Why scoff science?

[Herbot]

Truth can conceivably have three characteristics: 1.) It can be obective 2.) It can be absolute or 3.) It can deal with reality. The difficulty is that it can only feature any 2 of these characteristics simultaneously.

It can be objective and deal with reality, but then it isn't absolute. This is scientific truth.

It can be absolute and deal with reality, but then it is not objective. This is religious truth.

It can be objective and absolute, but then it does not deal with reality. This is mathematical truth.

You appear to be of the opinion that "metatphysics" feature these three characterisitcs simultaneously, which is simply an error of fact.

You're using objective in a way that has nothing to do with objectivity. Empiricism isn't objective. Mathematics and logic are objective; empirical pursuits aren't. Thus it follows that science isn't objective.

Science cannot be objective in the sense you're using the word simply because it is performed by humans who are subjective. Machines that measure things were built by humans and the data is interpreted by humans. Explain to me how science can possibly be objective when scientists aren't.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're using objective in a way that has nothing to do with objectivity. Empiricism isn't objective. Mathematics and logic are objective; empirical pursuits aren't. Thus it follows that science isn't objective.

Ridiculous. You are naturally free to use whatever idiosyncratic definition for "objective" that you like, but when you're ready to have a debate in English then come back here to talk to me.

Science cannot be objective in the sense you're using the word simply because it is performed by humans who are subjective.

Again, ridiculous. You're being disingenuous retreating to solipsism.

Machines that measure things were built by humans and the data is interpreted by humans.

But the data is independent of any particular human and speak thusly for themselves. That's what makes it objective.

Explain to me how science can possibly be objective when scientists aren't.

Because scientific hypotheses are tested independently of any particular scientist. Learn something about methodology and rigor.

Now, your turn: explain to me how "metaphysics" are objective where science allegedly is not.

 

[Herbot]

Because scientific hypotheses are tested independently of any particular scientist. Learn something about methodology and rigor.

Tested with equipment manufactured by subjective humans and the data interpreted by subjective humans.

It's not that hard, son.

 

[sandorski]

Tested with equipment manufactured by subjective humans and the data interpreted by subjective humans.

It's not that hard, son.

Fail.

 

[totalnoob]

herbot, you are full of fail. Humans may be fallible but they are perfectly capable of building machines that don't make mistakes. Machines built by scientists are capable of incredible precision when it comes to observing one particular phenomenon or another. Your computer may wear out over time but while it is working properly, it will never get the wrong answer to any equation you put in the calculator.

 

[Blackjack200]

Are you for real?

Stop going back to metaphysical questions.

 

[Blackjack200]

I hate to butt in here, but

Are you honestly saying that literature pales to science? Until you invent a "Freedom Ray" I am going to stand by the assertion that books such as 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Animal Farm have a much far reaching social impact than the sciences.

Or maybe I am taking you too far out of context?

I wouldn't argue that there aren't significant works of literature with broad social impact, or that non-scientific ideas don't have value, but they don't have the impact on the human condition that the Heber proccess or the Small Pox vaccine have.

Ideas about human rights also have a lot of value, but are always contextual. Scientific knowlege is not.

 

[Taejin]

I've been in the science industry for nearly ten years

Moving on, in a sense science does require faith. Most scientists will choose never to use that word, but the same concept exists. Effectively we have "faith" in gravity, even though we can not describe or define it very large or small sizes . . . hell according to most applications we have faith that the Earth is perfectly spherically and all experiments are done at sea level where the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s^2. My background is in gas chromatography and mass spectrometry and in a sense I have faith that given electron ionization in a stream of helium the mass to charge fragments of chlorine with be ~70% m/z 35 and ~30% m/z 37. Science tells me it should be this so I accept it, but how is that really fundamentally different from faith?

I am not sure if it is genuine religious conviction or just simple fear that drive some people to be afraid of sciencetic research, but in a sense I can see why. If you really think deeply about the vastness of the universe and the complexity of life and just how amazingly complicated things are, I can see how these thoughts would confuse many scientifically illeterate people. As alluded to above, many hard-core science people do not help the situation either. As Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke to Dr. Dawkins, and I paraphrase, "You can't call people stupid and expect them to believe in your opinion." I think that is a fair assessment and a criticism of some of the pro-scientific crowd.

In 'science' and met 'thousands of scientists' for 10 years and you say shit like this? Proves that some people will stay dumb no matter what ...

 

[sandorski]

herbot, you are full of fail. Humans may be fallible but they are perfectly capable of building machines that don't make mistakes. Machines built by scientists are capable of incredible precision when it comes to observing one particular phenomenon or another. Your computer may wear out over time but while it is working properly, it will never get the wrong answer to any equation you put in the calculator.

Somehow he thinks the mere fact that humans are flawed that everything Humans touch/do is also flawed. Somehow I think God comes into this thinking and somehow that magically isn't flawed. Despite the fact that it too is all about Humans and that no one has ever seen evidence of this God.

Thus everything he holds dear doesn't hold up to the very scrutiny he is applying to Science. I suppose I could be wrong and he doesn't have a God component to his thinking. He could, after all, just think that everything is flawed and we can never know the Truth about anything, ever, no matter how much time, energy, and verification we apply to something. If that's the case, dude may as well be an Idiot, because he lacks any worthwhile Input.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

You're using objective in a way that has nothing to do with objectivity. Empiricism isn't objective. Mathematics and logic are objective; empirical pursuits aren't. Thus it follows that science isn't objective.

Science cannot be objective in the sense you're using the word simply because it is performed by humans who are subjective. Machines that measure things were built by humans and the data is interpreted by humans. Explain to me how science can possibly be objective when scientists aren't.

Define "objective" if you honestly believe that science is not objective and metaphysics is. By the way, mathematics and logic are both human concepts. By your line of thinking, no idea, process, or thing conceived by humans can be objective, in which case you have argued yourself into oblivion because your own opinions on this matter have no value.

 

[Gibsons]

Somehow he thinks the mere fact that humans are flawed that everything Humans touch/do is also flawed. Somehow I think God comes into this thinking and somehow that magically isn't flawed. Despite the fact that it too is all about Humans and that no one has ever seen evidence of this God.

Thus everything he holds dear doesn't hold up to the very scrutiny he is applying to Science. I suppose I could be wrong and he doesn't have a God component to his thinking. He could, after all, just think that everything is flawed and we can never know the Truth about anything, ever, no matter how much time, energy, and verification we apply to something. If that's the case, dude may as well be an Idiot, because he lacks any worthwhile Input.

Philosophically, it's probably some version of Nihilism <insert Big Lebowski quote here>. It might be logically consistent, but it is useless.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You tell them Herbot. You make very good arguments!

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

You tell them Herbot. You make very good arguments!

He makes very poor arguments and is out of his depth. If I were a believer, I wouldn't want him on my side. Seems his backup plan is to claim someone is uneducated if they don't believe his line of tripe about metaphysics, a branch of philosophy which may be a precursor to science, but is full of untestable, unprovable ideas. It fits quite well with religious belief, yet offers no concrete support in reality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Tested with equipment manufactured by subjective humans and the data interpreted by subjective humans.

It's not that hard, son.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone that would not realize how irrelevant this claim is.

It is an objective fact that massive objects exert attractive forces on one another. We call this gravity.

Is it your contention that gravity is not an objective fact?

Are you a solipsist?

 

[Tristicus]

To me, there is nothing without something. Therefore, these theories are folly.

This is why I believe in a higher being that did something. He is God, not a god, God, and he sparked creation somehow.

 

[zinfamous]

my, this thread has gone on just about as expected.

full of lulz, indeed.

 

[zinfamous]

To me, there is nothing without something. Therefore, these theories are folly.

This is why I believe in a higher being that did something. He is God, not a god, God, and he sparked creation somehow.

you MUST be talking about Thor. B/c only his big badass hammer is powerful enough to create a shitload of something from nothing, right?

He's obviously the baddest god we have, right?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

To me, there is nothing without something. Therefore, these theories are folly.

This is why I believe in a higher being that did something. He is God, not a god, God, and he sparked creation somehow.

Laughable reasoning.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

To me, there is nothing without something. Therefore, these theories are folly.

I don't know of any contemporary cosmological theory which proposes any point in the history of the universe where "nothing" existed. The notion that atheists or anyone else must necessarily believe that "something came from nothing" if they do not believe that "something" was created by a diety of some sort is patently false.

Think about the phrase "the universe came from nothing" for a second. What it really proposes is that there does not exist an origin of the universe; or, restated, that the universe didn't "come from" anything. There is nothing logically inconsistent about that idea. I realize a lot of people have difficulty conceiving of a past-infinite universe, but that is not a problem with the universe. It's a problem with people's "common sense" ideas, which the universe is very good at escaping.

This is why I believe in a higher being that did something. He is God, not a god, God, and he sparked creation somehow.

You can believe in a god for whatever reasons you like, or for no reasons at all, but to believe in a god because you cannot conceive of a past-infinite universe is not a good reason, no matter which way you slice it.

 

[sandorski]

you MUST be talking about Thor. B/c only his big badass hammer is powerful enough to create a shitload of something from nothing, right?

He's obviously the baddest god we have, right?

Where's the Thor pic with the caption: Your God was nailed to a Cross, I have a hammer, any questions?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Laughable reasoning.

Why do you think your reasoning is laughable? That sounds odd.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Why do you think your reasoning is laughable? That sounds odd.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here, but as Cerpin Taxt pointed out, it makes no sense to believe in a Creator just because one can't fathom a beginning without one.

 

[caddlad]

Where's the Thor pic with the caption: Your God was nailed to a Cross, I have a hammer, any questions?

Must oblige....

 

[Jeff7]

To me, there is nothing without something. Therefore, these theories are folly.

This is why I believe in a higher being that did something. He is God, not a god, God, and he sparked creation somehow.

God casts Epic Causality Break.
Epic Causality Break gives caster +10 Logic Shield and renders caster immune to all temporal effects. History is disrupted; the caster's predecessors never existed.

 

[Tristicus]

And naysayers is what keeps me to this belief. I don't need to understand how the world was made. I need to feel comfortable feeling what I feel, and I feel fine knowing the earth was created by a being above us, God. I don't call myself a Christian, but I would damn sure before calling myself an atheist.