I love it when people try to play semantics, because I’m so much better at it:
The word ‘science’ came into the English language from Old French, which got it from the Latin ‘scientia’, meaning ‘knowledge’ or ‘a knowing’ - from the verb ‘scire’, meaning ‘know’.
As language is constantly evolving, the definition for the word ‘science’ relies on context and implications; the word ‘science’ is just that: a word. To claim that it isn’t strictly verbal in nature but something more than that would not be an actual definition for the word, rather a dogma you have invented.
…
The ‘moral science’ in religious doctrines would stand independent of other pieces of the doctrine, including the claim that the doctrine is ‘the word of God’.
For comparison, a religious scientist might say that the ‘science’ behind how the universe and everything in it works is a demonstration of God’s will, made by God. You wouldn’t then discredit ‘science’ itself from there being a religious scientist, nor would you necessarily discredit that scientists work or find it to be false or of a lower quality.
And know that anything you say in relation to your ‘science’ doesn’t relate to the science of the wider community.
Thus, you’re not speaking about common science, you’re speaking about some obscure concept you associate with the word science.
There is indeed a distinction between the common definition of science, and the common definition of religion. You have no response to this.
And your thread only has credibility, when we assume an obscure definition of science. Which means, it’s actually irrelevant, since no one (of merit) cares to assume some obscure definition of science, especially when it’s intent is to conflate it with religion.
The only point being made in the original post was that science is not some stand-alone body of ideas – you just made this point yourself. It’s constantly changing, evolving, and improving. Therefore, to claim it is fundamentally superior to something else is foolish - as whatever it is being compared to is contained within it. If science is being viewed as the sum of all human knowledge, and the various stages and forms that knowledge may be present as, then ‘religion’ is included in it somewhere - if we’re talking strictly about religion claiming there is a God, then perhaps you could consider it the science of faith.
Science which exists a priori does not need observation to be verified. General Relativity, for example, was entirely on paper for years before it had any observed evidence backing it. The thought process that spawned GR was reached out of guesswork, by comparing some vague mathematical similarities between special relativity and how gravity appears to us. This lead to more and more hypothetical assumptions about the nature of space and time itself, which turned out that, when combined together, gave a decent mathematical description for gravity.
Einstein was a thinker. He is not well known as a scientist who performed a lot of experiments recording their outcomes; the experiments were in his head. In collaboration with other physicists, he put pieces together in ways that people hadn’t even thought of.
You would certainly consider GR to be science, correct? So then how can you define science, when every definition you give has numerous events in history that are exceptions to the definitions criteria?
Edit: rereading that I sound like I worship Einstein or something, which I don’t want to be considered since I am not an expert on the man whatsoever, and most of the quotes you read online attributed to Einstein was actually someone else or it was made up entirely. The guy’s reputation definitely precedes him, which often makes wonder if all of his contributions to science are blown out of proportion… I think to a degree they are very much so: some people have literally credited him with inventing the speed of light, which isn’t true and doesn’t make sense. But looking into special relativity, most of the math regarding length contraction and whatnot was put down on paper years earlier by Lorentz and others. I still don’t know what exactly SR brings to the table, other than it asks us to re-conceptualize our understanding of physics to account for the speed of light being a constant, and all of the counter-intuitive implications that come with it. General Relativity was the real jaw-dropper, and I think people are going to look back and think of that as his major contribution to physics.
He’s right though; the same people are behind those two things. It becomes evident when someone showing a genuine interest in that person’s structure of ideas asks them questions, and when a question is asked which they can not answer, they get angry rather than attempt to collaborate to find an answer.
It is that stubbornness which has caused harsh separations between various groups of people, while simultaneously being the only thing preventing humanity from falling back in to barbarism. If you were to class them as their own Jungian archetype, I’d consider them to be keepers of knowledge - they hold on to highly important texts and keep their intended message preserved with strict discipline and concise wording.
I get the feeling that in the distant past, humanity was stuck in a series of several dark epochs that, if we were able to see today, would look like scenes of pure horror. People were suffering from rampant disease; people were committing horrific atrocities; terrible bloody wars were going on… And no one knew how to stop any of it. Those epochs only ended after a lesson had been learned, and that lesson was written down and made law so that people would never have to go through the same thing again.
The Bible isn’t a book trying to force you to accept the beliefs of someone else, it was meant to be a survival manual.
The New Testament (let me try to explain this without using the term ‘God’ to just avoid any conflict) was about a good man, a smart man, who was born during another dark epoch; instead of being overwhelmed by all the fear, panic, and horror surrounding him, he traveled around performing techniques and using medicine to heal the sick and the wounded. I can’t say much more for certain while trying to remain as historically accurate as possible, but I can tell you that in doing so he gained many followers, but the religious and military authorities of the region at the time viewed this as a threat, and had Jesus crucified. In being crucified, many of the very people who had initially accused him realized that he was truly only trying to help people, and crucifying him had been a mistake.
This affected people so deeply, that they wholly dedicated themselves to carrying on the message that Jesus taught, and telling people what had happened.
Here’s another thing worth noting about science and religion; in modern physics, the various concepts put forth as hypotheses for the ‘fate of the universe’ such as ‘the big rip’, ‘the big crunch’, ‘heat death’, etc., are not new. They are about as ‘new’ perhaps as the Egyptian Old Kingdom; they’ve been repeatedly proposed throughout history.
Since language itself becomes skewed over time, less and less of a distinction between science and religion can be made the older the language is, due to the similar appearance one has to the other. Mistranslations and other fluctuations the translation of the translation is subject to would change as well, greatly distorting our perception of ancient history.
These ancient civilizations demonstrated a mastery of geometry and even intermediate calculus.
In modern times, we are still proposing the same exact hypotheses concerning the fate of the universe, only now we have equipment to begin testing them.
There is no science here. Science does not propose any purpose or fate. You’re confused.
Maybe that is how they teach science in church/school in the USA, but try to join the real world. Non Fingo Hypotheses, Isaac Newton.
You two keep on about this as if you know you are right; just like any other religious nut job. But there is nothing here I recognise in science. Maybe you should provide some evidence?
FYI. Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibnitz, it was not available to “ancient cultures”.
You’re making up definitions for science again; christ I thought we had seen the last of you people in the mid 2000s
No, they put out work explaining it in detail for Europeans at the right place at the right time. A lot of Newton’s math was wrong too and didn’t get corrected for like half a century I think.
Isn’t it fun to watch a religious fanatic rudely spew and rant about how any else is just religious despite him knowing the only real truth. … as if he “knows he is right”.
Newton didn’t publish work on it until 1687, 17 years after Wallis, Barrow, and Gregory had done the conceptual theorems in modern language.
Sometimes you just have to ignore religious fanatics, especially the kind who claim to not be religious yet can’t explain why they know what they think they “know”.
Depends on how you define calculus.
It only means “stones” or counting with stones in a literal sense.
Modern calculus has a formal meaning which describes a mathematical method which I doubt you are able to understand.
The formal calculus, as defined by Maths today was developed simultaneously by Newton and Leibniz, though the notation is Leibniz’s
But congratulations for managing to avoid the thread, and following your duty to support you stupid claim about science.
A claim which is noting more that bluster and polemic, WITH NO SUBSTANCE, and nothing cited to back it up.
For some reasons, many young minds, who like to call themselves intellectualls, do not use their intellect much when it comes to the relation of science and religion.
They are under this false impression that whatever science has been acheived, is on its own and only in last 2 centuries. Perhaps the rapid progress of the science in the last century is the reason of that. But, they fail to understand this simple fact that noting happens overnight. Concepts take far more time to evolve than we think.
Modern science used all that gathered knowledge of the east and west, which the duo accumulated slowly during the last 5000 years. And, most part of it came through religious scholars and persons, not from any aliens. Contrary to the present general perception, no religion ever denied scientific study and methodology. On the contrary, they helped and encouraged, because they used to see it as their part and parcel.
If one withdraws all that from the science, which is because of religions, there would be no science either, as we understand it today.
But, people are in so hurry and impatient today, that they just refuse to look into the matter, which is open there to everyone, who is interested. They come to philosophy with the prejudice that nothing in the wrold is worst than religions. This is only premise they start with and the whole of their perception is build on this wrong footing. furthermore, they never try to crosscheck it. They tend to think that merely by having some swim on the suface of the ocean, they can know all what is lying there at the bottom of it.
Perhaps, the fear of losing their intellectual identity is the main reason of that. Because, they have nothing except this illusion.
Educate your self and look it up.
A gall stone is often called a 'calculus" too.
If you were half as smart as you would like to think you are, and twice as smart as you are you might be a worthy opponent.
But until you actually stop ranting, and flag waving the Islamicist, then offer some evidence you might as well be whistling Dickie.
There is nothing here to argue against, and every reason to dismiss the absurdity of your exaggerated claims.
Right now all you have done is sucked up to this sort of BS youtube.com/watch?v=HONF5YsqdUs
And if you are fooled by that, then there is no hope for you.
