Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Also i'd like to appologize for ruining this thread with this diversion.
Hey, I want to play this game too!
quote:
science IS fairytales unless you know what you're talking about.
quote:
idiot
Hey, hey, hey... let's not be so harsh on the heretic, shall we? ;)
Unless properly understood, science is fairy tales, and there's nothing wrong with it: Fairy tales serve the purpose of explaining the world, and science does a marvellous job at that. Science is able to explain loads of things no other human enterprise ever even intended to know, no one here is disputing that. But, science is not the report of scientists - it's their practice. If you take what they say at face value, you're much better off than following a priest most of the time, but that does not make you smarter than a religious believer. You're believing what you're told, pure and simple.
quote:
Science is based on empirical proof. You're saying it's fine to skip the proof!
quote:
why do you have to reinvent the wheel when its already made?
Because that's exactly what scientists need to do to understand how their predecessors got where we are now. Why do you think undergraduates do basic experiments in their own fields? These experiments have been done hundreds of times before, why do they bother? Because science is based on facts, not on hearsay: It's getting out there in the world and messing up with it that gives you knowledge. It's reading about the hypotheses and playing with them that give you the necessary insight to grasp whatever theory you're interested in.
Do you really think I just pick up a book on linguistics and take everything as facts because other people made some experiments? Well, screw them, I want to have some of the fun myself!
quote:
sorry, but saying you believe in evolution is exactly the same as saying the world was built in 7 days unless you know what you're talking about.
quote:
ok.. you keep thinking its the same thing trot along now
Yeah, dismiss him. Darwinism is sacred, how can he lump it together with these puny beliefs barbarians hold?
quote:
since you like bagging religion, you should realise that yu're sounding extremely similar to a religious nut... i'm not defending religion at all, but at least everybody knows most of them are full of .
quote:
Right except that science has testable findings where religion does not. I gave you solid examples which you neglected and saying "oh its not the same". OF course it is. Structural engineering is based on newtons testable laws.. do you need to fully understand them to trust the integrity of the structure? Its all science.. If it wasn't science it would be classified as myth, fairytale or relgion. Semantics learn how to use it properly.
Oh, you want to play with semantics? Good, allow me to pick myth and look it up on Encyclopaedia Britannica:
quote:
Traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
[Source] - Newtonian physics is a very nifty idea that allows engineers come of with cool buildings to this day! It unfolds part of the worldview of not just engineers, but also physicians, airplane pilots, and baseball players. But, alas the world is not quite like Newton imagined - and this takes us to yet another definition of myth found in Cambridge's Advanced Learners Dictionary (which is what I think you've got in mind):
quote:
a commonly believed but false idea
[Source] - Has it come to this? Unfortunately, classical mechanics is not a very faithful portrait of what the world as we understand today is like, so it's a "false idea", but it's still a useful idea. The difference, therefore, between classical mechanics and the biblical genesis is that the former is a lot more useful if you want to act upon the world, whereas the latter probably makes people feel special about themselves or something.
I'm sorry, words and concepts are not as clear as you take them to be. By the way, before we go on, you said "If it wasn't science it would be classified as myth, fairytale or religion". Well, who is in charge of making these classifications?
quote:
"science is the way, the truth and the light! i don't have to know how it works, it just works!!! WHAT?? SHUTTUP!!"
quote:
sure it is.. if you don't like it grab your berkenstocks and toga and wait for the next messiah until the cows come home
Oh, yeah, because the world is divided between science and religion! If I don't blindly trust one, I must blindly the other, right? How naïve are Egos and I to believe people should actually bother to know more about the things they believe, do their own research and not take anything for granted, instead of relying on others for everything! I guess that makes us religious fanatics.
And I thought I was an atheist scientist ;)
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I guess that makes us religious fanatics.
And I thought I was an atheist scientist ;)
you are my hero, once again, thanks for explaining it in far clearer terms than i was able to! :)
yukii
:sadgreen:
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
:sadgreen:
Suddenly, the world isn't black and white any more, is it? ;)
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Hey, I want to play this game too!
Fair enough
quote:
Unless properly understood, science is fairy tales, and there's nothing wrong with it: Fairy tales serve the purpose of explaining the world, and science does a marvellous job at that.
Let me stop you right there and look no further. One does not need to know the introcate details of a system, science in this case, in order to trust or give it weight. As long as the definitions of the system are understood, Principles that lie within that system may be taken as affirmatives.
When we are dealing with such broad context i think it is necessary to play semantics. It is safe to say thus that religion, myth, fable etc may fall into the category of mental masturbation which hold little to know bearing of testable results and cannot be challenged as they are proclaimed to be the word of dietie and immaculate.
Science falls under the category of testable observations. Repetitiveness giving accuracy to findings and in a way shaping the ingenuity of the society we have structured up til today. It may have been religion which motivated the ancient egyptians to build the pyramids, but it was science that actually constructed them.
So in essence the ego is stimulated by mythology and gives ease to the mind and motiviation to strive for better (an afterlife of some sort with desirable substance). Where science is used as a tool for discovery and advancement.
So to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
If you wish to believe in ancient tales developed by unsophisticated methods of analysis which hold no room for modification or change and instead shoddy interpretation to have them make sense of todays world by all means. A closed system will always be closed and thus there is no room for change. Here i am talking about relgion and mythology.
For science, there is always room for change and modification, there is no real constant until something more accurate is discovered that leaves old findings simply as stepping stones for advancement in theory. One does not need to understand everything to have trust in the findings (sure it would be fun but thats not the argument here) . You can hold trust in these findings simply because the scientific community (remember how i defined the system before) agrees with it.
quote:
Science is able to explain loads of things no other human enterprise ever even intended to know, no one here is disputing that. But, science is not the report of scientists - it's their practice. If you take what they say at face value, you're much better off than following a priest most of the time, but that does not make you smarter than a religious believer. You're believing what you're told, pure and simple.
Sure but i know what i am being told has been verified by a comittee of scientists who have a more introcate knowledge of the specific subject and thus peer reviewed. Slightly different then fairy tales if you ask me.
quote:
Do you really think I just pick up a book on linguistics and take everything as facts because other people made some experiments? Well, screw them, I want to have some of the fun myself!
linguistics is a different category all together. With science your more limited to pick and choose between your theories with regards to a specific subject. For instance, there is no alternative towards evolution. sure cladistics are not constant but the general idea is a widely accepted theory (the only prominent one).
quote:
Yeah, dismiss him. Darwinism is sacred, how can he lump it together with these puny beliefs barbarians hold?
couldnt have said it better myself. And i should no better to use semantics when you're around. Clearly i am using the term myth colloquially to interpret it as a falseview on how the earth works.
Good job on that definition by the way :)
quote:
Oh, yeah, because the world is divided between science and religion! If I don't blindly trust one, I must blindly the other, right? How naïve are Egos and I to believe people should actually bother to know more about the things they believe, do their own research and not take anything for granted, instead of relying on others for everything! I guess that makes us religious fanatics.
And I thought I was an atheist scientist ;)
Trust as you must i simply prefer to trust that which has empirical basis. I will however take pascal's wager and not dismiss god altogether.
Good show lira
yukii
not exactly what i was thinking. i profoundly agree with Nrg2Nfinit, however i can see your points and both agree/disagree with some of your points...
im not religious and i don't think bashing religion is correct, but i do believe Darwin has an upper hand when placed side by side with religion, no one is calling religion a puny barbarian belief :conf: however, at least Darwin and science is based on theories that are based on FACTS.. so i can see you use of the word 'fairytale' but i don't agree it's a good way of describing what science is at all.. i could see 'fairytale' being used for religion however, the only 'proof' a religious person has is their book & blind faith.. how could an old book have leverage with science?
im a very skeptical person and i think blind faith just doesn't cut it. we can define all the words we want and tie them to beliefs and try to make a point here, but what it comes down to is pure fact and knowledge (imo) that sways my perspective. i'm open to listening to religious point of views yet they must at least be well-constructed points, not garbage:
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
however, at least Darwin and science is based on theories that are based on FACTS.. so i can see you use of the word 'fairytale' but i don't agree it's a good way of describing what science is at all.. i could see 'fairytale' being used for religion however, the only 'proof' a religious person has is their book & blind faith.. how could an old book have leverage with science?
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Unless properly understood, science is fairy tales
yukii
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
unless all of science were theory, then yes, you can call it fairytale.
religion = no proof = fairytale :)
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
unless all of science were theory, then yes, you can call it fairytale.
religion = no proof = fairytale :)
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Unless properly understood
I don't know how I can make that any clearer.
yukii
dude, you won't be able to, what is not properly understood in science ffs? maybe im ing tired & missing something. :mad:
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
dude, you won't be able to, what is not properly understood in science ffs? maybe im ing tired & missing something. :mad:
Ugh. Lira was saying that if you don't understand science yet believe in it, then you are basing your assertions on blind faith, just as with religion. Thus science would be a 'fairy tale' if you didn't understand the fundamentals behind it.
yukii
ah, i see that i am tired.
okay, i suppose i now see his point, but aren't we assuming that people who are religious know at least the basic concepts of their religion? just as i think anyone knows the basics of science? my point is, sure we can have blind faith on religion, and science.. i don't see how far the point goes other than that person him/herself for making that religion/science a 'fairytale'.. what i would find more relevant is which has hard evidence?
