Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 ********************* Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto:jpcrete@...?Subject= Re%3A%20Faith%20%26%20Science> jpcrete@... <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete Unless one knows everything one must take certain things (even scientific facts) on faith. ****************************** The only faith that one needs in science are that our observations with our eyes and ears are reliable. No other " faith " is involved. Once we decide that our senses give us reliable information about the world around us (the only faith a scientist needs), then all scientific facts are based on those observations, not on faith. ****************** Science is a human endeavor. All " conscious " humans have a " belief system " even if it is atheism etc. ******************* Atheism is not a belief system; rather, it is the lack of one. Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate http://www. <http://www.2020lifestyles.com> 2020lifestyles.com Editor, Journal of Pure Power http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> Bellevue, WA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Our eyes and ears (and brains) are not reliable. Science has proven this. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Which is still a belief, not the lack of one. Everyone has beliefs even if one wished to argue that all their beliefs were true and correct they would still be beliefs. Beliefs are to the mind as oxygen is to the body. Neither will function if they lack what they need. Jim Storch Elmira NY USA --- Krieger wrote: > ********************* > > > Posted by: " Jim Storch " > <mailto:jpcrete@...?Subject= > Re%3A%20Faith%20%26%20Science> jpcrete@... > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete > > Unless one knows everything one must take certain > things (even scientific facts) on faith. > ****************************** > > The only faith that one needs in science are that > our observations with our > eyes and ears are reliable. No other " faith " is > involved. Once we decide > that our senses give us reliable information about > the world around us (the > only faith a scientist needs), then all scientific > facts are based on those > observations, not on faith. > > > ****************** > Science is a human endeavor. All " conscious " humans > have a " belief system " even if it is atheism etc. > ******************* > > Atheism is not a belief system; rather, it is the > lack of one. > > > Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI > 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate > http://www. <http://www.2020lifestyles.com> > 2020lifestyles.com > Editor, Journal of Pure Power > http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> > Bellevue, WA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 ***************** Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto:jpcrete@...?Subject= Re%3A%20Faith%20and%20Science> jpcrete@... <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:54 pm (PST) Our eyes and ears (and brains) are not reliable. Science has proven this. **************************** The use of our senses is much, much more reliable (and repeatable) then any belief system based on faith. Are our senses 100% reliable all the time? Of course not. I can alter my senses, for example, using drugs. Reliability implies repeatability. Science works because we can repeat experiments and observe the same things over and over again. At some point we will conclude that, under the exact same conditions, the exact same observations will happen. This is how we come to understand the world around us. And thus we can have faith (i.e., confidence) in our senses under these conditions because our senses repeatedly observe the same things under the same conditions. Thus, overall, our senses, while not 100% reliable all the time, are reliable enough for science to work the way it is supposed to. At some point, you have to accept that our general observations of the world with our senses are accurate. Otherwise, we could never obtain an understanding of the world around us. For example, how do we know we aren't all a part of the Matrix? How do we know that we even truly exist and that we aren't all a part of some supercomputer? If we don't accept that our senses accurately observe reality, then it forces us to all sorts of absurd ideas and conclusions. Thus, we have faith that we can make reliable observations about the world....that is the only faith that a scientist needs. *********************** Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Which is still a belief, not the lack of one. ************************ Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believeing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Thus, atheism (meaning " without theism " ) can truly mean a lack of belief due to lack of evidence, which is not a belief. Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate http://www.2020lifestyles.com <http://www.2020lifestyles.com/> Editor, Journal of Pure Power http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 --- Krieger wrote: > Posted by: " Jim Storch " > <mailto:jpcrete@...?Subject= > Re%3A%20Faith%20and%20Science> jpcrete@... > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete > > > Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:54 pm (PST) > > Our eyes and ears (and brains) are not reliable. > Science has proven this. > **************************** > > The use of our senses is much, much more reliable > (and repeatable) then any > belief system based on faith. Are our senses 100% > reliable all the time? > Of course not. I can alter my senses, for example, > using drugs. ***** The list of things that alter senses (ie perception) is much longer than that- fatigue, age, distraction (mental or environmental), past experience, etc. > Reliability implies repeatability. Science works > because we can repeat > experiments and observe the same things over and > over again. At some point > we will conclude that, under the exact same > conditions, the exact same > observations will happen. This is how we come to > understand the world > around us. And thus we can have faith (i.e., > confidence) in our senses > under these conditions because our senses repeatedly > observe the same things > under the same conditions. Thus, overall, our > senses, while not 100% > reliable all the time, are reliable enough for > science to work the way it is > supposed to. > > At some point, you have to accept that our general > observations of the world > with our senses are accurate. Otherwise, we could > never obtain an > understanding of the world around us. For example, > how do we know we aren't > all a part of the Matrix? How do we know that we > even truly exist and that > we aren't all a part of some supercomputer? If we > don't accept that our > senses accurately observe reality, then it forces us > to all sorts of absurd > ideas and conclusions. Thus, we have faith that we > can make reliable > observations about the world....that is the only > faith that a scientist > needs. ***** I agree with much of the above, but it doesn't change a thing. Even if what one believes is the absolute scientifically provable truth it is still belief. > *********************** > Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Which is > still a belief, not the lack of one. > ************************ > > Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not > believe it to be true. > Not believeing that something is true is not > equivalent to believing that it > is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is > true or not. Thus, > atheism (meaning " without theism " ) can truly mean a > lack of belief due to > lack of evidence, which is not a belief. *** " Theism " = the belief in a " god. " Is it a continuum between belief and disbelief? Is " not believeing that something is true " inside or outside that continuum if it is a continuum? If not a continuum, then what? This quote " one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not " sounds more like agnosticism than atheism if one is perhaps speaking in a religious context. If you prefer the term " world view " over " belief system " we can go with that. My " world view " (or belief system) adjusts with the accrued evidence, how about yours? Jim Storch Elmira NY USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Kreiger: It is interesting that you are still discussing this topic. I posted quite a detailed reply citing facts from Dawkins programs (as you asked me to) with other supporting information to answer your questions regarding this topic (in supertraining 3070). This was after you suggested I was coming off a 'little unhinged'. I was awaiting your reply with interest but did not see anything. Having given you the respect of posted at length to answer your questions I believe I have the right to ask: What are you actually trying to argue? What is the key point of your posts? Is you hypothesis that: Scientific analysis is superior to uncorroborated belief as a mode of thought? Or is it scientific institutions are superior to (or are in competition with) religious institutions? As you well know, without a hypothesis or clear starting point it is difficult to carry out a good analysis. Best Regards Chris B Eastham BPhEd MAAESS AEP THE OPEN DOOR Personal Training & Home Fitness Club St Kilda ph 0420 532 522 chris@... coming soon www.theopendoor.com.au ========================= Posted by: " Krieger " <mailto:Yngvai@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Faith%20and%20Science> Yngvai@... <http://profiles.yahoo.com/shredaholic> shredaholic Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:10 pm (PST) ***************** Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto: <mailto:jpcrete%40yahoo.com> jpcrete@...?Subject= Re%3A%20Faith%20and%20Science> <mailto:jpcrete%40yahoo.com> jpcrete@... < <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:54 pm (PST) Our eyes and ears (and brains) are not reliable. Science has proven this. **************************** The use of our senses is much, much more reliable (and repeatable) then any belief system based on faith. Are our senses 100% reliable all the time? Of course not. I can alter my senses, for example, using drugs. Reliability implies repeatability. Science works because we can repeat experiments and observe the same things over and over again. At some point we will conclude that, under the exact same conditions, the exact same observations will happen. This is how we come to understand the world around us. And thus we can have faith (i.e., confidence) in our senses under these conditions because our senses repeatedly observe the same things under the same conditions. Thus, overall, our senses, while not 100% reliable all the time, are reliable enough for science to work the way it is supposed to. At some point, you have to accept that our general observations of the world with our senses are accurate. Otherwise, we could never obtain an understanding of the world around us. For example, how do we know we aren't all a part of the Matrix? How do we know that we even truly exist and that we aren't all a part of some supercomputer? If we don't accept that our senses accurately observe reality, then it forces us to all sorts of absurd ideas and conclusions. Thus, we have faith that we can make reliable observations about the world....that is the only faith that a scientist needs. *********************** Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Which is still a belief, not the lack of one. ************************ Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believeing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Thus, atheism (meaning " without theism " ) can truly mean a lack of belief due to lack of evidence, which is not a belief. ======================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Epistemology is the critieria by which truth is determined. The most commonly used method of perception is faith, sometimes referred to as " authority " so as no to confuse it with religion. This form involves accepting as fact the statements, ideas, or opinions of highly trained or highly respected people. It is often used in the exacting sciences, such as mathematics. It may substitute a document, such as the Bible, for a person as the authority. Perceiving truth in this manner takes no great mental ability, even a small child can have faith. It does not rely on the ability of the senses. You can be deaf, dumb, and blind as still exercise faith.Interestingly, it has been estimated that 85% of everthing learned occurs by this method. As children, most of what we accept as truth is based upon what we are told by an authority figure, particulary parents and teachers. One of the problems with this method, as Mr. Kreiger acknowledges, is that it depends on the quality or the character of the authority. The other problem with merely accepting what authority say as truth is that authorities disagree. It then becomes necessary to choose which authority you accept or whom you will believe. This method of perception is probably the easiest, most effective method, providing that the authority is impeccable. Religion, of course, is an example of this system of perception. It is important however, to note that even though it is a simple system and takes no special intellect, it is not an inferior system. There are situations, and circumstances when it is the best system for determining the truth. When a parent tells a child not to touch a hot stove, the force of the parent's authority and the confidence (faith) the child has in the parent will save him from learning an unpleasant experience. Faith or authority has its place. Empiricism is the second method of perception. This method depends on the senses. It is the system of observation and the method used by science. In fact, science depends totally upon this system. It is predicated upon experience, that is why experimentation is so important to the scientific method. Science has embraced this system because it maintains that since everyone has the power of observation, everyone can use this system. There are many other medthods of perception, BTW. Empiricism has its place. To think that science is the only means of determing truth and to think that it is objective is an error. Under the guise of science, a philosophy of life called " naturalism " has emerged. This philosophy, which has become the prominent theory of modern science, is the mechanistic explanation of the origin of the earth and the origin of living things. Science is not without philosophy or without any preconceived ideas. It is often, however, without objectiviity. Scientist do not try to find the truth about the origin of the earth, they try to find an alternative to the theory of creation. Creationism was the first ever idea about the origin of the world and the only one for thousands of years. Some people were not satisfied with it. In fact, they rejected it outright. That is not objective. Unfortunately, they are first atheists, then scientists. Consequently, much scientific investigation is done with an atheistic preconceived idea. For all intent and purpose, they have said to themselves, we already reject creation, so let's find another explanation.( aliens seeded the planet, or life sprang from non-life, then evolved into humans) The creationists are just as biased in their position as the atheists. They have a preconceived idea based on their faith that " In the begininig, God created heaven and earth. " The only difference is that the creationist admits his bias, the mechanistic scientist does not. The creationist understands that in the begining there was no one so we cannot use empiricism. Reason cannot determine that which is incomprehensible, like limitless space, something created from nothing or the existence of God. My point is, you cannot do research without preconceived ideas and they are usually acquired through induction based upon metaphysical assumptions (beliefs). You must have some ideas and some assumptions. That is not bad but it seems no one wants to admit it. Levi Alday DC,CCEP,CSCS Woodstock,Ga > > ********************* > > > Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto:jpcrete@...?Subject= > Re%3A%20Faith%20%26%20Science> jpcrete@... > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete > > Unless one knows everything one must take certain > things (even scientific facts) on faith. > ****************************** > > The only faith that one needs in science are that our observations with our > eyes and ears are reliable. No other " faith " is involved. Once we decide > that our senses give us reliable information about the world around us (the > only faith a scientist needs), then all scientific facts are based on those > observations, not on faith. > > > ****************** > Science is a human endeavor. All " conscious " humans > have a " belief system " even if it is atheism etc. > ******************* > > Atheism is not a belief system; rather, it is the lack of one. > > > Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI > 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate > http://www. <http://www.2020lifestyles.com> 2020lifestyles.com > Editor, Journal of Pure Power > http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> > Bellevue, WA > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Well you started off well for the most part, but you threw a wrench into your gears with this statement: " Scientist do not try to find the truth about the origin of the earth, they try to find an alternative to the theory of creation. " Sorry to be blunt, but that's nonsense. Scientists studying the origin of life (the origin of the Earth is a different field) are not interested in an alternative to any religious explanation. Religion is beside the point. They are interested in an explanation supported by reality using the scientific method. Yes empiricism is a part of the scientific method, but you're also forgetting very important elements such as repeatability, and falsifiability. Something not only has to be demonstrated to be accurate through observation, it has to be demonstrated over and over again to be accurate under near identical conditions. Science must also be open to change as new and more accurate information comes along. That structure makes science different from religion, and from philosophy. It is belief grounded in the real world of repeated experience, not fancy semantics. Nothing has revealed more with greater accuracy about reality, including human beings, than science. It works. It allows us to fly, it cures disease, it lets us walk on water, it brings people back from the dead. Religion only has fictional stories about those things, while philosophy is a process entirely of imagination tempered by logic or mathematical rules. Science is all about the practical exploration of the accuracy of our real world experience. The belief in science is based on the idea that scientific exploration will lead to ever greater accuracy in understanding the workings of reality. The difference between that belief and every other, is that science had demonstrated, time and time again, that belief in science is well placed. It is more accurate, and the results of that accuracy are all around us. Hell I'm typing on one of those results right now. So then, can you really call that belief in science faith? It may be, but it is certainly well placed. I'm constantly amazed at the contortions people who cling to superstitious delusion go to to try and misinterpret science. But the single most common fallacious argument is guilt by association. Science is a belief. Religion is a belief. Therefore, religion and science are the same. It requires a rather strenuous effort of intentional misunderstanding to ignore reality in to such an extent. I normally tire of this kind of argument by suggesting that if they are so sure all beliefs are equal, they should go step in front of a speeding bus with the belief it's not there, and see just how well their belief is validated, that is if they manage to survive being turned into jam. That said, I don't know of any scientist or science proponent who would suggest the only valid way to gain an understanding of reality is through science. Science is merely the most accurate, and that it is one part of a holistic understanding. Burns Vancouver, Canada > > > > ********************* > > > > > > Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto:jpcrete@?Subject= > > Re%3A%20Faith%20%26%20Science> jpcrete@ > > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete > > > > Unless one knows everything one must take certain > > things (even scientific facts) on faith. > > ****************************** > > > > The only faith that one needs in science are that our observations > with our > > eyes and ears are reliable. No other " faith " is involved. Once > we decide > > that our senses give us reliable information about the world > around us (the > > only faith a scientist needs), then all scientific facts are based > on those > > observations, not on faith. > > > > > > ****************** > > Science is a human endeavor. All " conscious " humans > > have a " belief system " even if it is atheism etc. > > ******************* > > > > Atheism is not a belief system; rather, it is the lack of one. > > > > > > Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI > > 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate > > http://www. <http://www.2020lifestyles.com> 2020lifestyles.com > > Editor, Journal of Pure Power > > http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> > > Bellevue, WA > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Mr. Burns, While we vehemently disagree on flouridation, I am in agreement with your position in this nicely written post. W.G. Ubermensch Sports Consultancy San Diego, CA. > > > > > > ********************* > > > > > > > > > Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto:jpcrete@?Subject= > > > Re%3A%20Faith%20%26%20Science> jpcrete@ > > > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete > > > > > > Unless one knows everything one must take certain > > > things (even scientific facts) on faith. > > > ****************************** > > > > > > The only faith that one needs in science are that our observations > > with our > > > eyes and ears are reliable. No other " faith " is involved. Once > > we decide > > > that our senses give us reliable information about the world > > around us (the > > > only faith a scientist needs), then all scientific facts are based > > on those > > > observations, not on faith. > > > > > > > > > ****************** > > > Science is a human endeavor. All " conscious " humans > > > have a " belief system " even if it is atheism etc. > > > ******************* > > > > > > Atheism is not a belief system; rather, it is the lack of one. > > > > > > > > > Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI > > > 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate > > > http://www. <http://www.2020lifestyles.com> 2020lifestyles.com > > > Editor, Journal of Pure Power > > > http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> > > > Bellevue, WA > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well, you started off well for the most part by... giving evidence to my point. Everyone, including scientists has metaphysical assumptions about the nature of this universe. Some just won't admit it. To sit on your high horse and say, " I am a scientist. I have no preconceived notions or ideas. I will just experiment and see what happens " ignores this fact. Scientists don' t just sit around like the old Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland films. The ones where the high school kids are standing around and one of them says " Hey, let's put on a show! " Unfortuately, this is not what researchers do. They do research to get specific answers. Dr. Giarnella said he believes pharmaceutical industries are the biggest employers of scientists in the world. Do you believe that they have no preconcieved ideas?. Quantum physics has shown us that there is no impartial observer. And you stated, bluntly that religion is fiction, philosphy is imagination, and science is the only practical exploration of the truth of our universe and lives. Now, how is that holistic? Is everyone that doesn't believe in your mechanistic/reductionist viewpoint superstitiously delusional or misinterpreting science? I would say that scientist themselves could be misinterpreting in the name of science. Religion, philosophy, and science are all ways of trying to find the truth. For one to say that it is superior and it's methods have all of the answers would be foolish. They all have their place. Didn't Einstein say that " Religion without science is lame. Science without religion is boring " (I could be wrong on this one) ... also tell me again how science brought a dead person back to life. Science cured a disease? Science has taught men to walk on water? And no I did not forget about repeatability and falsifiability. I was giving examples of methods of perception and I stated the list was not all inclusive. Something can be repeated with high accuracy and still be false. And your comment on " guilt by association " is called loose consistency: Non-related statements are true if they do not contradict one another. An example of this type of reduction would be that snow is cold, lead is heavy, and apples are purple. None of these ideas contradict one another and two of them are correct. But that does not mean that the other is necessarily correct. So you are correct if that argument was used. But, that's not what i said. No one said all beliefs are equal. The idea that things are in reality as the senses depict them is called " realism " . The difficulty with this method is two-fold. First, there are many things that cannot be demonstrated by the senses. You cannot see, hear, or feel the concept of an inborn intelligence that gives living organisms " life " . The second is that the senses can be fooled. There are computers that sound like human voices. Instant replay in football demonstrates that what we think we see is often not what actually occured. Scratch and sniff stickers smell like real fruit. The earth sure did look flat. Again I am not critisizing the scientific method or the body of science. But what type of scientist is a sports scientist? Dorland Medical Dictionary breaks it down into to types. Applied scientist...The application of discovered laws to the matters of everday living. Pure Science...concerned soley with the discovery of unknown laws relating to particular facts. Clearly, we're dealing with applied science, not pure science. The pure scientist is bent on finding the why of a particular fact. Once discovered, the applied scientist attempts to put the answer to practical use. In fact the applied scientist doesn't even bother with waiting for the why to be answered. Look at aspirin. For the better part of a century, it was used without the knowledge of why it worked. Athletes have gotten results for years without first consulting with scientific coaches. Sport science is just as much an art as it is a science. To pretend otherwise is absurd. To even claim that it is backed by science isn't even completely true. First of all, science has no allegiances. Science does not exist for the sake of sports performance, or medicine, or government, private enterprise, or even scientists themselves. The function of science is to produce, through the sytematic observation of the scientist, the laws which explain facts. Establishing a fact is not the product of science I would bet that no one on this board is a pure scientist. And if they were, it still wouldn't matter. It would still come down to " How mucha bench? " Levi Alday DC, CCEP, CSCS Woodstock, GA > > > > > > ********************* > > > > > > > > > Posted by: " Jim Storch " <mailto:jpcrete@?Subject= > > > Re%3A%20Faith%20%26%20Science> jpcrete@ > > > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/jpcrete> jpcrete > > > > > > Unless one knows everything one must take certain > > > things (even scientific facts) on faith. > > > ****************************** > > > > > > The only faith that one needs in science are that our observations > > with our > > > eyes and ears are reliable. No other " faith " is involved. Once > > we decide > > > that our senses give us reliable information about the world > > around us (the > > > only faith a scientist needs), then all scientific facts are based > > on those > > > observations, not on faith. > > > > > > > > > ****************** > > > Science is a human endeavor. All " conscious " humans > > > have a " belief system " even if it is atheism etc. > > > ******************* > > > > > > Atheism is not a belief system; rather, it is the lack of one. > > > > > > > > > Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI > > > 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate > > > http://www. <http://www.2020lifestyles.com> 2020lifestyles.com > > > Editor, Journal of Pure Power > > > http://www.jopp.us <http://www.jopp.us/> > > > Bellevue, WA > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Levi, you're yet again simply twisting semantics in order to define away or just ignore the problems that scientific accuracy presents you with. You also seem confused on the point you are trying to make. " Everyone, including scientists has metaphysical assumptions about the nature of this universe. " What is at issue is the accuracy of those notions, and whether they are based on faith or evidence. You can conceive of an idea or hypothesis and then test it to see if it is accurate. If your assumptions about the nature of this universe are testable their accuracy can be demonstrated through science. If they are not testable then they fit in the realm of philosophy or religion or art or superstition, and particularly in the case of religion and superstition they depend on faith. " Some just won't admit it. To sit on your high horse and say, " I am a scientist. I have no preconceived notions or ideas. I will just experiment and see what happens " ignores this fact. " You're putting words in my mouth, and in fact you're placing quotes around something I did not write. You are assigning to me a position I don't hold. You are creating a straw man to misrepresent everything I've been saying. By taking this tack you're only confusing yourself, because you are assigning motives to scientists that are untrue. Scientists test their assumptions. If they cannot test them they cannot make valid scientific claims about them. " You cannot see, hear, or feel the concept of an inborn intelligence that gives living organisms " life " . " That statement is utterly false. The only way we can perceive intelligence in other organisms is through our senses. The same is true for our own consciousness. As for the fallibility of the senses, yet again you simply choose to ignore the fact that our senses are reliable and accurate most of the time. You also fail YET AGAIN to acknowledge that the scientific method makes the fact fallibility a part of the model, by insisting on repeatability. It takes an enormous amount of repeated experiment and data to establish the accuracy of a scientific theory. The reason for that is because it weeds out errors, and those who falsify their data. Now you ended with a confused and rather gobbled conclusion about science that yet again demonstrates your misunderstanding. What people do with scientific data is almost infinitely variable. Although these days it usually revolves around some aspect of fame and profit. But so what? How does not knowing how aspirin does what it does take away from the accuracy or efficacy of science? Finally science isn't about establishing laws in any final sense. Science is a process that simply provides the most accurate models of aspects of reality. Those models are a description of a reflection of reality based on evidence gathered by the current limitations of our senses and instrumentation. Those models change when enough better evidence comes along. So yet again, I'll sum up. I do not agree with your semantic games, that label as faith the belief that the best way to acquire accurate knowledge about reality is through repeated experiment based on sense and instrumental evidence. Why? Because it works. The results are all around us. It doesn't require faith. Without the whole process of science the " applied scientist " wouldn't have had the knowledge to put to practical use. Prior to science knowledge that was practically valuable was far more hit and miss. It depended on trial and error, and it was suffused with inaccurate superstition. Burns Vancouver, BC > > > > Well you started off well for the most part, but you threw a wrench > > into your gears with this statement: > > > > " Scientist do not try to find the truth about the > > origin of the earth, they try to find an alternative to the theory > > of creation. " > > > > Sorry to be blunt, but that's nonsense. Scientists studying the > > origin of life (the origin of the Earth is a different field) are not > > interested in an alternative to any religious explanation. Religion is > > beside the point. They are interested in an explanation supported by > > reality using the scientific method. Yes empiricism is a part of the > > scientific method, but you're also forgetting very important elements > > such as repeatability, and falsifiability. Something not only has to > > be demonstrated to be accurate through observation, it has to be > > demonstrated over and over again to be accurate under near identical > > conditions. Science must also be open to change as new and more > > accurate information comes along. > > > > That structure makes science different from religion, and from > > philosophy. It is belief grounded in the real world of repeated > > experience, not fancy semantics. Nothing has revealed more with > > greater accuracy about reality, including human beings, than science. > > It works. It allows us to fly, it cures disease, it lets us walk on > > water, it brings people back from the dead. Religion only has > > fictional stories about those things, while philosophy is a process > > entirely of imagination tempered by logic or mathematical rules. > > > > Science is all about the practical exploration of the accuracy of our > > real world experience. The belief in science is based on the idea that > > scientific exploration will lead to ever greater accuracy in > > understanding the workings of reality. The difference between that > > belief and every other, is that science had demonstrated, time and > > time again, that belief in science is well placed. It is more > > accurate, and the results of that accuracy are all around us. Hell I'm > > typing on one of those results right now. So then, can you really call > > that belief in science faith? It may be, but it is certainly well > placed. > > > > I'm constantly amazed at the contortions people who cling to > > superstitious delusion go to to try and misinterpret science. But the > > single most common fallacious argument is guilt by association. > > Science is a belief. Religion is a belief. Therefore, religion and > > science are the same. It requires a rather strenuous effort of > intentional misunderstanding to ignore reality in > > to such an extent. I normally tire of this kind of argument by > > suggesting that if they are so sure all beliefs are equal, they should > > go step in front of a speeding bus with the belief it's not there, and > > see just how well their belief is validated, that is if they manage to > > survive being turned into jam. > > > > That said, I don't know of any scientist or science proponent who > > would suggest the only valid way to gain an understanding of reality > > is through science. Science is merely the most accurate, and that it > > is one part of a holistic understanding. > > > > Burns > > Vancouver, Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Your point is well taken. For more than 25 years now, the term " Western Science " has been applied to what most of us regard as science. That's due to its perjorative attitude regarding non-Western sciences as well as its nested vestiges of Catholic theology imposing taboos on what can or cannot be admitted as a viable subject of inquiry. In that sense of things Western Science confuses itself with a Universal Science, the stuff of a dissociative identification disorder! The English speaking world dismissed subjective reporting a century ago while Continental philosophers pursued that rich avenue of inquiry. With the deconstructionalist movement it became apparent that subjectivism could be applied to an entire culture - enculturation being equivalent to a post-hypnotic trance facilitating noticing some things while being amnesic to others. That's our science in a nutshell in its worse moments. Take ch'i/ki energy research as an example. It's taboo in the English speaking world, while Japanese, Chinese, French, and Russians have rich research budgets, findings and applications. A science in denial of data is a theology going bankrupt. An interesting example of a paradigm shift in the works for decades is chiropracty. 40-50 years ago no insurance program would cover treatment because no " medical science " would extend legitimacy to positive treatment outcomes. The tides have changed, at least for insurance companies and SOME doctors. Same sometimes with herbal medicines. As for faith, that's another problem. Our notion of 'the scientific study of religion " is an artifact of the late 19th century, one in which the frameworks and nested assumptions of Christianity are imposed on the non-Western world. Said's award winning book Orientalism tells the sad tale of the treatment of Islam and Arabs by centuries of European colonialists inventing justification for subjection of the Middle East to European rule as the White Man's Burden - it proposes that Arabs and Islam are inferior, hence require foreign rule and exploitation. My own field is Buddhism. To become equivalent to a Zen roshi, I had to attend a japanese graduate school, learning Japanese, Chinese reading, and Sanskrit. The result became discovering how painfully ridiculous much of Buddhist Studies remains. Asians resent white euro-america male scholars attempting to dictate what Buddhism amounts to in the name of the scientific study of religion. As for the emerging Western Buddhisms, they are dumbed down, watered down pale substitutes of the real deal. Teachers too unfit or too lazy to learn Asian languages write successful popular books scholars find quite acceptible: asians call it, in Japanese, gaijin no bukkyo - the buddhism of aliens who don't understand that they don't understand. Faith plays utterly no role in the spiritualities of India and China, and their derivative cultures. Sure, you can find books that talk about faith and God and all sorts of stuff in non-Western religions. Those only betray how idiotic the interpreter remains. best Ken O'Neill Austin, Texas > > > Well, you started off well for the most part by... giving evidence to > my point. Everyone, including scientists has metaphysical assumptions > about the nature of this universe. Some just won't admit it. To sit on > your high horse and say, " I am a scientist. I have no preconceived > notions or ideas. I will just experiment and see what happens " ignores > this fact. Scientists don' t just sit around like the old Mickey > Rooney and Judy Garland films. The ones where the high school kids are > standing around and one of them says " Hey, let's put on a show! " > Unfortuately, this is not what researchers do. They do research to get > specific answers. > > Dr. Giarnella said he believes pharmaceutical industries are the biggest > employers of scientists in the world. Do you believe that they have no > preconcieved ideas?. Quantum physics has shown us that there is no > impartial observer. And you stated, bluntly that religion is fiction, > philosphy is imagination, and science is the only practical exploration > of the truth of our universe and lives. Now, how is that holistic? Is > everyone that doesn't believe in your mechanistic/reductionist viewpoint > superstitiously delusional or misinterpreting science? I would say that > scientist themselves could be misinterpreting in the name of science. > > Religion, philosophy, and science are all ways of trying to find the > truth. For one to say that it is superior and it's methods have all of > the answers would be foolish. They all have their place. Didn't Einstein > say that " Religion without science is lame. Science without religion is > boring " (I could be wrong on this one) ... also tell me again how > science brought a dead person back to life. Science cured a disease? > Science has taught men to walk on water? > > And no I did not forget about repeatability and falsifiability. I was > giving examples of methods of perception and I stated the list was not > all inclusive. Something can be repeated with high accuracy and still > be false. And your comment on " guilt by association " is called loose > consistency: Non-related statements are true if they do not contradict > one another. An example of this type of reduction would be that snow is > cold, lead is heavy, and apples are purple. None of these ideas > contradict one another and two of them are correct. But that does not > mean that the other is necessarily correct. So you are correct if that > argument was used. But, that's not what i said. No one said all beliefs > are equal. > > The idea that things are in reality as the senses depict them is called > " realism " . The difficulty with this method is two-fold. First, there > are many things that cannot be demonstrated by the senses. You cannot > see, hear, or feel the concept of an inborn intelligence that gives > living organisms " life " . The second is that the senses can be fooled. > There are computers that sound like human voices. Instant replay in > football demonstrates that what we think we see is often not what > actually occured. Scratch and sniff stickers smell like real fruit. The > earth sure did look flat. > > Again I am not critisizing the scientific method or the body of science. > But what type of scientist is a sports scientist? Dorland Medical > Dictionary breaks it down into to types. Applied scientist...The > application of discovered laws to the matters of everday living. Pure > Science...concerned soley with the discovery of unknown laws relating to > particular facts. > > Clearly, we're dealing with applied science, not pure science. The pure > scientist is bent on finding the why of a particular fact. Once > discovered, the applied scientist attempts to put the answer to > practical use. In fact the applied scientist doesn't even bother with > waiting for the why to be answered. Look at aspirin. For the better part > of a century, it was used without the knowledge of why it worked. > Athletes have gotten results for years without first consulting with > scientific coaches. Sport science is just as much an art as it is a > science. To pretend otherwise is absurd. To even claim that it is > backed by science isn't even completely true. First of all, science has > no allegiances. Science does not exist for the sake of sports > performance, or medicine, or government, private enterprise, or even > scientists themselves. The function of science is to produce, through > the sytematic observation of the scientist, the laws which explain > facts. Establishing a fact is not the product of science > > I would bet that no one on this board is a pure scientist. And if they > were, it still wouldn't matter. It would still come down to " How mucha > bench? " > > Levi Alday DC, CCEP, CSCS > > Woodstock, GA > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.