Jump to content
Islamic Forum
QED

Do You Trust Science?

Recommended Posts

10336735_10152232471626840_3456724500378

:lol:  :lol:

Edited by andalusi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

10336735_10152232471626840_3456724500378

:lol:  :lol:

You've got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

.

Scientific Methodology for theories and definitions,

 

1- who's definition is this, specialization, occupation and contributions in science.?

2- reference name, publisher, edition, year, and page.?

3- if there are another definition(s), survey, and why do you prefer such definition?

4- who is more eligible to give definition of science, engineers, astronauts, biologists, philosophers,...etc.?

 

5- if there is any kind of relation between science definition and logic, reason, reality and truth?!

 

6- from science definition(s), is it capable to proof either if there is a god or there is no god?

 

content,

1- What does "testable explanations and predictions" mean? "testable explanations" and "testable predictions" OR "testable explanations" and "predictions"?

2- WHO is eligible to judge if this statement, theory, paper,.....book, is systematic enterprise of knowledge and not a belief reflection?

3- WHO is eligible to judge the TEST-ABILITY of this statement, prediction, theory, paper,.....book?

4- and HOW, I mean showed the test be through Experimental methods or just mere opinions or others?

 

these questions seems weird some how, BUT, I believe it's essential before continuing discussions about "Science"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Galileo said

" the bible shows the way to go to heaven not how the heavens go".

 

So I guess it can be argued that religion and science - while they share some things are also separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also science in it self is inadequate. Look at the development of nuclear weapons and global warming. These are the result of science divorced from morals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Spiritlead

 

I agree that science is inadequate but that’s a foundation of science.  Science tells us what is, it tells us the truth about how this world works, it doesn’t tell us what we should do with that knowledge.  E=MC2 is not wrong but using it to create a nuclear weapon may well be.  Burning coal may improve our lifestyle but, as science has shown us, it has down sides such as global warming and pollution and it is science that gives us knowledge of these problems as well as answers to them.  We then have to decide what to do with that knowledge and that decision is not a scientific question.

 

The big question then is, where do you get your moral guide to decide what to do with the knowledge that science gives us?  Do we accept the words of ancient men who could have no concept of the power of modern science in guiding our use of that science or do we work to develop a better system, a system that can take into account modern knowledge and understanding to build a better world?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sometimes science can mislead us. Difficult to trust something that's a hit or miss. Besides it takes too much effort to understand and make sense out of scientific data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Illogical

 

True science is sometimes wrong but science, unlike religion, is self-correcting.  Who was it who discovered the hoax of Piltdown man?  It wasn’t religion, it was science working correctly.  Which system was it that discovered that Newton was wrong and replaced it with relativity, again it wasn’t religion?  When science discovers a mistake it fixes it, it updates its ideas with the best information we have available at the time.  When was the last time you saw a religion admitting that they were profoundly wrong and changing their minds?  And let’s face it religious are regularly and profoundly wrong as history clearly shows but they aren’t about to stand up and admit that are they?  So which system should you favour, the system that is imperfect and admits it and works to correct it or the system which is imperfect but tries really really hard to hide that fact from everyone.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to understand the world around us we can either refer to one book, a scripture, a 'manual' of life let's call it Orr... Sift through an endless library of books and complexities... I mean the world doesn't change just like the rules in the scriptures So yea religion simplifies life don't you think ?

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Illogical

 

Religion is indeed simpler than science, it adds it’s own complexities but it is simpler and science is hard work we are agreed.  Being drunk is a ‘good’ way to live for a drunkard, it makes them happy but is it a good way to live?  Science may be hard but I’d prefer hard and true over easy and false.  Fairy tales should only be for children IMHO.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being drunk is a good way to live for a drunkard? On what do you base this assertion?

 

It's not really very scientific to say it is true is it? Every science result is provisional not absolute. One could also say that even result from science just widens our circle of ignorance.

 

I'm unclear what you mean by hard and easy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Russell

 

Here is a scientific experiment:

 

Trial 001

Subject : 22 yr old hetro male

Objective climb a 10 foot wall

Motivation/Reward: Room full of cheerleaders

Clocked time : xxxxxx

 

Trial B ( yes B not 002 it's my experiment Ok :) )

Subject: 22 yr old male

Objective: climb 10 ft wall

Motivation: being chased by rabbit wolf

Clocked time xxxx

 

Trial 55

Subject: same dude

Objective : same wall

Motivation/ Reward: will receive a kick to the nads

Clocked time:xxxxx

 

Which of these scenarios will result in the subject completing the objective in the longest time ?

 

Conclusion: Sarcasm is soooo underrated

 

Thanks

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tanker

 

You’ll note that I said being drunk was a good way to live for a drunkard not that being a drunkard was a good way to live and that distinction is critical here.  I’ve known a drunk or two in my life and read tales of more, being drunk is something they clearly enjoy or why would they do it, they change their minds the next day but while they are drunk they are happy.  If their lives could be judged as a whole then again you’d find it was not a good lifestyle but while they are drunk they’d disagree.  In other words, seen as a whole, being a drunkard isn’t a good path to happiness but while you are drunk you would almost certainly disagree.  Happiness on its own isn’t a good test for the truth of such a claim.

 

Science may be hard but I’d prefer hard and true over easy and false.”

No that wasn’t a scientific statement it was a statement of my life position.  I don’t know if anything that science tells me is true but we have some very strong evidence to suggest that it is while there is no such for religion.  I choose truth which science appears to contain rather than the fairy tales that religion appears to be built on for my life.

 

Have you ever read an in-depth science journal, The AAAS’s magazine “Science” for example.  Read the articles and have a look at the maths and theory involved.  Does that look simple to you?  For most of these articles you’ll have to spend years of study just to get up to speed with those who’ve published the work, it’s very complex and difficult to get up to the cutting edge of any scientific field.  Next read the bible or the quran and see if what is described is simple or complex.  They consist of very simplistic human stories, most normal humans could with minimal instruction if any, understand what they are explaining.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Illogical

 

LOL I agree that sarcasm is underrated.

 

Can I try Trial 001?  Don’t tell my wife!!!

 

As for the rest, to make this scientific you’ll have to change a few things.  Firstly a single experiment doesn’t prove anything in science but repeat this series of tests with say 1000 guy’s and even throw in a few girls and you’ll start to get some scientifically useful statistics.  Get back to me one’s that’s done and we can talk about analyzing results and drawing conclusions.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel

 

I think you may miss the point about the drunk statement because you seem to treat what you say as universal.

 

Similarly, you miss the point about hard and easy. The fact is that probably most of us will never understand science and still we might believe in it.

 

You seem to have this delusion that believes are simply ignorant and yet many of the worlds most eminent scientists are believers. Is it beyond you understanding to grasp that belief in God can change people's lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as you can 'imagine' a scenario wherein X would benefit Y, the label 'good' can be applied.

 

A sturdy belief in my ability to survive a fall from a skyscraper would certainly change my life. But not necessarily for the better.

 

Faith can be bad. It all depends on the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what you mean by benefit and who it applies to?

 

Science can be bad, it depends on the details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tanke

 

If you think I “may miss the point” about the drunk stuff you’ll have to explain it better.  I’ve known a few drunks in my life and, while drunk, they all seem to feel that it is a great way to live but please explain your view on it.

 

I disagree that I miss the point on hard and easy, I’ve studied religion for some time and I’ve studied science and the amount of effort and brain power required to understand religion is far lower than that required for even a cursory understanding of science.  The multiple studies that show that religious belief is strongly inversely correlated to education also suggests that it’s an ‘easy’ road intellectually.

 

You suggest that I’m deluded and that I think believers are simply ignorant but the facts do not support that view.  In study after study that inverse correlation between education and religious belief comes through.  But you are correct that there are some eminent scientists who hold religious beliefs.  In  a recent study around 5% of the top scientists fall into this category.  For me the most telling figure here is the 95% who don’t.  For this discussion that is the most telling figure.  Also it’s interesting to note that of those who do hold a religious belief those beliefs strongly lean towards the more detached versions of religion, virtually none hold fundamentalist views while more airy fairy deist views are the most common so ever here the education vs. religion question shines through.

 

I do understand that a belief in god can change people’s lives, that’s well proven, but for me the important question is always where is the truth.  If a criminal comes to believe that god exists and that he can see everything that the criminal does that’s going to prevent his criminal behaviour.  Even if the police don’t find out he believes that god will punish him so he’s going to control his actions regardless of whether there actually is a god.  So yes I understand that belief in god can be a force for good in people’s lives but who is the better person, the atheist who behaves well because it is the right thing to do or the believer who behaves well because there’s a god with a big stick waiting to hit him if he doesn’t?  Don’t forget that atheists are very underrepresented in US federal prisons with a bit under 0.1% of the prison population being atheists despite us comprising around 7 - 10% of the population at large.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tanke

 

I disagree that science can be bad, science is neutral.  Understanding the atom is just knowledge it is humans for philosophical / political / religious reasons decide to build bombs with that knowledge when we could just as well use it to produce power systems to run spacecraft to explore the cosmos.  The science is just knowledge; it’s just information, a better understanding of how this universe works no more.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×