Jump to content

Can Science be my religion?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Believe systems are very personal and everyones should be respected until tgat does not harm anyone. 

My moral and ethical code of conduct is disrespected by every post you write in this thread. I expect respect, rationality, evidence based statements and coherence from you and Im not getting that. Being respectful to religious beliefs creates a safe space for people who want to do harm based on their faith. There is no virtue in saying that you believe something because you believe something, especialy when its fallacious statements like the ones you like to push to marry science with belief/faith/religion. I respect you as a person and a fellow human but dont expect or demand respect from me as to your beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note We're done with this. If you've read 8 pages of people telling you why science doesn't equal religion and can still make this statement, it's clear you aren't li

Interesting point. My sense is that, if it is possible to calculate in such high dimensions with mathematics, than it is just showing the potential of mathematics and by that at least it should b

I agree, with the exception of "religions have no evidence to support what they claim". It would be more accurate to say they have 'no evidence to support much of or some of what they claim'. It is no

Posted Images

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

is NOT the definition of science.

True. The other perspectives of science is in the thread. I wanted to point that Science is APPLIED (purpose in the scenario and not the fundamental philosophy of science.)

I really like the members responses. It takes time to digest information.... could not a moment be infinite? :) ..That looks quite impossible...but maybe it could last very very long, related to the physical circumstances.

Medical science is science. Has to understand a lot of different aspects of sciences so please do not look down on it. It can save your life...

23 minutes ago, koti said:

My moral and ethical code of conduct is disrespected by every post you write in this thread. I expect respect, rationality, evidence based statements and coherence from you and Im not getting that. Being respectful to religious beliefs creates a safe space for people who want to do harm based on their faith. There is no virtue in saying that you believe something because you believe something, especialy when its fallacious statements like the ones you like to push to marry science with belief/faith/religion. I respect you as a person and a fellow human but dont expect or demand respect from me as to your beliefs.

I think we should examine your pink unicorn example a bit more profoundly. No harm...

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I think we should examine your pink unicorn example a bit more profoundly. No harm...

Your clumsy attempts at straw man to bring me off ballance certainly are not something that I will fall for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, koti said:

Your clumsy attempts at straw man to bring me off ballance certainly are not something that I will fall for. 

You own the freedom of mind, you think what you want.

That is not Science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Prove the following mathematical axiom with a physical example:

1*0=0

 

I don't really know why and how we count it like this but it not seems to follow any of Nature's  principles....

Does not every mathematical recognition fundamentally connected to the physical reality?

How can physics and mathematics say 2 different thing?

And I should not be religious....

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lasse said:

 Medical science is science. Has to understand a lot of different aspects of sciences so please do not look down on it. It can save your life...

Medicine is not science. It's medicine. That's not looking down on it. Lots of things are not science.

Medicine has a long history of using conventional wisdom, rather than empirical data. While it has become more adept at basing its decisions on science, that still doesn't make it science. And you cited an example from > 100 years ago. Not science.

 

26 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Prove the following mathematical axiom with a physical example:

1*0=0

To what end? Math does not rely on nature, so there is no guarantee that you can find a physical example to represent any mathematical concept.

26 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I don't really know why and how we count it like this but it not seems to follow the principles of thermodynamics....

How can physics and mathematics say 2 different thing. And I should not be religious....

They are different disciplines, and it has nothing to do with religion.

26 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I don't really know why and how we count it like this but it not seems to follow the principles of thermodynamics....

Does not every mathematical recognition fundamentally connected to the physical reality

No, it does not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, swansont said:

To what end

It impacts human cognitiv functions. The axiom that Never! can be proven true I think  corrupt Science and the philosophy of science we spoke about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And my point is.

It's naive to think tomorrow won't be different from today. 

So, you don't think that people copy stuff onto new media?

Well....

we do.

So, it doesn't matter if I can read a floppy disk or not, because I can read the copy that's been made onto whatever medium  I currently use.

And, because it's digital data, it's a perfect copy of the original digital version.

 

That's the point which you seem to be deliberately ignoring.

You don't need to be able to read the outdated formats because the data is copied onto the new ones.

Sheesh!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018. 04. 05. at 8:55 PM, Phi for All said:

with science, you could support your beliefs by learning what the evidence suggests. You don't have to use faith alone, you also have something to trust.

Very true.

On 2018. 04. 05. at 7:51 PM, John Cuthber said:

In science, you accept  the facts even if they don't agree with your beliefs.

True. 

On 2018. 04. 05. at 8:12 PM, koti said:

There is everything to know. Science deals with knowing not believing.

True

On 2018. 04. 05. at 9:17 PM, dimreepr said:

When one thinks one knows, understanding is not to be trusted and belief takes over.

You can not know without evidence.

On 2018. 04. 05. at 9:55 PM, Phi for All said:

Science uses evidence to ensure that our explanations for natural phenomena are the best currently available, and always subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. Scientific explanations can be trusted, and I think that's a stronger form of belief than faith or wishful thinking.

True

On 2018. 04. 06. at 12:15 AM, Phi for All said:

People of science find it trivially easy to change what they choose to trust when better evidence provides a better, more trustworthy explanation. Science requires a great deal of critical thinking.

Let it be.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lasse said:

It impacts human cognitiv functions. The axiom that Never! can be proven true I think  corrupt Science and the philosophy of science we spoke about.

There will always be things that are true but can't be proven true. See Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

(Axioms are not proven, anyway. The reality of not being able to prove some things is why you have axioms)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, swansont said:

Medicine has a long history of using conventional wisdom, rather than empirical data.

True, as does physics. Check the perception of space and time in the past 3000 years.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

While it has become more adept at basing its decisions on science, that still doesn't make it science.

So you think anatomy, physiology, microbiology, internal medicine, surgery, histology, pathophysiology, pathology etc.. is not based on evidence after a significant amount of time of rigours investigations, and by that the findings of Medical Sciences does not belong to Science and the trusted, Nature based, overall knowledge of humanity....

Do you think a physician could explain and execute a heart transplantation....?

Can physics and mathematics show the same rigour with their results as Medical Sciences do? (e.g: infinite vs finite or 1/0=....)

 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

So, you don't think that people copy stuff onto new media?

Well....

we do.

So, it doesn't matter if I can read a floppy disk or not, because I can read the copy that's been made onto whatever medium  I currently use.

And, because it's digital data, it's a perfect copy of the original digital version.

 

That's the point which you seem to be deliberately ignoring.

You don't need to be able to read the outdated formats because the data is copied onto the new ones.

Sheesh!

1

I'm not ignoring it, I acknowledged it, but my point is not about the type of media used or whether it was copied to the next type; my point is the future is unknown and there's no guarantee technology will be available to do the reading. Besides what about that all-important floppy that was worth hiding for safekeeping and is forgotten about for n years?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, swansont said:

Math does not rely on nature, so there is no guarantee that you can find a physical example to represent any mathematical concept.

Could you provide an example where the mathematical recognition is absolutetly has no relation to Nature? 

13 hours ago, swansont said:
Quote

Does not every mathematical recognition fundamentally connected to the physical reality

No, it does not

Could you think without your brain? Could you have any mathematical recognition without it?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lasse said:

Could you provide an example where the mathematical recognition is absolutetly has no relation to Nature? 

Your 1*0=0 is a good example as in nature the concept of nothing (zero) is ambiguous but in math its a simple and a very clear concept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, koti said:

Your 1*0=0 is a good example as in nature the concept of nothing (zero) is ambiguous but in math its a simple and a very clear concept. 

In nature it is not ambiguous it is impossible, the closest you can get is energy and matter free space(time). 

Could you share that clear, simple concept with an explanation what is it based on and why?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lasse said:

In nature it is not ambiguous it is impossible, the closest you can get is energy and matter free space(time). 

Could you share that clear, simple concept with an explanation what is it based on and why?

I woudln’t throw „impossible” so litely but yes, there are fields on the quantum level so „nothing” is not that simple in nature. In math the concept of zero is clear:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0

Mathematics is just a very handy tool that we use. Its the language that phycisists and other sxientists use to figure out and convey concepts with. It’s not rational to put math and nature beside each other to compare. Might as well compare the concept of length to tuberculosis - it doesn’t make sense.

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lasse said:

...it is impossible...

To bring this thread on track as its in the religion section; Science doesn’t really like impossible, it rather say „I don’t know” where religion/faith/belief does the opposite. Another argument to support the irrationality of having science as your religion. 

6 minutes ago, Lasse said:

It took 10 years to recognize that....

?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, koti said:

To bring this thread on track as its in the religion section; Science doesn’t really like impossible, it rather say „I don’t know” where religion/faith/belief does the opposite. Another argument to support the irrationality of having science as your religion. 

You said there is everything to know :)

33 minutes ago, koti said:

?

Obviously I recognized that what I say is opposite somewhere what 7 billion ppl learned and know today...

I had few questions along the path :)

I think fundamental mathematics MINIMUM! has to follow Natural Reality i.e. natural Numbers. 0.

0 is a physical, mathematical, philosophical reference point. In our current recognition space (time) itself.

An observation in the Universe can be executed just with one result and almost infinite physical reality related relative perceptions.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lasse said:

You said there is everything to know :)

 

Yes. Science doesn't know everything so there is "everything to know" (and understand/comprehend)
You seem to imply that there is a contradiction between:

"Science doesn’t really like impossible, it rather say „I don’t know” where religion/faith/belief does the opposite. Another argument to support the irrationality of having science as your religion"

and

"There is everything to know"

There isn't.

 

Quote

Obviously I recognized that what I say is opposite somewhere what 7 billion ppl learned and know today...(chuckle)

I had few questions along the path 

I think fundamental mathematics MINIMUM! has to follow Natural Reality i.e. natural Numbers. 0.

I don't follow, can you explain? Have you experienced some kind of enlightenment?
Mathematics does not follow "Natural Reality" whatever that is. Mathematics is just a tool (a very powerful one) like a hammer or a screwdriver. 

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, koti said:

Mathematics does not follow "Natural Reality

What about natural numbers?

Pfff...enlightment that I recheck what is real end what is not... Koti...

1 hour ago, koti said:

Mathematics is just a tool (a very powerful one) like a hammer or a screwdriver. 

Exactly. And by that as good (true) as it possible. Mathematics is Science at the end of the day, Scientific principles apply on mathematics as well...It is the language of the Universe...

Tell me something, what has no mathematically recognisable value through space, time, energy, matter or information... 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lasse said:

What about natural numbers?

What about them? What part of Mathematics is a tool don't you understand?
 

Quote

Pfff...enlightment that I recheck what is real end what is not... Koti...

I asked a question because I don't understand what this means:
 

Quote

Obviously I recognized that what I say is opposite somewhere what 7 billion ppl learned and know today...(chuckle)

I still don't get it. Can you explain?

 

Quote

Tell me something, what has no mathematically recognisable value... 

Belief, Religion, Emotion, Poetry - mathematics is a tool which doesn't work very well to describe these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lasse said:

True, as does physics. Check the perception of space and time in the past 3000 years.

That's a little awkward. Physics is not 3000 years old.

5 hours ago, Lasse said:

So you think anatomy, physiology, microbiology, internal medicine, surgery, histology, pathophysiology, pathology etc.. is not based on evidence after a significant amount of time of rigours investigations, and by that the findings of Medical Sciences does not belong to Science and the trusted, Nature based, overall knowledge of humanity....

Do you think a physician could explain and execute a heart transplantation....?

Can physics and mathematics show the same rigour with their results as Medical Sciences do? (e.g: infinite vs finite or 1/0=....)

Your strawmanning questions are getting to be more than a little annoying. Microbiology, for example, is microbiology, not medicine. And I said nothing about microbiology.

You gave an example of hospital hygiene earlier. The reason the recommendations seem bad is that medicine was not in the habit of doing any sort of systematic testing of ideas, i.e. not science. And it is still in the process of shaking that off. The fact that "alternative medicine" (e.g. homeopathic) is still considered medicine should be sufficient evidence to show that medicine is not science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swansont said:

. Physics is not 3000 years old

Did not say that. I pointed that back than people seek to understand the nature of the physical reality. I.e. primitive(simple) physics presented through e.g. the Greek philosophers.. 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.