Print

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

[chaoticag]

Science is the systematic approach of finding how the natural world works through the empirical aproach. It exists in the same way that carpentry and metalworking exist.

[Neruz]

Science is the systematic approach of finding how the natural world works through the empirical aproach. It exists in the same way that carpentry and metalworking exist.

Correct, more accurately Science is the application of The Scientific Method. It is a branch of study.

[chaoticag]

So it certainly exists. It isn't just the application of the scientific method, it is explaining the natural world.

Argueing anymore than this is argueing semantics and Philosophy. Which is downright pointless.

[Ampersand]

What Neruz is saying is that science is an adjective, not a noun.

[chaoticag]

Which is kind of like saying things like "rough" and "blue" don't exist.

[Enzo]

Every time I periodically click on this thread it is worse than before.

There is no such thing as 'Science'

It exists

Correct

sigh.

[Neruz]

Sorry, what i meant was that Science as some sort of physical object or collective does not exist. When most people say 'Science' they imagine it as a thing, rather than a process. This is what leads to ridiculous concepts like Science and Religion being anathema to each other.

[G-Flex]

Science being a process of some form does not mean you can't talk about "science" as a noun. That's patently ridiculous.


I'd say that science and religion are still fundamentally distinct, though. I'm not really sure it's possible to treat religion scientifically, if you assume that "religion" implies taking things on faith.

[Neruz]

if you assume that "religion" implies taking things on faith.

Which it doesn't.

The Scientific Process is merely a means of determining the logical and reproducible truth of a given hypothesis. It's entirely possible to conduct legitimate Scientific experiments on the nature of God or Gods, and indeed there are many Religious Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to just that.

Science being a process of some form does not mean you can't talk about "science" as a noun. That's patently ridiculous.

So can i talk about Swimming as a noun too? How about Programming, is Programming a noun? Can i own a Programming? What should i do with my Programming, should i feed it code? Does it need to be taken for walks? Will it oppose my Design Processes? I like those, i wouldn't want to get rid of them just so i can have a Programming.

[Enzo]

So can i talk about Swimming as a noun too? How about Programming, is Programming a noun? Can i own a Programming? What should i do with my Programming, should i feed it code? Does it need to be taken for walks? Will it oppose my Design Processes? I like those, i wouldn't want to get rid of them just so i can have a Programming.

My first response to your "science does not exist", Neruz, was to tell you to invest in a dictionary. I didn't post it as it seemed a little abrupt. Now, though,

swim·ming
–noun
1.
the act of a person or thing that swims.
2.
the skill or technique of a person who swims.
3.
the sport of swimming

pro·gram·ming
–noun
1.
the act or process of planning or writing a program

SIGH.

[Neruz]

Thankyou for proving my point that Science is a process independent of Religious ideals.

[Enzo]

Yes, that's why I'm here, isn't it? To argue about religion.

I'm just saying, not only are you arguing about semantics, you're doing it badly.

[Neruz]

I'm trying to drag the discussion away from the people who seem to think that Atheism and Science are interchangeable.

[G-Flex]

if you assume that "religion" implies taking things on faith.

Which it doesn't.

The Scientific Process is merely a means of determining the logical and reproducible truth of a given hypothesis. It's entirely possible to conduct legitimate Scientific experiments on the nature of God or Gods, and indeed there are many Religious Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to just that.

Okay, I think the problem here is that "religion" is a ridiculously broad term.

I don't think anyone would say that belief in a god is a necessary part of religion, though, and if you want to say that anything involving a "god" is inherently religious, then you have to identify which parts of godliness/divinity themselves make it religious. I'd say that this is the "supernatural" part that makes it so, and if you're performing science, you're not thinking supernaturally, as the very concept of something being supernatural implies that it lies outside the bounds of normal physical systems and laws; if I can observe something, perform reproducible tests on it, and interact with it in a manner that is consistent and allows me to draw empirical theories regarding it, then it's hardly supernatural anymore, is it? It's just another part of the universe like all the rest.

So can i talk about Swimming as a noun too? How about Programming, is Programming a noun? Can i own a Programming? What should i do with my Programming, should i feed it code?

I can't understand how someone can make such a confused statement.

Yes, you can talk about swimming, or programming. They are nouns. This is how language works. You know they're nouns.

"Noun" does not mean "physical object". Also, you're using mass nouns as countable nouns in your example.

[Starver]

Atheist, A-Theist. Anti-Theist. That is what the word means. "Anti-Theist".

Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods." Atheism is "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods."

If you do not believe that there is a god or gods. You are an Atheist.

There's ten pages passed since this message arrived.  But as I'd previously outlined my own viewpoint on this and it apparently didn't register, let me repeat:

"(No god) believer" or "No (god believer)" are both "atheism".  You can qualify these as "hard" or "soft" varieties (or strong/weak or whatever) but there are disbelieving atheists and non-believing atheists.  And I get a little annoyed (one of the few things, apart from apostrophe misuse, that gets me annoyed on-line) when someone like me (a non-believer, by that measure) gets conflated with the others.  Not that I have anything against them (less so for the irrationally disbelieving than for the irrationally believing, and I don't really have a problem with believers either) but there really is a distinction.  (Or, rather, a continuum that passes through a zero-point that is soft-atheism.)

YMMV, in how you understand it and internally reference it, but I'd be willing to argue my case so you can at least see why I understand it my way.  That is all.

[edited to fix quoting and some grammar - plus I'm glad my knee-jerk response hasn't interrupted the current flow as I later feared it might...]