|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2021 16:38:28 GMT
I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 13, 2021 16:46:48 GMT
Science as in just studying the world around us exists since people can literally study just about anything to learn about it.
Is science study of the world accurate enough? Not at all. The point of science is to observe things while you study. You will never know with 100% if what you see happening will happen the same way everywhere in the universe. Otherwise how did you get such advanced equipment or spaceships to observe everything that can ever be observed. Even two identical twins are different as so are two roses. That's why those who did experiments on twins in the past were not successful. The twins don't have the connection they were expected to have to give the villains what they expected. Instead their silly science hurt the twins.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2021 16:51:42 GMT
Science as in just studying the world around us exists since people can literally study just about anything to learn about it. Is science study of the world accurate enough? Not at all. The point of science is to observe things while you study. You will never know with 100% if what you see happening will happen the same way everywhere in the universe. Otherwise how did you get such advanced equipment or spaceships to observe everything that can ever be observed. Even two identical twins are different as so are two roses. That's why those who did experiments on twins in the past were not successful. The twins don't have the connection they were expected to have to give the villains what they expected. Instead their silly science hurt the twins. Yes, but the science could become our grave. I guess science has proved its fail. We see that science is nothing, but a bunch of axioms. Religion is the only one true key. We must love God, not those different scientific idols. /Anyway, I don't wanna say there were no good people among scientists. No, there were many. They were trying to discover something good about this world. And the modern science is something about - to win the Nobel prize or to bring another prove that "God doesn't exist" or another blah-blah-blah./
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 13, 2021 21:28:33 GMT
Does science exist? Does nescience exist? Does virtue exist? Does vice exist? Does similarity exist? Does dissimilarity exist? Does fulness exist? Does emptiness exist?
My point: If emptiness is the ABSENCE of fulness (and likewise for the other opposites), how can anybody think that emptiness exists? On the other hand, if vice is as positive as virtue, then both opposites ["contraries"] may exist. The absence of science (of TRUE knowledge) is not ignorance but mere opinion, supposition [axioms, you say], or conjecture. However, being a sort of knowledge, rather than a substance, science cannot be said to exist or not to exist. We should ask: DOES SCIENCE OCCUR? And then: UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS (or IN WHAT CASES) DOES SCIENCE OCCUR?
You state that religion is the only true key.... To put it bluntly and vulgarly, you just opened a can of worms, since there are many (and contradictory) religions, and since the teachers of religions demand faith rather than providing criteria of truth. Jesus even claimed to be the truth, according to his biographers, but truth is not a substance, and ...
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2021 4:16:52 GMT
Does science exist? Does nescience exist? Does virtue exist? Does vice exist? Does similarity exist? Does dissimilarity exist? Does fulness exist? Does emptiness exist? My point: If emptiness is the ABSENCE of fulness (and likewise for the other opposites), how can anybody think that emptiness exists? On the other hand, if vice is as positive as virtue, then both opposites ["contraries"] may exist. The absence of science (of TRUE knowledge) is not ignorance but mere opinion, supposition [axioms, you say], or conjecture. However, being a sort of knowledge, rather than a substance, science cannot be said to exist or not to exist. We should ask: DOES SCIENCE OCCUR? And then: UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS (or IN WHAT CASES) DOES SCIENCE OCCUR? You state that religion is the only true key.... To put it bluntly and vulgarly, you just opened a can of worms, since there are many (and contradictory) religions, and since the teachers of religions demand faith rather than providing criteria of truth. Jesus even claimed to be the truth, according to his biographers, but truth is not a substance, and ... Science takes unjustified believes, develop multistage building of theorems, proclaim them as a sacred ultimate truth, blame religions for being 'digmatic' i.e. using unjustified believes as the ultimate truth, and it figures on everybody's primary attention i.e. to be worshipped by everyone. No, science isn't religion... The question of absence/emptiness belongs to metaphysics, so I don't know whether science will blaspheme it. For me 'absence' or 'emptiness' is a matter of form, like "this vase is empty; the water evaporated". In a metaphysical sense /like Heidegger for instance wrote in his "The Thing"/ can be the essence or a fundamental principle aka the window to the being. Anyway, the ordinary view on any emptiness kinds is somewhere near: Nothing/Emptiness = df 'There's an x such as for all y, if p="x has y" or q="y belongs to x", then p and q are both false'. And any further speculations more or less have to care about its background definitios. Dialectical Nothing/Emptiness (or a certain nothing/emptiness), as far as I can comprehend it, is always contra to any being. It's like a shadow or an enemy. By the way, such metaphorical or mythological definitions are as good as possible way to describe metaphysics, well, however, I'm not sure in it. Quine in ,"On What There Is" wrote that such a way is optional, but rough; prime tribes would prefer fairly tales, because it's theirs and might be gotten. The main sin of the science is to dare to go against Christ. That way is a Devil's pit – the way to the abyss... to Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 14, 2021 16:02:26 GMT
Eugene, many of your points are open for discussion, but I like to get back to the thread's topic: Does science exist?
To begin with, as I always point out, by "science [scientia]" I mean "true knowledge" even though it would be more accurate to translate the Latin word [from "scire"] as "investigative knowledge" (in contradistinction to "knowledge by learning" or "information"). However, we generally do use the word to mean "the knowledge obtained by investigating Nature or the physical world. So, historically speaking, there exists (since the 17th century) a body of knowledge that we call science, a body of true knowledge (physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc.) At this point we could go into the issue as to why we or scientists consider the propositions of this body of knowledge to be true.
If science exists, then it certainly occurs. Preferably: Science has been occurring; hence it (as body of knowledge) exists. However, now we have the same issue as to what constitutes its truthfulness. Is it Kant's "synthetic a priori judgments"? I personally do not think so. And here we could go into lengthy discussions about what philosophers and scientists consider truth to consist in. So, we do face the question, Is any science possible at all?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2021 16:34:18 GMT
Eugene, many of your points are open for discussion, but I like to get back to the thread's topic: Does science exist? To begin with, as I always point out, by "science [scientia]" I mean "true knowledge" even though it would be more accurate to translate the Latin word [from "scire"] as "investigative knowledge" (in contradistinction to "knowledge by learning" or "information"). However, we generally do use the word to mean "the knowledge obtained by investigating Nature or the physical world. So, historically speaking, there exists (since the 17th century) a body of knowledge that we call science, a body of true knowledge (physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc.) At this point we could go into the issue as to why we or scientists consider the propositions of this body of knowledge to be true. If science exists, then it certainly occurs. Preferably: Science has been occurring; hence it (as body of knowledge) exists. However, now we have the same issue as to what constitutes its truthfulness. Is it Kant's "synthetic a priori judgments"? I personally do not think so. And here we could go into lengthy discussions about what philosophers and scientists consider truth to consist in. So, we do face the question, Is any science possible at all?1. Yes, I do agree, thank you for this notification. Usually what I do is to speculate about something. As I see most of the times you bring facts. This is as scientifical way so polite way. Because I think that the politeness or the respect is what not less important, than a brilliant idea. Also I must add, that I'm rather an ignorant. I'm not an erudite, and not a well-equipped & well-prepared for facts discussions person. Shamefully I've dig no real information in my life. 2. Well your investigation on a semantic side of the term is as always as wonderful. I read some alike books, but usually it was with no specifical point of almost-complete philosophical. That's why I don't know what to add here about how should we see this term. I guess there might be the pit - the Danaides barrel - and we can't be precise here. And all what I personally tie with the science is not - the purpose or the prime target - but a class of methods to get anything. And I get the science with the practices in many countries. So, for me there's no one and the only privileged science, but many scientists. As Russell wrote in his "On Individual" - a scientists had to have his rights for experimenting, and a space for verification of his results. I mean there were different scientist /e.g. inventors, smart guys, librarians, et cetera/ who tried to understand this world in their way. All the methods they'd dig, I presume, is what can be named 'the science'. 3. I divide the science as the tool /not a pursuing for the one and the only truth - because, I guess, this definition has many extra corners as 'ethical', 'social', 'political', 'psychological', and so on/; and the science as a part of the human culture. I think a scientist is a character in the history that has some typical attributes. Maybe 'the scientists' is just a psychological type of a human, but - no matter what - we've got ones in the culture. So, we need tools to do something /if there's such a necessity/, while as a historical fact we need to keep such a cultural concept as a scientists or the science. 4. Surely you could be precisely right at finding the sharp and narrow thoughts of the science founders like Galileo or Newton. Maybe. Being not a historian I have nothing to add here. 5. I like that instead of my rough algorithm you're trying to bring the question back on some rational ground, like the ontological and epistemological sides of it. I guess I must agree with you on the thesis you've brought about the existence of the body of knowledge. Yes, I guess it must be like that. But there's something funny, you know, such an argument sometimes appears as the argument "the Plato's Beard", and it's like: someone trying to protect a view that X exists says that "the idea of X is what exists" Maybe there are ideas or maybe not... I dunno... Usually I prefer divergent style of thinking that sometimes turns into the plain conformism. But the divergence makes me to appreciate any cultural sides, and arguments as well. So, no matter who's right and who's wrong - all the debaters are good enough.
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Apr 14, 2021 18:36:18 GMT
What device are you using to post here? Does it exist? If it does then the theory behind it must exist.
Also why still put science versus religion? If you strip away facts then science imo is much like religion. And religion A typically acknowledges religion B's existence even though they dont share beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2021 19:11:55 GMT
What device are you using to post here? Does it exist? If it does then the theory behind it must exist. Also why still put science versus religion? If you strip away facts then science imo is much like religion. And religion A typically acknowledges religion B's existence even though they dont share beliefs. Must say that it wasn't a good decision of mine to name the post "...exist", because I'd rather to wish to shake, than to ask straight about this. Do agree with you on 'A recognizes somehow B'. Surely, I can't deny that science has brought good, and, among the other thing, the device I'm using to type about it. What I wanted to underline is that - not to convert the science into religion, because it's rather a tool, than an idol. Even with all of the power all those inventions might turn to magic tricks. The epidemic reveals us our own flaws, and the social component - is one of them. Science cannot be taken away from the social life.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 14, 2021 19:43:28 GMT
I'm not sure..
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Apr 14, 2021 19:52:07 GMT
What device are you using to post here? Does it exist? If it does then the theory behind it must exist. Also why still put science versus religion? If you strip away facts then science imo is much like religion. And religion A typically acknowledges religion B's existence even though they dont share beliefs. Must say that it wasn't a good decision of mine to name the post "...exist", because I'd rather to wish to shake, than to ask straight about this. Do agree with you on 'A recognizes somehow B'. Surely, I can't deny that science has brought good, and, among the other thing, the device I'm using to type about it. What I wanted to underline is that - not to convert the science into religion, because it's rather a tool, than an idol. Even with all of the power all those inventions might turn to magic tricks. The epidemic reveals us our own flaws, and the social component - is one of them. Science cannot be taken away from the social life. Im guessing now a bit but to me your writing rather targets the scientific community than science itself. And it is well recognized within that community, that errors are made and there is prestige more in some areas than others and other kinds of human social elements get in the way and blablabla. Science, to me and many others, is an attempt to reach truth without human mindset/prejudice/opinions getting in the way. As well as that can be practically done of course, which is important to note I mean scientists are also human. And the scientific method has gotten us very far very fast. Too fast actually. We are imo not ready yet for many of the discoveries we made. Another intersting analogy I think of is like, a child in a sandbox is a scientist. Anyone who ever used trial and error is a scientist. Real science IS often 80% basic trial and error believe me I've been there. What is perceived as alien or magical by people is just the tip of the ice berg which gets published. You can make the same comparison of a happy family going to church every sunday and having fun, versus organised religion deciding this and that. Point is, people only make negative opinions when something has grown into an abstract establishment or movement. Yet the basis for said establishment is something human and sensible.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2021 20:06:29 GMT
Must say that it wasn't a good decision of mine to name the post "...exist", because I'd rather to wish to shake, than to ask straight about this. Do agree with you on 'A recognizes somehow B'. Surely, I can't deny that science has brought good, and, among the other thing, the device I'm using to type about it. What I wanted to underline is that - not to convert the science into religion, because it's rather a tool, than an idol. Even with all of the power all those inventions might turn to magic tricks. The epidemic reveals us our own flaws, and the social component - is one of them. Science cannot be taken away from the social life. Im guessing now a bit but to me your writing rather targets the scientific community than science itself. And it is well recognized within that community, that errors are made and there is prestige more in some areas than others and other kinds of human social elements get in the way and blablabla. Science, to me and many others, is an attempt to reach truth without human mindset/prejudice/opinions getting in the way. As well as that can be practically done of course, which is important to note I mean scientists are also human. And the scientific method has gotten us very far very fast. Too fast actually. We are imo not ready yet for many of the discoveries we made. Another intersting analogy I think of is like, a child in a sandbox is a scientist. Anyone who ever used trial and error is a scientist. Real science IS often 80% basic trial and error believe me I've been there. What is perceived as alien or magical by people is just the tip of the ice berg which gets published. You can make the same comparison of a happy family going to church every sunday and having fun, versus organised religion deciding this and that. Point is, people only make negative opinions when something has grown into an abstract establishment or movement. Yet the basis for said establishment is something human and sensible. Your notifications are sharp and precise. It's true, most of the work was done by many experiments. I'd add here that the ordinary people had been doing it through all the life. Good data is a big work, but the results are being gathered together. I remember those project: SETI. I don't know what is it now, but then many computers had been required to join for the organization of this program. The organized work is what most of the time is necessary. Bertrand Russell wrote in his "On Individual" that a scientists had to have spare time, and protection for his privacy work. I guess the involvement of scientists to all those political games, intrigues, and whatnot is what doesn't bring anything good. And I guess this last point is tied up with what you've wrote about "the going to church" and "the science's orders". Because these things are being so close that is what makes me worry about that.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 15, 2021 12:39:09 GMT
Science, most people equate with what goes on at university. Which has less and less to do with the original method of Descartes, Galileo and Newton.
It has become a rubber-stamp of corruption even as the original discoveries of the 19th century are still used, obviously.
As a process of new understanding of nature science has been dead for 100 years.
Einstein was the executioner. His sophistry was designed specifically to stop the understanding of real physics out of fear that anyone would be able to develop nuclear devices.
That fear has manifested in the entire system collapsing. We see the beginning of the end in front of our eyes even as most people pretend not to see it, or are too terrified to admit it or do anything about it.
Either way: ignorance begets ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 15, 2021 13:07:36 GMT
Science, most people equate with what goes on at university. Which has less and less to do with the original method of Descartes, Galileo and Newton. It has become a rubber-stamp of corruption even as the original discoveries of the 19th century are still used, obviously. As a process of new understanding of nature science has been dead for 100 years. Einstein was the executioner. His sophistry was designed specifically to stop the understanding of real physics out of fear that anyone would be able to develop nuclear devices. That fear has manifested in the entire system collapsing. We see the beginning of the end in front of our eyes even as most people pretend not to see it, or are too terrified to admit it or do anything about it. Either way: ignorance begets ignorance. I do agree with you! I'd sum it into this: "Science becomes a media product, than what it must have become if no important traditions had been broken in XIX-XX centuries".
|
|
sexytime
Junior Member
Posts: 99
Likes: 27
|
Post by sexytime on Apr 21, 2021 14:59:03 GMT
believing that the universe just started existing without a creator is the biggest nonsense there is for me personally , thats all i can say
|
|