What is the necessity of science?

JimiTime · 02-02-2011 03:01AM

Wicknight wrote: »

My question is what do you believe the purpose or necessity of science is

It makes nerds feel better about themselves when they're home alone on Saturday nights:pac:

Zombrex · 02-02-2011 11:40AM

riffmongous wrote: »

One problem I do have with the scientific method though is that it leads to theories that work rather than 'the truth'. And while the method should eventually take us closer and closer we will never be certain if we know what is really happening. And I think this isn't good enough for a lot of people, its okay for science since that will keep going and improving for as long as humans exist and remember the knowledge but people themselves won't live forever and they want certainty in their lives. I think some people can live without the certainty but others can't, so they can ignore a method that will never work for them.

Do you think the other methods work better at discovering actual truth for these people?

02-02-2011 02:28PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think the other methods work better at discovering actual truth for these people?

No, I don't think they do. Not actual truth, I often wonder if its even possible for that to be understood by humans, even using science (not trying to contradict what I said earlier about the scientific method taking us closer and closer, here I mean is it even possible for the method to take us to the truth), since the universe allows regions where science doesn't work, like singularities. But that's just my opinion as an astrophysicist

Zombrex · 02-02-2011 03:19PM

riffmongous wrote: »

No, I don't think they do. Not actual truth, I often wonder if its even possible for that to be understood by humans, even using science (not trying to contradict what I said earlier about the scientific method taking us closer and closer, here I mean is it even possible for the method to take us to the truth), since the universe allows regions where science doesn't work, like singularities. But that's just my opinion as an astrophysicist

Do you believe in the existence of a particular god?

Festus · 02-02-2011 04:53PM

This is a very strange thread. Surely theology is the science of religion.

Zombrex · 02-02-2011 05:21PM

Festus wrote: »

This is a very strange thread. Surely theology is the science of religion.

If that is the case why isn't theology just the "science" of everything? Why bother with science at all?

What would happen if you tried to study the natural world with the methodology deployed in theology?

02-02-2011 09:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe in the existence of a particular god?

I am undecided, and I don't mean that as a copout

I was atheistic when I started studying but towards the end I wasn't so sure. So I decided not to commit to any viewpoint and think it over which I am still doing.

dcmraad · 03-02-2011 08:18PM

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I am certain of one thing: that if there is any true religion on this earth, it is Catholicism. Might there be no God? Might this world be all there is? Perhaps. But nothing I have seen can convince me that there is no God or that the Catholic faith is not true..

Why would you believe this? If superstition became origins of Judaism, and christians came out of that.

Science has been developed by people for whom the answer God did/made it is not enough.

Manach · 04-02-2011 01:16AM

I disagree. Many prominent scientists pursued their work as a means of achieving a greater understanding of God's creation. For example Newton. A recent biography "Newton and the Counterfeiter" give a background to this.

wolfsbane · 06-02-2011 08:55PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm trying to find out if anyone can justify the necessity of science while holding to beliefs about supernatural claims that have never been, and can never be, assess to anything close to scientific standards.

Why if people do this with supernatural beliefs is science necessary at all?

At some point this must be reduced back to you actually determining satisfactorily that God exists and has actually give you his own set of rules and boundaries, that you aren't simply wrong.

If you can do this without requiring scientific assessment, then what is the point of scientific assessment. Surely it is unnecessary?

Says who? The Bible? Ok why is the Bible true?

Do you seem my point. At some point in time every Christian decided that all of this was actually real. They didn't decide that about Hinduism, or Scientology.

How did you do that given that you didn't do it using scientific standards of exploration.

And if you were able to manage this without science, why is science necessary in the first place?

Why can't you apply the same principles to the study of atoms, or electricity, or black holes, or cancer?

Because faith is revealed by God, made certain in our minds as much as any exhaustive scientific experiment would convince you of the truth it reveals.

Now, if the nature of atoms, or electricity, or black holes, or cancer were likewise revealed by God, there would be no need for science. Since they are not, or only briefly, we must turn to science for the details.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.

Zombrex · 07-02-2011 11:22AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because faith is revealed by God, made certain in our minds as much as any exhaustive scientific experiment would convince you of the truth it reveals.

How do you assess that the reason you are certain was because God did something, as opposed to any other explanation (I think you yourself talked about events happening that you assessed could not be random)?

And can't you take this method of assessment and apply it to something else.

Say for example, I'm certain of claim X about natural phenomena Y. Do I have to run scientific tests on that claim to back up my certainty? Or is the fact that I'm certain enough to justify that?

If so doesn't that make science rather redundant?

Zombrex · 07-02-2011 11:26AM

Manach wrote: »

I disagree. Many prominent scientists pursued their work as a means of achieving a greater understanding of God's creation. For example Newton. A recent biography "Newton and the Counterfeiter" give a background to this.

I don't think that is quite what he meant. Those scientists weren't happy with "God did it". They wanted to know what God did, and found natural processes.

"God did it" though still caused problems, and Newton is a good example of this because Newton stopped his research into certain areas of physics because he believed "God did it" was a satisfactory explanation and that there was nothing to discover beyond that in these areas.

It was later that French natural philosopher discovered the natural workings of the area that Newton was content to leave up to God entirely.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good talk on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

Festus · 07-02-2011 02:15PM

dcmraad wrote: »

Science has been developed by people for whom the answer God did/made it is not enough.

I thought science was invented for people for whom no answer is ever sufficient

Zombrex · 07-02-2011 03:16PM

Festus wrote: »

I thought science was invented for people for whom no answer is ever sufficient

You might want to consider that the next time you get into an aeroplane :pac:

Manach · 07-02-2011 05:47PM

If God had meant man to fly He would not have invented Aer Lingus Management.

Festus · 07-02-2011 06:20PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You might want to consider that the next time you get into an aeroplane :pac:

I have it on good authority that science is not what keeps Ryanair's craft in the air.

Fanny Cradock · 07-02-2011 06:26PM

I would imagine it's profit.

Zombrex · 07-02-2011 06:33PM

Festus wrote: »

I have it on good authority that science is not what keeps Ryanair's craft in the air.

Well leaving aside any deals with the devil Michael O'Leary may have taken, what keeps aircraft in the air is an accurate understanding of aerodynamics.

It is things like that why science was invented.

wolfsbane · 07-02-2011 08:15PM

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you assess that the reason you are certain was because God did something, as opposed to any other explanation (I think you yourself talked about events happening that you assessed could not be random)?

And can't you take this method of assessment and apply it to something else.

Say for example, I'm certain of claim X about natural phenomena Y. Do I have to run scientific tests on that claim to back up my certainty? Or is the fact that I'm certain enough to justify that?

If so doesn't that make science rather redundant?

I would separate the criteria of the prime proof (God revealed it) and the secondary assurances (answers to prayer).

The former is an absolute proof, the latter is subject to some levels of testing - logic, common-sense, scientific process to assess its likelihood of being mere chance.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.

Zombrex · 08-02-2011 12:47PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would separate the criteria of the prime proof (God revealed it) and the secondary assurances (answers to prayer).

The former is an absolute proof, the latter is subject to some levels of testing - logic, common-sense, scientific process to assess its likelihood of being mere chance.

"God revealed it" though is a claim about reality. As "Your imagining it" is also a claim about reality, as is "The devil is tricking you" is a claim about reality.

How do you assess which is, to your mind, more accurate?

Festus · 08-02-2011 01:24PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well leaving aside any deals with the devil Michael O'Leary may have taken, what keeps aircraft in the air is an accurate understanding of aerodynamics.

No. It's threats, threats and more threats to both staff and consumers.:D

Wicknight wrote: »

It is things like that why science was invented.

Oh... so science " was invented"

... very interesting

Festus · 08-02-2011 01:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

what keeps aircraft in the air is an accurate understanding of aerodynamics.

Dear Wicknight,

I have an accurate understanding of aerodynamics yet I cannot fly unaided. What gives?

Also, how do aircraft understand aerodynamics in such a manner that they remain airborne?
I realise that now many are fly by wire but in the Wright brothers day the wire had a somewhat different function and the CPU had yet to be invented.

However your comment is noted and next time I'm on the apron I will make a point of asking the aircraft if it has a thorough understanding of aerodynamics before boarding. Just to be on the safe side.

Zombrex · 08-02-2011 02:45PM

Festus wrote: »

No. It's threats, threats and more threats to both staff and consumers.:D

Well hot air has something to do with it, but even O'Leary probably couldn't keep a plane in the air with his usual nonsense :P

Festus wrote: »

Oh... so science " was invented" ... very interesting

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, so I'll simply link to this, but don't take offense if you already know all that.

Festus wrote: »

I have an accurate understanding of aerodynamics yet I cannot fly unaided. What gives?

Well your accurate understanding of aerodynamics should explain why that is the case

Just remember the poor souls who for thousands of years didn't understand how they couldn't fly by the birds could.

Morbert · 08-02-2011 03:46PM

Festus wrote: »

Dear Wicknight,I have an accurate understanding of aerodynamics yet I cannot fly unaided. What gives?

If you have to ask that question then you don't have an accurate understanding of aerodynamics.

Festus · 08-02-2011 06:10PM

Morbert wrote: »

If you have to ask that question then you don't have an accurate understanding of aerodynamics.

If you have to make that comment then you don't have an understanding of humour.

rockbeer · 08-02-2011 08:37PM

Festus wrote: »

I have an accurate understanding of aerodynamics yet I cannot fly unaided. What gives?

Perhaps momentum is your problem rather than aerodynamics. Have you considered utilising gravity by, say, jumping off a cliff or high building, in order to create additional propulsion? :pac:

Festus · 08-02-2011 09:17PM

rockbeer wrote: »

Perhaps momentum is your problem rather than aerodynamics. Have you considered utilising gravity by, say, jumping off a cliff or high building, in order to create additional propulsion? :pac:

As I understand aerodynamics that would not help.

Perhaps I am wrong in that and maybe you could demonstrate?

darjeeling · 08-02-2011 09:31PM

rockbeer wrote: »

Perhaps momentum is your problem rather than aerodynamics. Have you considered utilising gravity by, say, jumping off a cliff or high building, in order to create additional propulsion? :pac:

Festus wrote: »

As I understand aerodynamics that would not help.

Perhaps I am wrong in that and maybe you could you demonstrate?

Anyone reading: don't be tempted to try this, for who should bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone?

.

Festus · 11-02-2011 02:15PM

darjeeling wrote: »

Anyone reading: don't be tempted to try this, for who should bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone?

.

Following the action of the "propulsive" force of gravity it is expected that the rockbeer should be more than adequately repulsive.

wolfsbane · 19-02-2011 08:01PM

Wicknight wrote: »

"God revealed it" though is a claim about reality. As "Your imagining it" is also a claim about reality, as is "The devil is tricking you" is a claim about reality.

How do you assess which is, to your mind, more accurate?

The one that matches up with the reality I experience - a coherent explanation of life and answered prayer. The Christian explanation of good and evil in the world and our purpose/significance is more credible to me than that of the opposition. God's intervention in answer to prayer - or to my need, even without prayer - supports that understanding.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.

What is the necessity of science?

Comments