Science and Truth (page 2)

Terry

The difference between the method which Science uses and everything else is that it depends on constant testing in order to discover the flaw, weakness and error content.

Religion comes from Authority and questioning the basis of it is called Heresy. So, no tests allowed and faith has to swallow seeming contradiction and put on a happy face.

Metaphysics and Mysticism unplug phenonmena from their definitions which allows practicioners to disconnect the rational process. The result is imagination run riot.

After all is said and done, Science deals with the PRACTICAL. Medicine, Astronomy, Technology, Chemistry, etc. impact our lives in a real way. What makes your life easy enough to have free time to diddle here on JWD is the result of science.

Truth is a very nasty concept because it has been so abused. It is like a dog that has been mistreated. It looks sweet until you get up close and it bears its fangs. Watch out! It can bite you.

People want what they want to be true. When Science doesn't give it to them they turn elsewhere.

Asheron

Well said Terry

james_woods

It might be interesting to remember that practically the C. T. Russell of science at the turn of the 20th century was the famous Lord Kelvin.

Kelvin believed that the sun was powered by the heat caused by it's own gravitational collapse, and that by calculations of the duration of that heat - the age of the sun appeared to be only about 20 million years. Geologists were in sharp disagreement, the earth had to be much much older to explain the various rock formations and other features.

Ernest Rutherford came upon this scene in 1903 with a new theory - the sun was really powered by the newly discovered radioactivity, and therefore would be much older, matching very nicely with the geological evidence. About the same time, the young Albert Einstein was busy setting Newtonian gravitation and physics on its ear with relativity.

Science quickly corrected itself and got down to business - new discoveries (true discoveries) rapidly followed.

At the same time, C. T. Russell was still teaching the pyramids, selling the miracle wheat, and his followers are still hanging on to his failed 1914 date.

The differences are obvious.

LockedChaos

OK

Time to fess up

The Quote stated

is from a work of fiction "Otherland"

It deals with a future time Internet

It is simply a statment made by

one of the main characters and

actually has no real life context

outside the bounds of a work of fiction

There have been some interesting comments

made though.

Just goes to show, even a simple

assembly of words can create a variety

of emotions and thoughts

Yea, I know I can be an As*h*le - <grin>

Why should John Doe have all the fun

Carmel

As science has been distorted and perhaps discredited, so too has religion. Once again, sweeping statements about "religion" as if all religion is identical is as inaccurate as mistatements about the goal and processes of science. Naughty, naughty Terry! carmel

Caedes

As science has been distorted and perhaps discredited

Oh, really? Care to back up that statement?

VM44

The 19th century scientist Lord Kelvin said once that:

I often say when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.

The 18th century philosopher David Hume wrote:

If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics (works on religion and philosophy) let us ask this question, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion.

And my favorite quote about science is this one:

True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.
Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) Spanish writer and philosopher.

Anony-Mouse

Science makes sense to me.

All but the big bang....I understand the "evidence" of the big bang, but not how it could be possible. Not saying that the big bang isn't true, but there's just not enough evidence for me. That'll take more discoveries that hopefully I'll be alive to see.

Science can find truth. Religion helps you find what you can't see. Whether THAT is truth, is for you to decide.

james_woods

Stilla wrote -

Heisenberg, Planck, Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli should all be consulted first as should research into the Higgs Boson.
I also loved the story behind the discovery of the neutrino (to be more precise it was the anti-neutrino) in neutron decay. Science at its wondrous best.

This (science literature) was for me, one of the most important support mechanisms to get clear of the Borg way back in the 80s - no internet support groups back then!

I also greatly enjoyed reading Douglas Hofstadter (Godel, Escher, Bach) - and there is a great book on The Search for the W and Z by Carlo Rubbia, who was director at CERN when these weak decay particles were discovered there in the 1980s.

Also Murray Gell-Mann, and of course Richard Feynmen did books of their own - Feynman's several books were classics.

Science and Truth

Share this