to have quite absolute views of science and human beings... Be careful! Thruth is never absolute because of the very nature of human beings... What is generally taken for true now could very well be dismissed in the future...
Here is a glass of water.mrgumby wrote: Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?
What the frack? I don't see your point there, but how can you compare "holy" with "changed color"? It has absolutely nothing to do... Please, tell me how to measure the holyness of the glass.DCWhitworth wrote:Here is a glass of water.mrgumby wrote: Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?
Here is another glass of water.
Both glasses of water are treated exactly the same, EXCEPT I ask a priest to wave his hands/utter some words/say a prayer as he deems appropriate.
This glass of water is now holy water.
The other glass of water is not.
The invocation caused the water to change.
Therefore, religion exists.
Ask a priest of course !Bornerdogge wrote:What the frack? I don't see your point there, but how can you compare "holy" with "changed color"? It has absolutely nothing to do... Please, tell me how to measure the holyness of the glass.DCWhitworth wrote:Here is a glass of water.mrgumby wrote: Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?
Here is another glass of water.
Both glasses of water are treated exactly the same, EXCEPT I ask a priest to wave his hands/utter some words/say a prayer as he deems appropriate.
This glass of water is now holy water.
The other glass of water is not.
The invocation caused the water to change.
Therefore, religion exists.
Yes, it's a jokeBornerdogge wrote: (Maybe it's a joke, it wasn't clear )