Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jusal]

quote:Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Garbage. Science is based on skepticism, religion on faith. They're opposites.</STRONG>

If science was entirely based on skepticism how would we know anything besides "I think, therefore I am" (sorry for the cliche)? Faith is needed in science as well.

Or did I just understand your claim wrong?

[Earthquake Damage]

quote:Originally posted by Wiles:
<STRONG>Whenever a scientist tries to rock the boat of science, others are eager to knock him off to protect their sacred and canonical theories.</STRONG>

In general, when you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up.  If your claim opposes a widely accepted one (note that widely accepted typically implies substantial supporting evidence), you'd better have mountains of support.

 

quote:Originally posted by Jusal:
<STRONG>If science was entirely based on skepticism how would we know anything besides "I think, therefore I am" (sorry for the cliche)? Faith is needed in science as well.</STRONG>

Faith-based supporting evidence often relies on testimonials and assorted logical fallacies.  Then there are claims, however fantastic, that cannot be proven true or false (consider the "brain in a vat" scenario).

[ February 20, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]

Yes, that was something of a non sequitur.  I simply quote you because that's what got me on that train of thought.

[ February 20, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]

[LOLKILLZ]

quote: If science was entirely based on skepticism how would we know anything besides "I think, therefore I am" (sorry for the cliche)? Faith is needed in science as well.

You bring up a good point, and the fact is, there are no facts in science. To say that the Earth is round is not a fact, there is no definitive proof, but it is widely accepted due to overwhelming evidence.

[Cajoes]

quote:Originally posted by LOLKILLZ:
<STRONG>

You bring up a good point, and the fact is, there are no facts in science. To say that the Earth is round is not a fact, there is no definitive proof, but it is widely accepted due to overwhelming evidence.</STRONG>

That is quite possibly the silliest statement I have heard all year. Have a plump helmet cookie.

[LOLKILLZ]

Silly or not, it's true. There is no such thing as scientific truth.

[Helmaroc]

If you were to fly into space on a shuttle, you could see around the earth that it is round. There. Proof.

[Impending Doom]

True. But certain, less reasonable individuals could assert "how do we know they aren't lying?" or "How do you know? Have you been in space?" There's always going to be somebody that just cannot be convinced, and even waving the proof right in front of their noses won't sway them.

[Helmaroc]

Yes, I'm afraid you're right.

[Cajoes]

Fine, if you can take my statement, find the edge of the world and cast it into the void. I will accept that the whole "earth is round" nonsense may not be such solid fact.

[LOLKILLZ]

I'm not saying that the Earth is flat, but it could genuinely be argued.

[Cajoes]

The sad part is that it IS being argued...

[Cthulhu]

That does seem odd, but maybe it's part of something else, maybe, like Grue said with Scientology, they're trying to prove a point.

Or maybe they're stupid.

The thing is though, LOLKILLZ is right, nothing is impossible, and nothing is true, and nothing can be until we can definitively prove that what we perceive as reality really is.

[Red Jackard]

....

What the hell happened to this thread?

[Jusal]

The spinning +Science-Religion Debate+ strikes the thread in the second page! It is battered!

[Earthquake Damage]

quote:Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>until we can definitively prove that what we perceive as reality really is.</STRONG>

Of course what we perceive as reality "really is."  It's how we define reality.  You can't prove it, nor can you disprove it.  It's a definition.