Blayz'd Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Point taken and I can't really argue with it. I have some work to be doing but I'll be back soon. I think this will be a decent thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted March 19, 2007 Author Share Posted March 19, 2007 Point taken and I can't really argue with it. Oh, I'm sure you can - I certainly hope so anyhow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) I think too many people confuse facts with theories, especially the uneducated and the media, just like all things science can be manipulated and corrupted and used by those with a personal agenda. the stuff you read in the paper and the things you see in TV documentaries that's not science it's bullshit, science really shgouldn't be used to draw too many conclusions because the nature of our reality is transient - the more we discover the more our perception of the world changes, science should be a voyage of discovery not something that's used to prove a point - alas it often is, such is the nature of human ignorance. science isn't bad it's a great concept but quite often those that practice it and use it are rotten to the core. Edited March 19, 2007 by Lizard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I think 'good science' is summed up by the word 'repeatable'. If it can be shown that when set conditions are applied the same outcome results every time, and I do mean 'shown', then I'm happy to accept it as a scientific fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grobag Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Good Science = OT1 Bad science = Pukka Seeds. B) Sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forest dog Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Good and bad science. Well, bad science is when people use data to try to prove an often predefined point or when poor scientists publish rubbish for the sake of one more paper. Good science is the offering up for peer review previously unknown hypothesis, afterall discovering new things and how things work are fundemental to our species. Arnold, you asked what a 'fact' was and that is a very good question that both Lizard and Hvy touched upon. I guess in life there are no real solid facts but science attempts to offer theories that are repeatable everytime. If many people do the same experiment and the results are the same each time then its considered to be a working hypothesis but that only holds true untill someone repeats the experiment and the results are different in some way then the original theory has to be rethought and redefined. Thats the way I see it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hir Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) Proper science, all the science that can be based on direct observation, the proper emperical stuff, is just a tool. The problem with modern science is that its' agenda is set by a political/power structure that doesn't care about the long term out comes so is sloppy about how it applies any cautions that science itself may have. This is why I don't trust scientist because they suck up to this system when thier own intelligence must tell them it is wrong to do this, just leave your job, find something else. Or what, your rigourous, emperical model only applies in the lab, forget the world you live in, just pick up the big cahoonas, we all need the bananas don't we. Edited March 19, 2007 by Hir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squaggles Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 As far as I can see Religion is an attempt to explain things that we don't understand . Can science explain the origin of the universe and the purpose of life ? Yes , we have the 'big bang theory' , everything in the universe was at one time contained in a singularity before exploding and expanding . What happened before this ? Did this singularity just exist ? Is the existance of 'god' any less likely than the alternative ? To the guy who met the Dalai Lama , I don't think he believes in the existance of 'god' either if my understanding of Buddhism is correct . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted March 19, 2007 Author Share Posted March 19, 2007 I think 'good science' is summed up by the word 'repeatable'. If it can be shown that when set conditions are applied the same outcome results every time, and I do mean 'shown', then I'm happy to accept it as a scientific fact. Are goodness and factuality the same in your view Hvy? But what is a fact? Is there any such thing, when all we have is our perception to see with, which is utterly individual? My perception of a colour differs from yours, ergo is there any such thing as objective, brute "green" or "blue" or whatever? Good Science = OT1 Bad science = Pukka Seeds. B) Sorted. An illustration of my puzzlement: Science would have it that we are the product of Evolution, which is driven by the "survival of the fittest". So why are we so concerned about the starving third world? Why not let the weakest go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Are goodness and factuality the same in your view Hvy? But what is a fact? Is there any such thing, when all we have is our perception to see with, which is utterly individual? My perception of a colour differs from yours, ergo is there any such thing as objective, brute "green" or "blue" or whatever? Science isn't good or bad, only it's use can determine that. A scientific fact doesn't care much if you like it or not. As far as whether anything exists in reality I'd consider that a question of philosophy rather than science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted March 19, 2007 Author Share Posted March 19, 2007 I type one reply, only to find 3 more good points/questions have gone up in the meantime!! As far as I can see Religion is an attempt to explain things that we don't understand Which is why i don't trust religion. What is wrong with incomprehension? Indeed, can a human mind expect to grasp and "comprehend" everything - surely this is an absurdity? Can science explain the origin of the universe and the purpose of life ?Yes , we have the 'big bang theory' , everything in the universe was at one time contained in a singularity before exploding and expanding . What happened before this ? Did this singularity just exist ? This is a descrition of the "how". It cannot address the "why" Is the existance of 'god' any less likely than the alternative ?To the guy who met the Dalai Lama , I don't think he believes in the existance of 'god' either if my understanding of Buddhism is correct . What is "god"? It may not exist, but it could have being; incomprehensible being, being beyond the rational limits of human brains. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grobag Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 An illustration of my puzzlement: Science would have it that we are the product of Evolution, which is driven by the "survival of the fittest". So why are we so concerned about the starving third world? Why not let the weakest go? In answer to that conundrum, I'd say that we are civilised; plus through evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) i see true scientific thinking as being just basic logical thinking.. science starts with observation of phenomina, a ball falls when u drop it a theory is proposed to explain that observation, all objects attract each other. ya can leave it there, just as an untested theory, or you can develope repeatable tests where the predicted outcome is based upon what would be observed if the theory is accurate, a rather difficult thing to do where gravity is concerned the most important thing about science, for me , is that it starts from the premise that any model or theory u use to describe how something works, is wrong. some theories are more wrong than others, but all will fall in the end, they are works in process, not facts. a theory is a map, always incomplete because all of an everchanging universe can never be known, and because a finite mind cant comprehend an infinite universe the ultimate science, is for me, buddhism, it states a theory and asks if ya fancy testing it through experience, great stuff i dont see the universe as explainable, but i do see scientific thinking as a great way to manipulate stuff, from my point of veiw, all technologies we use were developed through observation and theorising, from farming to computers i dont think science can ever give us a why, and as for the dahli lama, he could believe in god or not, buddha was easy that way Edited March 19, 2007 by kilgore trout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grobag Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 To the guy who met the Dalai Lama , I don't think he believes in the existance of 'god' either if my understanding of Buddhism is correct . From that guy: Well no, he should believe in himself essentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hir Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) I type one reply, only to find 3 more good points/questions have gone up in the meantime!! Which is why i don't trust religion. What is wrong with incomprehension? Indeed, can a human mind expect to grasp and "comprehend" everything - surely this is an absurdity? This is a descrition of the "how". It cannot address the "why" What is "god"? It may not exist, but it could have being; incomprehensible being, being beyond the rational limits of human brains. Or not. Science doesn't try and shouldn't try to answer why questions. For example with the Big Bang theory. If you ask any questions about pre Big Bang you can't to a scientist. Time itself starts from the Big Bang and nothing precedes this event. You can't ask where all this material that is compressed into a Singularity came from because that question precedes the Big Bang and Time itself hadn't started so the question is a non sequitur. Einstien didn't find the idea of God and science incompatable though else we wouldn't have his famous qoute about ".... God doesn't play dice ..." As a response to Heisenbergs' Uncertainty Principle Edited March 19, 2007 by Hir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now