0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In a bare bones sense, I'd say that science is simply the application of the scientific method. Of course, it is stated in various different ways, but it can be more or less related as follows: identify a problem/phenomenon, propose a hypothesis to explain said problem/phenomenon, make predictions based on the hypothesis, perform experiments to test your predictions
But , the main core issue here is as follows :How can science assume that reality as a whole is material physical = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ?, while science should in fact only be concerned with the observable, empirical ...[/i]
This so urgently needed a fourth thread.
How could the scientific method even be applied to God? In principle, you might be able to detect His affects on reality (i.e. miracles), but you can't detect Him directly unless He chooses to be detected.
The amazing thing is that the definition of science given by myself, supercryptid and skylii is the one that is taught and used in schools from the age of 5 upwards. How come DQ has never heard of it, or why does he choose to ignore it in favour of some irrelevant halfbaked rant about materialism?
Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans , to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction as well by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=49470.msg423107#msg423107Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans , to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction as well by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into ?If scientists restrict themselves to using their "unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other" in order "to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable part of reality" because "the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm," then why would you expect them to generate theories or a conceptual frame work that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual work they are doing? How is a chemist just doing work in chemistry imposing on anyone else's beliefs? Actually, the view that science assumes the whole of reality is material isn't even accurate. Here is an example, brought to you by the evil materialists at Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/In this article, a psychologist and science writer, Jesse Bering, examines Ian Stevenson's claims involving children recalling past lives. He is impressed by the examples. He is also impressed by Stevenson's attempts to fact check, and discard any easily refutable claims. Bering says "This Sri Lankan case is one of Stevenson’s approximately 3000 such “past life” case reports from all over the world, and these accounts are in an entirely different kind of parapsychological ballpark than tales featuring a middle-aged divorcée in a tie-dyed tunic who claims to be the reincarnation of Pocahantas. More often than not, Stevenson could identify an actual figure that once lived based solely on the statements given by the child. Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them firsthand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means."But I doubt you will see an explosion in scientific research involving reincarnation or past lives, and not because science has been hijacked by materialism. Like investigations of ESP, conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be....." And that's where it ends. Paranormal research never seems to get beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. But if you can come up with some good experiments, Don, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen. There's no materialist, Eurocentric conspiracy to brain wash the entire world.
In short : Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .Thanks, appreciate indeed Cheers
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/11/2013 21:14:41In short : Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .Thanks, appreciate indeed CheersScience DOES restrict itself to what is testable and observable.. This is why you dont see whta others are saying as you all are saying the same thing.. Except DQ is yammering on about how science cant explain somethings.. WELL let me ask you .. what is the definition of Theology or even Psychology, these are sciences based upon the unseen, the immaterial and based upon the beliefs and reactions of their subjects.
These are the sciences that tranverse materialism, they bridge the gap between the measurable and the immeasurable.
Science will try to observe what it can, even if its non material, non physical
.. If it cant observe it, then there is no interest in looking at it, (such as existence of god) Science has never once tried to disprove the existence of any god. Science has just looked at things and found explanations for it. So say you talk about something non material, non physical such as a new religion.. if it cannot be observed even theology cannot look at it as there is nothing to look at
Science will never close its door to new forces or experiences, as the whole idea of science is to find these and explain them. And STILL it agrees that things are not fully explained.
You talk about realms and jurisdiction as if you are putting boundaries in the universe for some reason. The boundaries either already exist.. or they do not.. both ways science is needed to find them or to prove them not there.. there is nothing (and really should be nothing) inhibiting investigation. You mention telepathy a few times in previous threads.. you surely must know that the best 'so-called' telepaths in the world have explained its no so much reading the mind, as reading the person.. its all about body language and 'tells' no reading of the mind at all. This came from those who practise it, and make money from it.. any belief otherwise to me seems inherently concerning.
i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry
Quotei have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistryNothing to do with science
. Reality IS just physics and chemistry
. And since chemistry is just physics applied to molecules, and since physics is just a trivial particularisation of mathematics, reality is just applied maths. Which is why the universe behaves so predictably.
If you don't believe that the universe in general and human behaviour in particular is predictable, read DQ's next post, and compare it with any of his others. There will not be one original thought in it.
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?