User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 54

  1. #21
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Is that Fe? I just want a warp drive dude. Life can be boring sometimes for the simple fact that I'm not a space pirate. That could be Se.
    yea i think a demand for fairness in regards to giving without taking as in criticizing without returning something thats in the direction of Fe.

    I dunno how often i have watched st:voyager now, maybe all seasons 10 times. its about time we get into space. think i'll get me an episode now and go to bed as well. cu in space
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #22
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    I think it's also important to be able to distinguish science proper from "scientism" or positivism. Too often we mistake the two as being the same.

  3. #23
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,539

    Awakening

    There's disbelief and the suspension of disbelief.

    The suspension of disbelief has given us art, literature, music and religion, while disbelief has given us the scientific method.

    The suspension of disbelief is achieved in a trance. And art, literature, music and religion are all based on trance. And religion in particular is based on group trance.

    So while we are entranced by art, literature, music and religion, the scientific method has taken us from quarks at the deepest level of the atom to one hundred billion galaxies in an accelerationg universe.

    We are consoled by trance but enlightened by the scientific method.

    A trance is like being half asleep and half awake, while we wake up for the scientific method.

    For all of our 200,000 year history we have been half awake and half asleep, but with the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, we started to wake up.

  4. #24
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,539

    Default Turning the Tables

    Of course it is science that does the questioning.

    For instance, the science of archeology has questioned the Old Testament, and Israeli archeologists have found the Exodus never occured. And if the Exodus, a foundation story of the Old Testament, never occured, then Moses never occured. And so most of the Old Testament never occured. And as Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ never occured. And this is not only true for Christianity, it is true for the Book of Mormon and many other religions.

    So no wonder the believers want to question science. Science has successfully questioned their beliefs and they want to turn the tables.

  5. #25
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I think it's also important to be able to distinguish science proper from "scientism" or positivism. Too often we mistake the two as being the same.
    Could you expound on this just a little more? I'm guessing you're referring to the sense that "science is making the world better and better" (AKA the ST:TNG mantra) and so all human ills will eventually be wiped away because of the body of knowledge and gizmos and processes we've accumulated in the last few hundred years... but I just want to make sure that's what you meant.

    as a side note in response to other ideas in this thread, just because something can't be proven to be true doesn't mean some aspect of it didn't occur. That's binary thinking, to assume otherwise. The reality is that something might not have happened, but it doesn't mean that 100% of things attached to it didn't occur to some degree; we just don't know to what degree, if any, and have no real way to find out.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #26
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Could you expound on this just a little more? I'm guessing you're referring to the sense that "science is making the world better and better" (AKA the ST:TNG mantra) and so all human ills will eventually be wiped away because of the body of knowledge and gizmos and processes we've accumulated in the last few hundred years... but I just want to make sure that's what you meant.
    Well that's somewhat related to my overall point, but I was mainly referring to the concept that science is the only legitimate source of knowledge and truth over against other sources and faculties. This is often united with a messanic hope that science will somehow cure mankind of whatever ails it.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    The thread title is Questioning Science

    but,

    Science is questioning

    I do not understand this thread

  8. #28
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    The thread title is Questioning Science

    but,

    Science is questioning

    I do not understand this thread
    Well, they know science is threatening their beliefs, so they want to return the threat in kind and question science.

    However we know this is misbegotten aim as it is science itself that constantly questions itself.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Well, they know science is threatening their beliefs, so they want to return the threat in kind and question science.

    However we know this is misbegotten aim as it is science itself that constantly questions itself.
    How does science threaten belief? A belief is a belief. A belief need not be true or false. Science will not make a belief wrong, but it could explain a belief that has been inadequately explained

  10. #30
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,584

    Default

    As a professional scientist and volunteer science educator, I can attest to the validity of Kelric's concise, cogent remarks.

    As others have already observed, science is fallible precisely because it is conducted by people, who are fallible and imperfect. When someone says he is being skeptical of science, though, what exactly is he skeptical of? Scientific conclusions? Collected data? The scientific method itself? The people who conduct it? Skepticism is inherent in the scientific method. Assertions must be supported by evidence, and the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence is usually required.

    Peer review is generally conducted by people in the author's field but not in their institution. I have reviewed scientific papers for journals, and hold them to the same standards to which I hold my own work, and that of my students. When I submit papers for publication, I expect (and generally receive) the same in return. Occasionally I see a bit of "field bias", when my paper is reviewed by someone outside my field who misunderstands my methods or even goals, but this has been readily resolved by my supplying additional explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Yeah, I meant to post here at some point today at least a comment of similar content: That while science might be falsifiable and contains within it a self-checking mechanism, the problem (to borrow a line from The Matrix) is people. We're the weakest link in the chain.

    For an example, consider the whole concept of getting one's scientific discoveries out there. Typically you have to get published (and, before that, funding); and those gateways are controlled by people who might have a vested interest in the status quo, or who have strong opinions without wanting to entertain others, or do not have the knowledge/truth properly 'framed/contextualized", etc.
    The problem here is that funding decisions are frequently made by people who are not scientists and have neither understanding of nor respect for scientific integrity and methodology. They fund what will get them reelected, or promoted; the politically correct approach, or what they think will make them money, or at least run the least risk of leaving them looking like an idiot should it fail (or perhaps succeed).

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Inherent assumptions made:
    1) There is an objective truth out there
    2) "science" seeks and "finds" them

    Are 5 apples and 5 apples irrefutably 10 apples? Doesn't the result inherently depend on the counting process? How does one separate the counting from the result? You have to have rules, like "the five apples in one set have to be different from the five apples on the other set" and so on.

    I would say "the scientific process comes up with concepts and those concepts can be very reliable" rather than "science is infallible".
    There are at least some objective truths out there, and discovering them is the goal of science. Subjective truths are left to other disciplines. As for measurement, like your counting example, there are rules for this. One is to control all variables other than that whose effect you are measuring. If unintentional double-counting is a possibility, the experiment must be (re)designed to exclude that, or the analysis must somehow account for it. This is a real issue in some experiments. Finally, the scientific process comes up with theories (concepts) that are very predictive of reality. When reality shows us something outside the prediction, or theory, it is time to expand or revise the theory. Often, the old theory still has much utility. Quantum mechanics built upon classical mechanics to provide a more complete description of the world, but classical mechanics is still all we need to send a spacecraft to Mars.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...light-not.html
    http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

    I think this sort of things happens with relatively somewhat often. I remember there was something a few years ago that was similar, but I don't remember the details.
    The example described in these articles is a good illustration of what happens when results contradict an accepted theory. We check results, repeat the experiment, then reexamine the theory. In this case, this analysis revealed a flaw in the experiment. This doesn't prove the speed of light is an absolute limit, it just means the present experiment did not demonstrate otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    Its my impression as an onlooker and I dont want to sound anti-american that religion and science and some sort of egoistical proft-oriented pragmatism are kinda mixed up here. I myself always had America as a sort of rolemodel for me, but when I heard that americans think nuclear power is the best energy source we have, that climate change has become a nagging feeling that one has to ignore so it doesnt bug, because it cant be proven and that creationism is an equally valid theory like darwinism, I dunno: my scientific respect began to stumble.

    Then again maybe I am wrong and exactly the basic openess to even the most unrealistic theories is what the real scientific method is about.
    You are, unfortunately, quite correct in your assessment. It is one thing to be open to even the most unrealistic theories, and quite another to fail to subject them to critical analysis. If Americans are good at the former, we are poor at the latter. I am not sure Americans overall think nuclear power is the best energy source we have. A more common attitude seems to be to cling to fossil fuels for as long as we can, because developing renewable resources will cost money, and no one wants higher energy prices or taxes. The oil companies, of course, encourage that thinking, since renewable energy would be a serious long-term competitor, never mind that their current business model is ultimately doomed by the finiteness of the global oil supply. As for the creationists, they still have surprising sway in the technology-ridden 21st century. I could carry on for paragraphs about this, that is almost another thread (think there may be one already).

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    As others have said, science is founded on the idea of falsifying. Not declaring any truth. It has no viewpoint to even question. One can only question it's findings.. and any scientist would tell you that's fair game. They even welcome it. It makes science, and the world even, better when you do. But if you don't, and simply criticize, then that's the only reason why you might make enemies in those communities. And it's not because of opposing ideology. It's because you're being stupid.
    This is correct. We welcome questioning and even criticism, when it has some facts and logic behind it. But if all you say is "you're wrong", with no evidence or explanation of how and why, you look stupid and are not being constructive. If your reasoning is based on something like the Bible or a tarot reading, well -- you look willfully ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    For instance, the science of archeology has questioned the Old Testament, and Israeli archeologists have found the Exodus never occured. And if the Exodus, a foundation story of the Old Testament, never occured, then Moses never occured. And so most of the Old Testament never occured. And as Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ never occured. And this is not only true for Christianity, it is true for the Book of Mormon and many other religions.

    So no wonder the believers want to question science. Science has successfully questioned their beliefs and they want to turn the tables.
    There still might have been a historical Moses, and Jesus, and all the others, who perhaps didn't do all the great deeds described in the Bible. It doesn't matter, though. The truth in those stories lies not in their historical veracity, but in their lessons, much like Aesop's fables. Unfortunately this is not enough -- or perhaps too much -- for many believers to appreciate.
    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. Question
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:41 PM
  2. [NF] Question for NFs.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 01:24 AM
  3. Question to my fellow INTP emmigres
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 02:52 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