PDA

View Full Version : Science is as mumbo jumbo as Religion.


TSA
01-21-2009, 12:45 PM
Alvin Plantiga ethered science.


Science is based on human observation that is proveable, through human observation. These human observations allow us to know what is actual fact and fiction in the world. We can see the sky is blue, we can see that fire is hot.

Also these perceptions boil down to our senses and our brains ability to precieve correctly (key word correctly) through evolution.

Darwinians say that they senses are what they are because they have been refined for survival and an evolutionary trait and ensures continued survival.


Well what he says in a simplified way and I been saying this for a while, is pure ether. What the fuck makes our perception actual fact other then an unrational sense of faith in our own 'correctness'?
nothing but blind faith.

Had we evolved just a tweek different our senses and perception would be different and therefore 'actual fact' would also be different from what it is to us right now. Therefore if actual fact is based on perception and perception is maliable through evolution, and the change of perception would therefore be a change in 'actual fact' then why do we believe our perception to be final, real, true and universal?


If this is confusing consider the fact that humans can't see the world the way it really is, and this is scientific fact, there's waves we don't see, colors are really perspective based amoung countless other things but the world we see is what we base our science on and if where not seeing the real world then why do we have faith in the fact that we do when we have proven we can't see it.




i dont think that paragraph helped.


Its already been 'proven' that everything is just waves and vibrations, and that's it, from those waves and vibrations everything else is perspective based on, the relation of the waves with each other and other things, if this is even true, so for a scientist to discount religion because of the use of 'unscientific' faith is hypocracy because science perception and 'fact' is also based on blind faith and in addition 99% of the shit we learn we didn't personally prove but we have faith in the person that did or told us this thing in the same way ppl follow preachers and bibles.





http://www.missxpose.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/juve.jpg
WHODI.

ALCATRAZ
01-21-2009, 12:58 PM
that makes sense but wat u want people 2 do just give up on science altogether.... im sure there have been a lot of advances in medicine n shit because of science...even if it isnt an absolute reality its still our reality at tha 'here and now'....otherwise how can these geeks come up with all these cures for shit...i dont think one should use science as a crutch in the argument on god/religion but i also dont think its as irrelevant.....

Ghost In The 'Lac
01-21-2009, 01:05 PM
^shut up, go away.

TSA, Youre losing yourself a little. Youre making blind stabs at ideas that you dont fully know about.

Observing something, according to the proven laws of Quantum Physics, changes how it acts.

Just by observing it. Similar to Schroedingers Cat.

So its impossible really to measure or view anything. Quantum Particles have a knowledge of when theyre being observed, which effects how they act.

even if its not a human eye, there can be no one else in the room, but if a camera is recording the experiment, it is effect the molecules.

TSA
01-21-2009, 01:10 PM
i dont want anyone to give up on anything. It obviously works and ppl smarter then me have found use of it, i just want ppl to know the full nature of what they're suscribing to. Infact i dont even want them to if they do they do.

The 2 are equally irrelevant. Ppl have been phyisically healed by religion do the the strength of their faith, so to say that cures and what not have come from it isn't taking the arguement anything further. Infact enough people, and this is billions, most likely trillions, have said to have phyiscally seen and feel the supernatural but we disguard that cause it's 'bull' in the science world.


How do we even know that it's the here and now. If you look into the sky the here and now is what you see, stars in their places, you can physically see them. Then you ignore the fact that most of those stars don't exist, they haven't existed for trillions of years but the light is just now hitting you. Therefore, your here and now isn't reality and your reality isn't here and now.


or time. It's been 'proven' that it's all a matter of lights travel and if you travel on a wave of light the here and now and reality of time is totally different, but we've have based our perception and reality on a notion of a linear continuation, or time in fancy words.

a shit load of physics is based on various factors relationship with time, a concept that you can only disprove by acknowledging the fact that its all perception.

Or music, we know all these sounds are making a pattern, but to any other creature its just sounds, no pattern whatsoever. Normally you would say or well they don't have the ability to comprehend it but we also don't have the ability to comprehend heat vision and to a snake the world is a blob of flowing heatwaves, so who's to say what is and isn't unless you have a blind faith in the fact that your evolutionary disposition is the world as it is..even though the same logic that lead to believe this has told you otherwise, like a religion person clinging on to the concept of genesis when his or her rational sense have said otherwise.

TSA
01-21-2009, 01:16 PM
^shut up, go away.

TSA, Youre losing yourself a little. Youre making blind stabs at ideas that you dont fully know about.

Observing something, according to the proven laws of Quantum Physics, changes how it acts.

Just by observing it. Similar to Schroedingers Cat.

So its impossible really to measure or view anything. Quantum Particles have a knowledge of when theyre being observed, which effects how they act.

even if its not a human eye, there can be no one else in the room, but if a camera is recording the experiment, it is effect the molecules.
To assume im speaking for a position of ignorance of the topic is a self inflicted weakness that will hinder interaction with you.


As you just said, according to the proven laws of quantum physics, observing something changes the way it acts.

BUT science is based on universal fact, facts that in all observations will without question exist. If you drop a ball it will always hit the ground, this is science. Now we're learning that its dropping because your seeing it drop and your not seeing it drop cause it's dropping through the proven theory of quantum physics

again, it's all perspection, but there's a blind faith in the sense that our evolutionary perspection is actual fact which is the unshakeable base of science. If we had evolved just a tweek different then 90% of actual facts would be false because its us projecting these facts on the world and not intaking them as they are which is what scientists hold their belief on.

ALCATRAZ
01-21-2009, 01:21 PM
^shut up, go away.

i'll stop posting shit i dont kno about (science, religion) in ktl if you stop postin shit you dont kno about (culture, tha elements) in hip hop shop and wuchamber....fair deal?

TSA
01-21-2009, 01:28 PM
damn, this could me monumentally amazing....

Ghost In The 'Lac
01-21-2009, 01:29 PM
im talking about on the quantum level. miniscule. you need super microscope level.

im rusty on this subject now, its been a few years, but its to do with the electron is a waveform, that moves through all of space and time.

Heres the rundown off the top of my head -

Uncertainty Principle

-To understand where an electron is, you have to look at it

-to look at it, you have to shine light on it

-but to shine light on it, that disturbs where the electron is

- so that is why the very fact of observing an electron, changes its location

So therefore uncertainty, is essential part of science

TSA
01-21-2009, 03:02 PM
we are in no disagreement whatsoever but im glad you simplified it.

the location of electrons is based on perception
humans think their 'perception' is absolute fact
science is based on this notion
perception is not absolute
fact is not absolute
Oliver De Coque literally makes nothing but bangers for 30 years straight.

Tecknowledgist
01-21-2009, 05:09 PM
Science: questions that must always be answered.
Religion: answers that must never be questioned.

DUMBO
01-21-2009, 05:32 PM
scientists are well aware that our ability to know (epistemology) is constrained by our sense and beliefs (ontology), but to say it is "just as idiotic" as religion is a stretch. your argument is based on hyperbole: the fact is science is preferable to religion because it is self-critical, self-correcting and self-reflexive. religion is willy-nilly indirect logic that only faces it ugly shadow over generations. trust me, christianity did not criticize the spanish inquisition on its own. it had to face up to its ugly past only once their was a sea change in values - mainly through the work of the humanist/skeptical challenge.

religion is fucking weak.

THE MASON
01-21-2009, 05:34 PM
im talking about on the quantum level. miniscule. you need super microscope level.

im rusty on this subject now, its been a few years, but its to do with the electron is a waveform, that moves through all of space and time.

Heres the rundown off the top of my head -

Uncertainty Principle

-To understand where an electron is, you have to look at it

-to look at it, you have to shine light on it

-but to shine light on it, that disturbs where the electron is

- so that is why the very fact of observing an electron, changes its location

So therefore uncertainty, is essential part of science

This is true

Scientists are for the most part always trying to prove there theories wrong. this has been my experience in that field (2 years of university sciences).

They are never trying to prove themselves right, the point of proving themselves wrong is that it shows the uncertainty, thats why they are called theories, nothing in science is absolute, even the most obvious interactions can give off abstract reactions.

*those super microscopes are called Electron microscopes pretty cool things, they basically freeze the electrons, its not possible to view moving electrons as they move to fast*

DUMBO
01-21-2009, 05:36 PM
co-sign. religion is all about faith and commitment to an idea. science takes frequents shits on accepted "facts" in the search for the truth.

religion is hella weak.

TSA
01-21-2009, 05:47 PM
Science: questions that must always be answered.
Religion: answers that must never be questioned.

scientists are well aware that our ability to know (epistemology) is constrained by our sense and beliefs (ontology), but to say it is "just as idiotic" as religion is a stretch. your argument is based on hyperbole: the fact is science is preferable to religion because it is self-critical, self-correcting and self-reflexive. religion is willy-nilly indirect logic that only faces it ugly shadow over generations. trust me, christianity did not criticize the spanish inquisition on its own. it had to face up to its ugly past only once their was a sea change in values - mainly through the work of the humanist/skeptical challenge.

religion is fucking weak.

far uglier then the spanish inquisition has been done in the name of science of rationalism but your very correct with religions flaws.

idk who the fuck said it had to be so concrete, and when someone GENIUENLY stops believing a part of the religious i dont understand where there's such a qualm in being honest to yourself and saying i dont buy that particular shit for most ppl.

Religion really is the original science but remained stagnate for the most part.




though, i don't believe either is idiotic. im saying they are equal in mumbo jumbo hood. As anyone would know i have a huge respect for religion and to compare it to something isn't an insult coming from me.



also, nothing in christianity has anything to do with the spanish inquisition. If i start killing redheads because of U-God, what the fuck does the killing of redheads have to do with the U-god? Just cause i said it was for U-god?

Art Vandelay
01-21-2009, 05:49 PM
actual fact

that's redundant

TSA
01-21-2009, 05:51 PM
also, if nothing in science is absolute, as this threads subject alone agrees with what you guys are saying, is it scientific?

Ghost In The 'Lac
01-21-2009, 06:17 PM
we are in no disagreement whatsoever but im glad you simplified it.

the location of electrons is based on perception
humans think their 'perception' is absolute fact
science is based on this notion
perception is not absolute
fact is not absolute


No, we are not in agreement. Its not perception, its a measurement, and the science is based on calculating the uncertainty of it, as part of the system you are observing.

"This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself."


Nothing in Quantum Mechanics exists in a definate state or momentum, so it is not the observers fault that he cannot measure without using the uncertainty principle.

When a photon (a light particle) hits an electron for us to see it, the interaction will alter the path of the electron.

In some beleifs, even the act of putting the electron in a position where it could be viewed, where viewing it would be possible, it may even still alter its position.

Thats crazy to think of right? But that last bit is only theorectical. But I see no comparisons to religion basically.

Science and Religion dont match up. Im not saying either is right.

TSA
01-21-2009, 06:27 PM
i never said they're compatiable or whatever, i said it is as mumbo jumbo as religion in the fact that science is not scientific and cannot be due to the fact that it's based on perception.

what your saying right now, is what im saying right now. so yeah.

in this way mr. K will challenge the world.

Ghost In The 'Lac
01-21-2009, 06:38 PM
i think i actually went off topic maybe

but what was said about evolutionary sensory perceptions holds some weight, should be looked into. different species evolve different ways to even see things based on what works best for their organism. snakes use heat for example.

but yea, how OUR eyes intake photons, may be slurred or whatever, it may not be the "purest" way to look at light photons, who knows. our eyes might be altering the way light enters and therefore how our brains read it, because of how we evolved.

yeah

thats gettin pretty deep down and dirty though shit, i guess we can only do what we can do. remember that theories (scientific) are done through equations mostly, so actually our perceptions become less important in modern physics

Mumm Ra
01-21-2009, 08:35 PM
everything will still continue to operate on it's own universal law when I'm gone
1 + 1 will still equal 2
Fibonacci sequences will still be produced in nature
I'm glad you came up with the observation that everything is based on relationships tho - that's something extremely important that people miss. Nothing really possesses a quality within itself. ie there is no such thing as a poison, medicine, stressful situation, ect.
simply observing this in any given situation will get you far....it's the reason I haven't been so much as stressed out in years ;)

diggy
01-21-2009, 10:44 PM
TSA,

our physical eyes see what is illuminated by visible light,

our ears hear a narrow range of frequencies out of many,

etc,

We only perceive a narrow range of what reality is, not the full spectrum.

Our senses are reliable, but are not 100% reliable.

TSA
01-22-2009, 12:36 AM
consider this. gravity is caused by "dips" in the space-time fabric. Existance is like a giant blanket stretched out with alot of slack and lplanets are like bowling balls dropped in the middle. This is what cause magnetic pull through gravity. every physical body causes a bend in this fabric and things are attracted to it depending on size.

But we can't see these dips, we can't hear them, we can't measure them, or any other thing that would suggest their 'real' in a scientific way, but we believe them when they're heard because it goes by the name of science.



another slightly related point is the equality in unbelievability in science that hasn't hindered our unflinching belief.

I mean when you really think about it, an atom blowing up creating all the intricacies or life and the universe, just off that explosion, is alot more ridiculous then the Noaks Arc tale.


Now consider that we believe the big bang due to evidence, and Noah's arc is hard to take cause it's bullshit. Yet almost every known culture will tell you of a great flood, countless ppl claim to have seen it through out history, countless, and we don't believe them, but 10 scientist is all it requires to pass the big bang theory.


Consider the fact that trillions of people through the existance of humanity have phyiscally seen God, had divine revelation, seen spirits, been spoken to by the dead, been in the presence of a divine being and so forth. These are trillions of people with phyiscal account of such things but we quickly discount their findings and readily intake those of, maybe say, Newton, even though he personally couldn't explain what gravity was he just knew it was 'there'.

diggy
01-22-2009, 12:50 AM
consider this. gravity is caused by "dips" in the space-time fabric. Existance is like a giant blanket stretched out with alot of slack and lplanets are like bowling balls dropped in the middle. This is what cause magnetic pull through gravity. every physical body causes a bend in this fabric and things are attracted to it depending on size.

But we can't see these dips, we can't hear them, we can't measure them, or any other thing that would suggest their 'real' in a scientific way, but we believe them when they're heard because it goes by the name of science.



another slightly related point is the equality in unbelievability in science that hasn't hindered our unflinching belief.

I mean when you really think about it, an atom blowing up creating all the intricacies or life and the universe, just off that explosion, is alot more ridiculous then the Noaks Arc tale.


Now consider that we believe the big bang due to evidence, and Noah's arc is hard to take cause it's bullshit. Yet almost every known culture will tell you of a great flood, countless ppl claim to have seen it through out history, countless, and we don't believe them, but 10 scientist is all it requires to pass the big bang theory.


Consider the fact that trillions of people through the existance of humanity have phyiscally seen God, had divine revelation, seen spirits, been spoken to by the dead, been in the presence of a divine being and so forth. These are trillions of people with phyiscal account of such things but we quickly discount their findings and readily intake those of, maybe say, Newton, even though he personally couldn't explain what gravity was he just knew it was 'there'.


We seem to be on the same page today. I was just thinking a while ago, how humans believe in people who have "Dr." before their name, or a PHD or other degrees on their diplomas, or people who wear a white lab coat MORE than believing in what their own intelligence, senses and experience shows them.

Why is that?

You're right, modern science tells us things that differ from what the ancients have said. A while back, I started questioning what the men in white lab coats tell us. Is their really atoms? Maybe a scientist has seen one in an electron microscope, maybe not, but I know for sure I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE, so why should I believe in what I have no knowledge of or what my own mind did not come up with!???

I made it a thought in my mind not to believe in things others say just cause they said it. Other people's senses of sight, ears, etc. were made for them; I have a set of my own perceptive senses FOR ME. So, again, why should I base my understanding on SOMEONE ELSES SENSORY INPUT!!!????

I have my own senses and intelligence and should use them to understand my life.

Scientists are one of the biggest fraudsters, in my opinion.

Mumm Ra
01-22-2009, 05:07 PM
any time you haven't actually experienced something first-hand, and have only read/ heard about it, you can't say you have true knowledge of it. In that case you only have information. Hearsay. No matter how reliable that information is.

diggy
01-22-2009, 05:26 PM
any time you haven't actually experienced something first-hand, and have only read/ heard about it, you can't say you have true knowledge of it. In that case you only have information. Hearsay. No matter how reliable that information is.


Exactly!!

That is why I try my best to only believe what my senses and intelligence reveal to me.

We have 2 eyes, 2 ears, and one brain, so we should use OURS and go by what WE KNOW, not by what others know.

DUMBO
01-22-2009, 06:48 PM
no-sign. your "hearsay" is the entire basis of human culture, knowledge and science. each child doesn't start from scratch learning to create fire on their own, etc. we pass on innumerable generations of trial and error defined knowledge through speech and writing. you can apply your simple logic to try to punch a skeptical hole into science, but you contradict yourself by typing it. hint: human language is a technological invention that you learned from someone else. the very fact that the meaning of the words you write are shared and therefore comprehensive to all of us is testament against your argument










dramatic irony...look it up.

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-22-2009, 09:26 PM
^^^

..but until that child has made fire they cannot truly say that they personally know how to make it. Knowledge is experience. Everything else is being informed.

We pass on innumerable generations of trail and error defined information through speech and writing.

This is why reading a book will never give you knowledge of Self or God (one and the same). It may help you take the right path, but you must walk it yourself.

SHEM HETEP

LORD NOSE
01-22-2009, 09:33 PM
Exactly!!

That is why I try my best to only believe what my senses and intelligence reveal to me.

We have 2 eyes, 2 ears, and one brain, so we should use OURS and go by what WE KNOW, not by what others know.

allot of what we know is given to us by others

our understanding is ours

drippie k
01-22-2009, 09:50 PM
yall just too damn smart for me

Mumm Ra
01-23-2009, 08:54 AM
hmm I like coming back on and seeing golden falcon already do all my work for me lol.
peace

Cee Oh Vee
01-23-2009, 12:37 PM
This is why reading a book will never give you knowledge of Self or God (one and the same). It may help you take the right path, but you must walk it yourself.

That, sir, is the Science of Tasawwuf.

Peace.