Anti-science

[hobbyguy]

By the way, if you do a little research on Komodo dragons, you will find that there is considerable controversy over the conclusion that the secretions from the glands found are actually venom. In other words, more research is required, and the "answer" may change again, as the question has not been settled.

That's part of science, and a big part, clarifying what it is we don't know. It isn't as simple as, ok here's THE answer.

The reality is that there is far more that "we" don't know than we do know, and every time knew technology comes along we get new data that often points us in a different direction.

Think about DNA research. We've come a long way, and some educated guesses have produced valuable tangible results, but the whole field is really still in it's infancy - so what we think we know today, could easily be proven incorrect tomorrow.

That's what makes science exciting, it's a journey into better knowledge.

[alexoliversen]

Here's the problem with science: It uses doubt or falsification as a tenant for understanding the world which is not useful when dealing with faith. Science is good for hard facts, but faith allows you to change the world. One sees the world as is, the sees the world as it could or will be. Thus science is only good for certain things and not very good when dealing with matters of faith and spiritual life. Of course science tests what reality is but it never clams for certain what truth is, but when you see for yourself the power of belief you will see how the world can be changed by faith.

[Fancy]

Here's the problem with science: It uses doubt or falsification as a tenant for understanding the world which is not useful when dealing with faith. Science is good for hard facts, but faith allows you to change the world. One sees the world as is, the sees the world as it could or will be. Thus science is only good for certain things and not very good when dealing with matters of faith and spiritual life. Of course science tests what reality is but it never clams for certain what truth is, but when you see for yourself the power of belief you will see how the world can be changed by faith.

I find this very confusing. If science is good for facts - how does it use doubt?

[Glacier]

Science is a method of inquiry, and has been quite useful in advancing our civilization. Today, it seems like we've seen a rise in Scientism, which is a misappropriation of science. eg. claiming to use science to answer philosphical questions.

We have seen in recent years a growing tendency to treat as “scientific” anything that scientists say or believe. The debates over stem cell research, for example, have often been described, both within the scientific community and in the mass media, as clashes between science and religion. It is true that many, but by no means all, of the most vocal defenders of embryonic stem cell research were scientists, and that many, but by no means all, of its most vocal opponents were religious. But in fact, there was little science being disputed: the central controversy was between two opposing views on a particular ethical dilemma, neither of which was inherently more scientific than the other.

[Fancy]

Thanks for that - I started reading and realized I need a clearer head. Later...

[hobbyguy]

Very interesting read. But my, what a dry writer. Finally found somebody worse than me!

Rather fits with my own general thoughts that it is the height of arrogance to think that humans can understand everything. Science is indeed useful, and the scientific method as an extension of logic is can reveal a lot, and make some sense of the world for us. But it can not make total sense of the world.

I have to think that we are limited by our need to translate things into what our limited capacities can understand. That gives a set bias to scientific inquiry. Just as those who only see the world through the lens of dollars and cents miss out on much of the diversity around them.

At best, we are lucky to get in touch with the little piece of the ultimate that we contain, let alone the totality.

[I Think]

From my ageing memory R Buckminster Fuller said something like

"Science quantifies that which is observable"

[maryjane48]

and because of quantum mechanics , no one person experiences the universe the same ,, even though i understand special relativity , i still have a hard time wrapping my head around what gravity really is lol .or if anything with mass reaches lightspeed it will have infinite mass lol

[hobbyguy]

Actually the concept that no person experiences the same reality (universe) has been around for a lot longer than Quantum physics. In fact I have to wonder if that philosophical discussion isn't part of the inspiration for quantum physics...

[daria]

Speaking of folks who are anti-science....