Science is open to falsification; religion is not.
Science also hides certain truths to prevent taking the heat that religion has taken. Which makes it open to falsification; especially when people accept answers from it as blindly as others accept answers from religion. Different labels assigned to different things to breed confusion and distract people so that control and power could be taken by a set group while humanity searched in circles for the answers it lost. Certainly you could say the same of religion at that point if Science had made its mistakes before religion had instead of vice versa.
NO.
Actually, religions are far more open to falsifation than science.
with love,
sanjay
[size=125]James S Saint:[/size]
I don’t want to be insulting but you truly sound as if your ideas came straight from out of some lunatic asylum:
monad wrote: If a volt had to be metaphysically defined as compared to simply not being understood what caused it we still wouldn’t know what it is.
And people like yourself and also scientists do not.
It takes a metaphysicist, much like myself, to actually understand what it is.
…so what prevents you from submitting your metaphysics to a science journal for the correct explanation of what “Volt” means or is that too deep for mere scientists to understand?
monad wrote: Philosophy “no-longer” decides anything relating to science. Though it may have created it, philosophy can no longer expound it.
I have found that such isn’t true with the exception that “science” has become a egocentric religion now, and thus doesn’t allow anything that embarrasses it. Science is in desperate need for philosophical update by a real metaphysicist rather than their amateur pseudo-science fantasizers (such as Higgs or Feynman).
…this must be one of the greatest highlights of hubris, stupidity and willful ignorance I ever encountered. There are no words to describe this statement!! It deserves an entry in a book called Non Campus Mentis:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/578176/posts
monad wrote: The kids, the grand kids and the great great grand kids moved on to become more genetically remote defined by their own specific objectives. As once with religion when priests were the intermediaries to God so with philosophy when method, the scientific kind, came into being the core principle of which is if you really want to understand something you have to yield to it and NOT to your preconceptions which philosophy then as now - though not quite to the same extent - is subject to.
Consider taking your own advice. I see you as the one exercising preconceived superficial notions.
…Yes! Thank you for this correction. I’ll definitely have to consider it coming from a great metaphysician such as yourself especially one so far in advance of those amateur pseudo-science fantasizers (such as Higgs or Feynman). I’m beginning to question the toxicity factor of philosophy on some human brains.
BTW Newton’s Laws of Gravity are NOT FLAWED. They are “perfectly” valid within operational limits meaning non cosmological distances.
I’ll have that pseudo fantasizer Richard Feynman deliver the last word in explaining one of his theories:
You can now go back and live in your Medieval metaphysical castle and allow me to live in the 21st century. What that means is I don’t want you to respond to any posts I make in the future. I don’t mind “intelligent” counter views to discuss but not the near necrotic ones you come up with…or as someone once wrote:
“It is now the age of now. This concept grinds our critical, seething minds to a halt.” No kidding Huh!
The above posting was originally directed to Arminius instead of James S Saint. I didn’t look carefully enough at the nesting for which I apologize to Arminius.
Other than that I wouldn’t change a word in that post.
Again, my apologies to Arminius.
Well equally, I don’t want to insult you either, but I can see that you have no support for your opinions, and I am not going to argue over these things with a 6-grader mentality (blind faith in the holy prophets of sciencism and techno-miracles). 
One fundamental difference is that science is constantly changing and frequently gets things wrong and has debates about opposing theories. i.e. like are there many universes? did the big bang happen? etc… Most religions do not do this, a few do like Zen Buddhism etc… Most religions though are the same now as when they were written.
Also, Science makes no claims to morality; religions do, except Zen and maybe a few others. I guess you need to specific what religion you mean. Generally speaking though, those are the two major ones.
Except that you are talking about the “Science” from 100 years ago. Today’s “science” is “Sciencism”, a religion that promotes very specific beliefs (which happen to be incorrect) and disallows anyone to prosper if they don’t first accept those beliefs (such as The Standard Model, Relativity, or Quantum Physics). You have to be one of their clergy in order to debate any topic and be heard. The “Scientific Community” is simply a spread out, obscured version of the Vatican.
What would be an example of a belief that science promotes that is incorrect?
Also, many people thought Newton was right and he was at “normal speeds”, yet as we approach the speed of light he was incorrect. So, in this respect science promoted Newton as correct although he was not but when Einstein came along they changed their opinion. They now promote Einstein as correct, is he? Most likely not as Relativity breaks down at the quantum level but I guess it is the best we have. When the next genius comes along, I highly doubt science will not update itself and that is a fundamental difference from religion.
Science carries with it the stench of unmistakability. My generation was raised in an era where science was seeking to establish a foothold against the stagnancy of religion. In the heat of that battle, Science had placed itself above religion as a prominent force of information, disregarding all that religion has and will bring to the table. In fact, for a long time, Science has distanced itself from God in large to bring us information we have needed. Certain bits of information and trains of thought are precluded as a waste of time and unscientific by default before you even become considered as a prominent figure in the science community.
Science breaks down at the same point as everything else breaks down: an inability to cross-platform and reach all audiences. This isn’t exactly one belief in general, but a mixture of varying beliefs being misrepresented by a tyrannic force that strangleholds resources.
That puts me 6 grades ahead of you but even if what you say is true that is still preferable to builiding fake castles in the air and declaring people like Feynman as no-shows while you of course know the answer.
Your constant rants against all current theories and those who made the breakthroughs meaning everyone going back over 120 years makes one suspicious that you applied for a job somewhere and they turned you down. Now you’re in vendetta mode proclaiming the whole group as if they were some sinister semi-religious brotherhood.
Stop reading Dan Brown and read some real science.
Mark,
I do not blame you for what you are saying ecause that is the general perception but i am sorry to say that it is not true.
The fact of the matter is that religions also evolved and changed continuously in the past but that process halted after the advent of science and when Europeans, Mangols and Turk started invading other countries.
But, the problem with the intellectualls is that their definition of religions starts with Judaism and ends at Christianity. And, unfortunately, these are the only two major religions, which do not evolve at all.
You rightly mentioned Zen sect of Buddhism. The same is true for Jainism and Vedanta. The most forgotten example is Sufism, which i think evolved more than any other religion in the world.
with love,
sanjay
And the fact that you constantly praise all holy prophets of Sciencism implies that you have no confidence in yourself at all and don’t even know what Science actually is. You’re a “a religious zealot”.
I can back up what I claim when it is against the worshiped. But if your only source of knowledge is whatever they told you, then you don’t belong in philosophy, rather in a church or monastery.
This may be true for religion and even philosophy to a degree but not in ANY book or articles on science I ever read. The opposite is true. Most scientists (the good ones, the real ones) admit to uncertainty and never exclude the possibility of errors in their theories. If not true the consequences are paralysis and stalemate which isn’t what’s been happening.
If a theory works based on experiment, math and its predictive power should it be ignored just because it may no longer hold at a lower level like going from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics? Newton’s laws are not wrong if circumscribed within a range which is also the case for most theories. You don’t need an ultimate reality equation to calculate local trajectories of space flight. Newton’s equations have no problem with that but go subatomic or light speed and the theory in charge is Relativity…which is also a prime candidate to be incorporated in a still lower level theory.
The question I have is If this is not the method then how does one proceed from the way it’s been done since the time of Newton? Forget the methodology and revert to metaphysics?
@Zinnat13,
Yeah Eastern relgions empahise on how to think and not what to think, I was not including those in my definition. I once heard the Dali Lama say that if science could disprove reincarnation he would no longer believe in that. That’s a real relgion.
Christiany has changed too, like female priests but the Bible has not. In this way relgion does not update itself. e.g. the Bible still says that if a child does not obey his elders then stone him to death. Luckily human consiouness has moved on since then.
Yes, because the Bible does not provide proof and most religions do not either. Keeping with Buddhism, the Buddha said that you should not believe anything that people tell you but find out for yourself. Some religions are good sources of info, depends what religion we are talking about. I don’t want to throw them all together.
I can back up what I claim when it is against the worshiped.
Pray - I can use that word since I’m a religious zealot - when, where have you done that except to your own satisfaction which metaphysics had evidently provided you a lot with. Where IS your RATIONAL denouncement of Relativity, Quantum Theory and the Standard Model instead of merely saying that it’s all bogus, a conspiracy? Anywhere??
It just so happens, and in accord with the very essence of real Science, THAT is exactly what you do. And in doing that, you RE-derive the “scientific method”, re-derive the formula, else you are merely a blindly faithful follower.
And it just so happens that such is EXACTLY what Rational Metaphysics does.
RM is Definitional Logic + Scientific Methodology + Resolution Debating.
And in that process (superior to current science’s method), mistakes in former science thoughts are revealed and 100% certainty is gained - BY THE INDIVIDUAL. Clarify and Verify each thought yourself.
Science is founded upon their motto:
Nullius in Verba
“Take no one’s word”
When you just accept that “they” have done this or that and thus said whatever, YOU are the eschatology (the corruption) of Science. Rational Metaphysics allows YOU to see WHY things are or are not true, without having to worship anyone’s word for it.
“Your own satisfaction” is the whole point in Science. It is contrary to “They told us so” (the religious stance).
Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology - Fundamentals
And;
Lorentz Transformations (Relativity)
You are welcome to contribute unless the only thing you have to say is “BUT THEY told me…” or “It says so right here in the holy book, Chaper X, verse Y…”
That is not a change but mere showcasing the change.
You are taking words out of the context.
If a father catches his 10 year old son smoking or seeing porn, he may say - I will break your leags if you ever do that again.
So, does this mean that it is the real intention of the father?
with love,
sanjay
I will let people decide for themselves:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
We’re completely at opposite ends. If I want to understand Relativity, Quantum Theory, etc I can’t make up my own rules or proceed on the premise of “Nullius in Verba”. I’m not opposed to independent thought which is indispensable especially in science but that too is based on what has already been assumed, discovered or proven. I’m not in a postition to interpret the data output by colliders,etc and neither am I in a position to self diagnose myself in case of a serious illness. The principle of “Nullius in Verba” is both valid and necessary to a point but never absolute and overriding. It wouldn’t make sense if used in that way…not to me anyways.
Instead of Affectance Ontology as a philosophic precondition “to explain literally all physical existence”, I subscribe to the methodology of first inquiring into the layers, subsets and substructures of nature because they all have different rules. Go to another lower layer and the rules change often becoming more abstract and counter intuitive. As these layers get more defined and understood the closer you come to a “Unified Theory”. You know it yourself in how Quantum Mechanics is the support structure for Classical Physics. The Parts must be discovered before the Whole can be understood. As such it is the probability of something being true based on theory and experiment which mostly sums it up for me.
What remains for me to say is I was over the top in some of my responses to you which also wasn’t necessary. Your views on science seem incredibly unreal to me and still are. However that doesn’t justify some of my retorts for which I apologize. It’s just that some things, no matter how impersonal, feels like a wasp crawling up one’s rear.