0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start: Life on Earth Was Not a FlukeFiguring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planetshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke
Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia."see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous. Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?
Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter : The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological .To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2013 19:19:37Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter : The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological .To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts. Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested? Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?
Don't be silly , sis :Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ? Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .Get that ?
"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .
Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :
DQDo you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2013 21:35:49Don't be silly , sis :Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ? Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .Get that ? Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight, but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry since the 19th century at least , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line. In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/11/2013 17:46:36Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry since the 19th century at least , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .
No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?
I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either.
Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?
Quote3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line. In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff? Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof.
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
QuoteIs that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ? No.You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.