User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 126

  1. #21
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I don't see how you can have a "scientific bias". What would this entail? From what I've seen, when people say someone has a "scientific bias", they mean that he doesn't softheadedly entertain every vacuous piece of conjecture and sophistry he encounters.
    This means clinging to the presumption that the scientific body of knowledge is all the knowledge that exists, or that the scientific method of observation is the only method of attaining knowledge of reality. There is another way, that of experience and relationship. It yields a different sort of knowledge, that of understanding (as opposed to certainty). It is personal integration of truth. Also, there is plenty to be known which we do not yet have the capability to observe with technology. Having unquestioned faith in and religious adherence to science is to reject the idea that humans have access to only a small portion of reality at any given time. We can't know what lies in the past or the future, for example. We don't know what things are like on the other side of the galaxy. We don't even know what thoughts are in other people's minds.

  2. #22
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    that was an einstein quote, thought it was interesting. I don't belong to or participate in any religious activity. Science cannot stand on it's own, it needs a catalyst. religion was the catalyst at one time, what is it now?
    Science can stand on its own, because it doesn't claim to do more than it can on its own. The perennial problem with religion is its claims to be able to answer questions ill suited to its mode of inquiry.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  3. #23
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Science can stand on its own, because it doesn't claim to do more than it can on its own. The perennial problem with religion is its claims to be able to answer questions ill suited to its mode of inquiry.
    And that's where religion differs from spirituality. Religion makes claims to truth, and spirituality is experience of truth.

  4. #24
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    This means clinging to the presumption that the scientific body of knowledge is all the knowledge that exists, or that the scientific method of observation is the only method of attaining knowledge of reality. There is another way, that of experience and relationship. It yields a different sort of knowledge, that of understanding (as opposed to certainty). It is personal integration of truth. Also, there is plenty to be known which we do not yet have the capability to observe with technology. Having unquestioned faith in and religious adherence to science is to reject the idea that humans have access to only a small portion of reality at any given time. We can't know what lies in the past or the future, for example. We don't know what things are like on the other side of the galaxy. We don't even know what thoughts are in other people's minds.
    This suffers from overgeneralization, oversimplification, and just plain sloppiness.

    1. It is demonstrably correct that the "scientific body of knowledge" is all the knowledge that exists, and scientific methods of observation are only way to increase that knowledge for certain questions/areas of inquiry.

    2. Scientific observation and experimentation is experience, not the only kind of human experience, but the kind most suited to learning about the physical world. One hallmark of this type of experience is that it leads to results and conclusions that are impersonal. If the results cannot be reproduced elsewhere by others, the conclusions lack credibility.

    3. Science does not provide certainty, since nothing can ever be proven. It provides an understanding that explains all available data, until new data appear which cannot be explained. Then the theory must be revisited, updated, and possibly even discarded.

    4. Of course there is much that we do not yet have the capability to analyze scientifically. Looking for these answers in the realm of religion (or even spirituality), however, is just barking up the wrong tree. Religion rightly pertains to those things that science will never be able to analyze, because they are outside the physical experience.

    5. Unquestioned faith and religious adherance to anything is the mindset of a simpleton, not a scientist. No one needs to tell scientists that our understanding of reality is far from complete.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #25
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This suffers from overgeneralization, oversimplification, and just plain sloppiness.

    1. It is demonstrably correct that the "scientific body of knowledge" is all the knowledge that exists, and scientific methods of observation are only way to increase that knowledge for certain questions/areas of inquiry.
    My point is that the other areas of inquiry are important too, and constitute a large body of knowledge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    2. Scientific observation and experimentation is experience, not the only kind of human experience, but the kind most suited to learning about the physical world. One hallmark of this type of experience is that it leads to results and conclusions that are impersonal. If the results cannot be reproduced elsewhere by others, the conclusions lack credibility.
    Right, and I am referring to personal experience rather than empirical observation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    3. Science does not provide certainty, since nothing can ever be proven. It provides an understanding that explains all available data, until new data appear which cannot be explained. Then the theory must be revisited, updated, and possibly even discarded.
    I never implied that it did; the different emphases in epistemology (to which I was referring- I know that wasn't clear) on either certainty or understanding are meant to be approached as closely as possible. Science seeks certainty and some other sorts of methods for attaining knowledge seek understanding (which is personal integration of truth).
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    4. Of course there is much that we do not yet have the capability to analyze scientifically. Looking for these answers in the realm of religion (or even spirituality), however, is just barking up the wrong tree. Religion rightly pertains to those things that science will never be able to analyze, because they are outside the physical experience.
    I disagree that looking for answers in these areas is misdirected. They provide different sorts of knowledge, directions in which to look, and methods of inquiry and analysis. The error is in thinking that they can explain the same things. It's comparing apples to oranges. Like Fi and Ti- they're both rational in different ways, and have different sorts of wisdom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    5. Unquestioned faith and religious adherance to anything is the mindset of a simpleton, not a scientist. No one needs to tell scientists that our understanding of reality is far from complete.
    True; the people who become "religious" about science usually aren't scientists. And those who are really are just attached to their methods and fear the unexplainable.

  6. #26
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    My point is that the other areas of inquiry are important too, and constitute a large body of knowledge.
    My point is that all the criticisms you and others have levelled at scientific inquiry are valid only if one is asserting that those processes can be used to answer all questions facing humanity. My picking apart of your last post was to highlight the error of that assumption. There is a difference between questions that science cannot yet answer, and questions it will never be able to answer. It is as foolish to apply spiritual methods to the first as to apply scientific methods to the second. (Just recall those preachers of past generations who attempted to establish the age of the Earth using the Bible.) The areas of inquiry subject to scientific methods, however, are broad, diverse, and consequential. We do ourselves a disservice by approaching them with the wrong tools, and come no closer to the truth.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #27
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    My point is that all the criticisms you and others have levelled at scientific inquiry are valid only if one is asserting that those processes can be used to answer all questions facing humanity. My picking apart of your last post was to highlight the error of that assumption.
    I don't really understand what you are getting at with this, as I was not assuming anything of the sort. I have no criticism of science, only religious adherence to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There is a difference between questions that science cannot yet answer, and questions it will never be able to answer. It is as foolish to apply spiritual methods to the first as to apply scientific methods to the second. (Just recall those preachers of past generations who attempted to establish the age of the Earth using the Bible.) The areas of inquiry subject to scientific methods, however, are broad, diverse, and consequential. We do ourselves a disservice by approaching them with the wrong tools, and come no closer to the truth.
    As far as I can see I agree with this post.


    One more point of explanation which might point to a counterexample: sacred geometry. It looks first to math, then attaches spiritual value to the truth it finds. It's kind of a combination of the two methods. If patterns are reproduced in all areas of reality, then one can use observed mathematical patterns to symbolically learn about human experience. We can take these shared patterns and hypothesize that we should find them in nature in additional ways, and then investigate whether this is true. Like the pattern of separation and connection is represented in both human interaction and molecular and atomic interaction. The whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller.

  8. #28
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    One word: "Hardly".

  9. #29
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #30
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I don't really understand what you are getting at with this, as I was not assuming anything of the sort. I have no criticism of science, only religious adherence to it.
    The idea of religious adherance to science implies the assumption that science can answer all questions. If that assumption is dropped, then adherance to science is remains within its proper bounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    One more point of explanation which might point to a counterexample: sacred geometry. It looks first to math, then attaches spiritual value to the truth it finds. It's kind of a combination of the two methods. If patterns are reproduced in all areas of reality, then one can use observed mathematical patterns to symbolically learn about human experience. We can take these shared patterns and hypothesize that we should find them in nature in additional ways, and then investigate whether this is true. Like the pattern of separation and connection is represented in both human interaction and molecular and atomic interaction. The whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller.
    To the extent that we do this to learn about the physical world, this is scientific inquiry. If our object is to find spiritual meaning, it is not.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO