StarGateWars Forums

Next time, try a real argument instead of a big pile of bull.


If you were to prove any particular religion to be factually right, you unleash the worst kind of Hell on earth. Science and faith should stay out of each other's way. Neither threatens the other. Religion, as in the systemic organisation of doctrines and beliefs to further the manipulistic goals of men with clergical power.. now *that* is pure evil.

Make love.. not war. Peace out.

Soundwave wrote:Science and faith should stay out of each other's way.

What's the difference between the two?

The scientific method has complete faith in the observation of what could theoretically be a complete illusion. No, in order to believe that something is necessarily true, one needs to either, regardless of whether or not or to the extent of which they are aware of it,

a. conclude that it is thus through reason.
b. believe it through faith.
c. come to that conclusion through a combination of a. and b.
d. attempt to use reason, but commit a fallacy.
e. come to that conclusion through a combination of b., d. and possibly a.


Agapooka

I think he meant science and religion.

But Science is a dogmatic religion with an extreme amount of faith in Observation. Its goal is to progessively strive for a nirvana of knowledge through the Mystery of Theory by means of the Rigorous Observation of the outer world, which, in the Epistle of the Method, is described as a process designed to reveal faults in existing theories and to attempt to replace them with less faulty theories.

The Six Pillars of Science are the following:

1. The Method is the only path to knowledge.
2. Observation must be described with the adjective, "rigorous".
3. Rigorous Observation is always right.
4. Theories must be put forth that assign imagined patterns to the facts discovered through Rigorous Observation.
5. Rigorous Observation can be wrong, but only if it can be shown that it, in fact, wasn't rigorous enough.
6. There is no contradiction between Pillar 3 and Pillar 5.


Agapooka

I believe my statements were a bit over-thought about, Pooky...

(and that 1+1=1 and quantum physics thing was my idea of obvious sarcasm...clearly I need to rethink my definition of "obvious" )

But I do agree with what you say about Science being some sort of dogma. That does make sense to me.

I was replying to Soundwave.

I haven't overthought, as you put it. Actually, I had a lot of fun effecting my above post.

Agapooka wrote:I was replying to Soundwave.

I haven't overthought, as you put it. Actually, I had a lot of fun effecting my above post.

**static**


Good points. Talk to me on MSN later, okay?

Agapooka wrote:But Science is a dogmatic religion with an extreme amount of faith in Observation. Its goal is to progessively strive for a nirvana of knowledge through the Mystery of Theory by means of the Rigorous Observation of the outer world, which, in the Epistle of the Method, is described as a process designed to reveal faults in existing theories and to attempt to replace them with less faulty theories.

The Six Pillars of Science are the following:

1. The Method is the only path to knowledge.
2. Observation must be described with the adjective, "rigorous".
3. Rigorous Observation is always right.
4. Theories must be put forth that assign imagined patterns to the facts discovered through Rigorous Observation.
5. Rigorous Observation can be wrong, but only if it can be shown that it, in fact, wasn't rigorous enough.
6. There is no contradiction between Pillar 3 and Pillar 5.


Agapooka

I say potato you say potato.

Those points you mentioned have nothing to do with dogma.It is just a way how science is.Its way to correct itself when its wrong.

Science also isnt just observation,its also trial and error.If caveman through trail and error found out how to kill a mammoth with little or no effort thats also science.Science isnt just hypothesis and theories its also real stuff we find all over the place.
If science is able to sharpen your knife its not because someone was striving for nirvana of knowledge but because someone needed it a sharp knife and someone learned how to do it.No need for theories nor rigorous observation just trail and error.
And someone else also knows what happens on molecular level when you sharpen you knife but thats a bit higher level of science where observation is the mean.But final confirmation comes from experimenting...trial and error.But since here is so much we know and understand but yet can prove it via experimenting there always will be people saying leap of faith etc.


Your doing great injustice when you say:

Agapooka wrote:extreme amount of faith in Observation.

If you think you need a faith to trust you senses,then next time you see a bus coming to overrun you,dont have faith just say its a illusion and do nothing...Through our senses we experience our world around us and we came further then just using our senses.We develop machines to expand our abilities to sense.Even more we explained how our senses work so it is not right to say that we need faith in our senses.They are real and even if they are not we have to take them as real otherwise we are on a very short lifespan.Everything is based on those senses and when you are healthy and well fed it is normal you will ask question if not all you have left is those senses.So in some way science is the same,you can only rely on sense anything else takes you into spheres of philosophy where anything is possible but only to that point where science isnt present.Well actually you can...you can always argue that 1+1=11 if you have a great imagination.

Agapooka wrote:3. Rigorous Observation is always right.

Successful experimentation is always right.That is the ultimate acknowledgement of theory.But since we can test black hole we hypothesise and gradually come to some working theory.But everything in that theory must have solid base starting from 1+1=2 to the most complicated equations.

ramen07 wrote:But I do agree with what you say about Science being some sort of dogma. That does make sense to me.

I dont get it...what makes sense to you?

Wikipedia wrote:Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

Agapooka wrote:...is described as a process designed to reveal faults in existing theories and to attempt to replace them with less faulty theories.

This law is what science lifts above everything.

unseen1 wrote:Science also isnt just observation,its also trial and error.

I wouldn't like to think of what would become of science if the trials, errors and other results were not observable. The truth is, experimenting is only useful insofar as one can observe the process and the results thereof.

unseen1 wrote:Science isnt just hypothesis and theories its also real stuff we find all over the place.

This is up to debate. I would like to invite you to read this post on reality to understand my perspective on this. I'll warn you, though, as it's a very abstract post and you don't strike me as a particularily abstract individual.

unseen1 wrote:If science is able to sharpen your knife [...sentence continued in next quote]

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Science is not involved in any knife-sharpening activities, although I've been told that thanks to his amazing observational skills, we have an understanding of how such a task is accomplished.

unseen1 wrote:its not because someone was striving for nirvana of knowledge but because someone needed it a sharp knife and someone learned how to do it.

I believe that you misunderstood me. First of all, I'll mention that the post in which I called science dogmatic is highly satirical; however, I maintain the point that I was trying to make. When I say a "nirvana of knowledge", what I mean is a continual pursuit of knowledge. I don't believe that any scientist worth their salt would argue with me that science does not strive to continuously gain knowledge.

unseen1 wrote:No need for theories nor rigorous observation just trail and error.

There's no need for theories or rigorous observation? I would say that for there to be a trial or experiment, one normally needs a theory, or hypothesis. It is rare that one would attempt something unless they believe that it might work. Accidental discovery is one thing, but the scientific method is another. We are discussing the scientific method and I am comparing it to religion.

Furthermore and as I've mentioned before, the ability to draw knowledge from trial and error depends on one's ability to observe the experiment and the result. An experiment is a means of testing a hypothesis and, without observation, one cannot learn from the results of the experiment. I beleive that the exclusion of one would exclude the other. Don't you think?

And someone else also knows what happens on molecular level when you sharpen you knife but thats a bit higher level of science where observation is the mean.But final confirmation comes from experimenting...trial and error.But since here is so much we know and understand but yet can prove it via experimenting there always will be people saying leap of faith etc.

unseen1 wrote:If you think you need a faith to trust you senses,then next time you see a bus coming to overrun you,dont have faith just say its a illusion and do nothing...

If the bus is an illusion, the consequence of being run over by it is just as illusionary. One can draw no real conclusion from experimenting with this matter, as an illusionary cause will carry illusionary effects and only because an illusion is consistent with itself does not mean that it necessarily reflects reality. In fact, there is no way of knowing whether or not or to which extent it is an illusion. Because most of us seem to be convinced of the reality of what could potentially be a complete illusion, we make the assumption that it is reality.

unseen1 wrote:Through our senses we experience our world around us and we came further then just using our senses.We develop machines to expand our abilities to sense.

The machines are but an extension of the senses. They do not work where there are no senses to extend and they would be useless if we could not sense them.

unseen1 wrote:Even more we explained how our senses work so it is not right to say that we need faith in our senses.

Why not? How did anyone ever give an explanation as to the functionality of the senses? Did they make observations? Did they conduct scientific research based upon empirical evidence? You seem to imply that they did. If so, are they then not using their senses to explain the senses? Do the senses exist because they can be sensed? Can we observe because we observed our ability to observe? Is the Bible true because it claims to be? Are out senses accurate because they perceive themselves to be? This is a great example of a tautology.

unseen1 wrote:[The senses] are real and even if they are not we have to take them as real otherwise we are on a very short lifespan.

I agree... partially. At least you allowed for the logical possibility that the senses are illusionary, that is, not real. For reasons of what we call practicality, many among us have decided to take the information delivered to us by our senses at face value. I understand that. I'm only saying that the senses are likely flawed.

unseen1 wrote:So in some way science is the same,you can only rely on sense anything else takes you into spheres of philosophy where anything is possible but only to that point where science isnt present.

To make things straight, science is based on the epistemological school of thought called empiricism. Epistemology is the field of philosophy that explores knowledge. What is knowledge? How do we acquire it? Empiricism holds that knowledge is acquired through observation, through the senses. My perspective is quite similar to a contradictory school of thought called rationalism, which holds that knowledge is attained through reason alone. I find that more reasonable.

Wikipedia wrote:Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

Ah, dogma. This makes a great conclusion to my post. I hold that science is very dogmatic. Indeed, it seems that it ought "not to be disputed" that observation is the source of knowledge. In many religions, it ought not be disputed that a deity and/or its agents are the source of knowledge. I've already established that trial and error without observation is useless, as one cannot learn from the results without observing them. Observation is the key of science.

Wikipedia wrote:To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Science requires our ability to observe in order to function. What if we are incapable of observing actual reality? It's a theoretical possibility. Something cannot be necessarily true if there is even one theoretically possible alternative. Science, however, dogmatically holds the view that observation is the key to knowledge. If the object of observation is illusionary, however, observation is the key to self-deception.


Agapooka

lol.. I smell the need for Cartesian doubt to be explained Pookie.

Here you go...

All propositions, beliefs and understandings (hereafter referred to as "proposition(s)") are either necessarily true, possibly true, or necessarily false. Where a proposition is necessarily true, there is no possible, contradictory alternative. Where a proposition is possibly true, there are alternatives, which necessarily must also be possibly true. This category is, in fact, the largest, and it encompasses everything that is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Finally, where a proposition is necessarily false, there is necessarily an alternative. An alternative is a proposition that necessarily requires the proposition to which it is an alternative to be false, in order that it, the alternative, may be true, but this alternative cannot be necessarily false.

For example, Descartes once concluded that the only thing that falls into the "necessarily true" category is the fact that the self exists insofar as it can think, implying that thinking, or at least, the realisation that one is thinking evidences to existence. He believed that it is theoretically impossible for him to realise that he is thinking and, in that moment, not exist.

A test that he used to distinguish between "necessarily true" and "possibly true" used the assumption that an omnipotent being were intent on deceiving him. Because the existence of a deceptive, omnipotent being is "possibly true", it follows that if any belief is possibly founded upon the deception of such a theoretical being, it could be doubted. If it could be doubted, it remained in the "possibly true" category.

Agapooka

now why not add in some Hume to really confuse the chap... I reckon his fork.. the general slating of cause and effect and his take on bundles of sense data.

unseen1 wrote:

ramen07 wrote:But I do agree with what you say about Science being some sort of dogma. That does make sense to me.

I dont get it...what makes sense to you?

A dogma is "authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from," as taken from a later post citing Wikipedia. Scientists are willing to devote full faith to their proved and, more importantly, unproved theories. In saying this, they are authoritative and (using my biology and earth science classes as proof) expect their ideas not to be disputed, doubted, nor diverged from. Therefore, Science is some sort of dogma.

Well now no need for being rude here.Im not confused If someone has read a book or two.Nothing bad in that.
My late response isnt because me is being confused but rather me being very busy.

Agapooka wrote:Science operates completely within perceived reality, as it comes to conclusions based on observations. It can't step out of observable reality because its very purpose is to observe and create hypotheses. Where something cannot be observed, science is useless.

This is a reason I posted here in the first place Semper and thats why science cannot answer some of your question you were asking.I hope no further explanation is need it.
Agapooka you said it so much better then me.But still for what we yesterday thought its not observable,today is and it became matter of scientific observation,right?And who is to say tomorrow wont something else become observable,right?That is why usually religions fails against sciences.Not because science wants it but because religion is messing with real world rather then sticking to only psychophysical.

For the rest of your post...If I would to go into a debate we would just end up in circle argument.Because for me it would be like disproving god or for you proving something that isnt there.But yet If you can twist words to that amount that it appears to be there I cannot win nor can you.I can invent dozen of green spaghetti monsters but that doesnt make them real...or does it...

It would just be another mindless brawl...

ramen07 wrote:

unseen1 wrote:

ramen07 wrote:But I do agree with what you say about Science being some sort of dogma. That does make sense to me.

I dont get it...what makes sense to you?

A dogma is "authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from," as taken from a later post citing Wikipedia. Scientists are willing to devote full faith to their proved and, more importantly, unproved theories. In saying this, they are authoritative and (using my biology and earth science classes as proof) expect their ideas not to be disputed, doubted, nor diverged from. Therefore, Science is some sort of dogma.

Cant you read!!!???

unseen1 wrote:

Agapooka wrote:...is described as a process designed to reveal faults in existing theories and to attempt to replace them with less faulty theories.

This law is what science lifts above everything.

Why do you want to equal science and religion?I dont get it...if your religious person fine,so be it,just dont pocket science close to religion.They both exist independently from one another.But usually religion is so terrified of science that it wants to show like its crossing the line between two of them...Well its not,religion did that like couple of millennia ago not science...

Wow this all gave me one huge headache-

Mathematics to me, being the universal language of all is in its own sense the truest form of what is and what isnt.

Science on the other hand is like a Dr. in this day and age who says he is "Practicing Medicine" some things are certain, but have been discovered by study, research observation and most of all "Trial and Error"

Religion - hmm.. big one here - religion is a set of rules one follows in their beliefs of something greater than themselves- This being as most of us know Him as God. Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists - they all believe in God in their own way and it is shown in their own special practices (i.e. catholics go to confession and baptize as babies and dont believe in the same baptism that in fact baptists do that baptizing a child is more of a dedication to God and then when that child is old enough to make the decision to walk the path of righteousness and outwardly express their inner beliefs "That Jesus Christ is Lord and died on the cross for all of mankinds sins, that is what they consider a true Baptism.) Who is right? maybe they all are, maybe none of them.

If you seriously go by the bible, "The Inspired Word of God" within the New Testament, there are only two rules 1. Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, soul and spirit. 2. To love one another as thyself ( or treat others as you wish to be treated - kindness and respect)

As any non-denominational christian would tell you today it isnt about religion - but relationship with your God, He is the one you will have to answer to, according to scriptures, there will be no one to back u up like it is some huge battle, it will be your last chance to answer for all the good and bad you have done in your life.

Finally it is all about faith, not science. As science has tried to disprove biblical sense for as long as can be read in a book, and if science says we all came from a one-celled organism, why than r their giraffes and donkeys and ladybugs and the earth just isnt inhabited with just humans?

I would rather in my heart believe that some greater power created me, than to believe that we came from some bacteria from the bottom of a mucky pond somewhere.

One last thing to all who read this, for all of your sakes, - If Jesus Christ did walk on this earth - performed all the miracles that are written in the Bible, if He was Crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead, and time later ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father. (I pray for you!!)At this time I would hope you would be correct, because no matter how righteous of a life I have tried to live I am deserving of HELL just as so many others are. As the description of hell and its torrments are I would myself rather not go there, but actually just die and their is nothing. But if there is that slight chance thru my faith if there is truley a heaven and hell and Christ did die and rose again 3 days later , I know one thing - I would rather be in heaven than hell.

Mathmatics and Science may be able to prove things today - but I myself have come to a point in my life that I just feel like taking a couple things just on faith.