Print

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

[Dwarf]

Breatharian Institute of America
Yes, that's right. They charge you one million bucks to live on air.

[Jackrabbit]

I like these people. They're utter morons, certainly, but my God do they have balls.

[eerr]

Why must people rely on religion more than science!@

[Luke_Prowler]

Why must people rely on religion more than science!@

It called the perfect solution fallacy. science does not have all the answer, therefore it is wrong

[Siquo]

Nah, even science knows that a theory that covers more is better than a theory that covers less. (newton vs einstein for example). So a belief that has more answers is better than one with less. Science, by definition, has a very limited subset of answers to possible questions, which makes it a rather limited and (IMHO) degenerate form of belief.

[Cheeetar]

Nah, even science knows that a theory that covers more is better than a theory that covers less. (newton vs einstein for example). So a belief that has more answers is better than one with less. Science, by definition, has a very limited subset of answers to possible questions, which makes it a rather limited and (IMHO) degenerate form of belief.

Wait, what?

[MrWiggles]

How can science be a belief? oO

It cant answer any value judgment, only offer information on them.

[Dwarf]

Nah, even science knows that a theory that covers more is better than a theory that covers less. (newton vs einstein for example). So a belief that has more answers is better than one with less. Science, by definition, has a very limited subset of answers to possible questions, which makes it a rather limited and (IMHO) degenerate form of belief.

It's not a belief.

Are you a conservative christian creationist?

[Siquo]

Many people "believe" in science as having the only "true" answers to the world around us.
They are often not versed in philosophy and the basics that define "science", or they wouldn't.

I am not a creationist. It is, however, very much possible that an all-powerful being created the whole universe 10 seconds ago, with everything in it, including you and all your memories. Science cannot prove or disprove that. Therefore it is not science. People who believe that the previous hypothesis is nonsense and false because it is scientifically unproveable are people who believe in science.

Definition time: Even nihilists and relativists believe in something. Belief is your whole frame of reference of what is "true". With that definition of "belief", science can be a belief.


Edit: There is nothing wrong with believing in science, or with any belief, I just found it inadequate to my personal needs.

[MrWiggles]

Many people "believe" in science as having the only "true" answers to the world around us.
They are often not versed in philosophy and the basics that define "science", or they wouldn't.

I am not a creationist. It is, however, very much possible that an all-powerful being created the whole universe 10 seconds ago, with everything in it, including you and all your memories. Science cannot prove or disprove that. Therefore it is not science. People who believe that the previous hypothesis is nonsense and false because it is scientifically unproveable are people who believe in science.

Definition time: Even nihilists and relativists believe in something. Belief is your whole frame of reference of what is "true". With that definition of "belief", science can be a belief.


Edit: There is nothing wrong with believing in science, or with any belief, I just found it inadequate to my personal needs.

I disagree, beliefs can be wrong both factually and morally. In this thread, Breatharianism is a wrong belief, because its factually absurd.

Second, determining the plausibility of a hypotheses based on whats currently known is science and not a belief but it is being open minded.

[Siquo]

Your definition of "factual", and "moral" is not shared by everyone else in the world.

Your "facts" and "morals" are determined by your "belief". The existence of God is a fact for a christian, for instance. Thinking your "facts" are better than their "facts" makes you closed-minded, not open minded.

Determining the plausibility of a hypothesis based on what is currently known is philosophy, not science specific.
To name another subset of philosophy, in theology they also test hypotheses based on what is known, but the procedures, dogmas and axioms are different.

[MrWiggles]

Your definition of "factual", and "moral" is not shared by everyone else in the world.

Your "facts" and "morals" are determined by your "belief". The existence of God is a fact for a christian, for instance. Thinking your "facts" are better than their "facts" makes you closed-minded, not open minded.

Determining the plausibility of a hypothesis based on what is currently known is philosophy, not science specific.
To name another subset of philosophy, in theology they also test hypotheses based on what is known, but the procedures, dogmas and axioms are different.

No, facts cannot be changed based on one belief. One can believe in none factual things. No matter a person belief, a proton will always be composed of three quarks. Belief does not trump Empiricism. Please note that I use it in the context of scientific inquiry.

Morals can have subsets of additional values that arise from cultural backing and belief but there is a core morality of human spieces as sociology is discovering, that crosses ages, race, and country cultural barriers. Thusly, moral can be used as a finite word.

Believing in something hard enough does not turn something into a fact. It can be acted on as if it is a fact. This is a key subtle difference.

No, determining plausibility is a wholly mathematical process and as such not philosophical. Therefore it is a tool that can be used by science, my original premise was misstated, excuse me.

In theology, the procedures are baseless and lack rigor for authentication of its conclusion, its a poor analogy.

[Siquo]

You should study the history of science, it didn't fall out of thin air. It's a subset of philosophy, as is theology (which is a lot older). Theology is indeed baseless when viewed from a scientific viewpoint, but so is science viewed from a theological viewpoint.

You still use "fact" from the science-belief paradigm. You believe a proton is composed of three quarks. Science itself does not even believe that. It's the current most plausible theory, which can be altered by new observations at any time. So the "fact" as defined by science is pretty variable.

Not accepting that your definition of fact is exactly that: your definition of fact, makes you rather closed-minded. It's understandable, I've been there for a long time as well, but defining your reality as the only true one is usually viewed as "zealous".

[JoshuaFH]

Yay semantics!

[Earthquake Damage]

To name another subset of philosophy, in theology they also test hypotheses based on what is known, but the procedures, dogmas and axioms are different.

No, they don't.  They conjecture and reason but they never test, largely because they make untestable claims.  This is precisely why the scientific community finds religion largely incredible (hence the prevalence of atheism among scientists).