It's just your perception.
This year is scheduled for Christian vs Atheist discussions,
but last year was devoted to Scientologists vs Wiccans.
I think next year will be Hassidic Jews vs Flying Saucer Cults.
Why so many Atheist VS. Christian discussions here?
by mindmelda 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mindmelda
My problem is I have also seen science be Wrong and fail to use logic too and also, you can't forget that it's subject to human limitation.
From the Wall Street Journal, reviewing a book called "Wrong, Why the Experts Fail Us" by Daniel H. Freedman:
"We, are, as Mr. Freedman puts it. living in an age of 'punctuated wrongness', usually misled, occasionally enlightened. His goal is a broad account of this phenomenon, and how it takes shape in specific problems in measurement, how it spreads through the general idiocy of crowds, and how we might identify and avoid it. Bravo! Mr. Freedman turns to the right kind of experts to articulate general principles-biostatisticians, for example who can see deeper into how statistics than the average scientists in how data are gathered, analyzed and SCREWED UP. What makes "Wrong" so right- it being as good as any account of the general frailty of what we take as expert knowledge-is that it raises the right questions."
Also, "'Wrong' makes a powerful argument for the prevalance of scientific ineptitude."
The problem with science is two big ones..one is just like religion, it's mainly profit motivated. Oh mercy me, scientists are not doing what they're doing for the altruistic good of the human race. They do what they do to make MONEY. The other one is just like religion too...instead of looking for truth in dark corners, exploring the unexplored, it's easier to look where others already have, even if its a stupid place to look. It's like the drunk who was looking for his car keys under the lightpost instead of down the street in the dark where he lost them!
I like science as well as anyone, hell, I'm fascinated with it. But, I don't worship at it's altar nor make it a substitute for religion as my hope for the salvation of mankind. It's not a religion and shouldn't be treated as such. A guy in a white coat and a pocket protector is not a secular priest who hands out scientific miracles instead of supernatural ones.
Science is WRONG sometimes. It's got to be as subject to scrutiny and skepticism as religion is, or you're only applying that very useful trait to what disappointed you, and not even-handedly. You're not a dispassionate skeptic, you're just pissed off at religion for being illogical and unprovable when someone told you it was.
The whole point is Think for yourself, regardless of what it is. Religion, philosophy, science, whatever it is. Don't invest whole hog in it because it's presented to you in a neat box that says, Here, this will fix all your problems.
-
Nathan Natas
Please list some examples of where science has been wrong, Mindmelda.
Cofty is absolutely correct: religion has produced NOTHING of value during the thousands of years it has been in use.
By the way, do you have a GIGANTIC collection of shoes, Mindmelda? Is your last name Marcos?
-
jaguarbass
Please list some examples of where science has been wrong,
George Washington. Science had him bled to death.
It wasnt religion that killed him.
-
Nathan Natas
..and who today practices bleeding? NO ONE.
Science is capable of making progress.
Religion says the "light is getting brighter" and comes up with an ever-more-fantastic fairy tale. That isn't progress, it's LYING.
-
blondie
http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes.html
TOP TEN SCIENCE MISTAKES
1: The Circulatory System
You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is...but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.
Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is).
How could they be so wrong? It gets worse.
Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long?
It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea.
------
-
mindmelda
Medical science comes up with drugs that kill thousands every year with side effects without really effectively treating the disease. The diabetic drug Avandia is a good example it gave thousands serious heart disease and caused death. It was taken off the market, but the underlying problem was lack of long term study. The acne drug Acutane was not given long term studies and has now been proved to cause irreparable harm to the colon.
At the time they were given to people in complete faith that it would solve their medical issues.
The drug Phenfen gave thousands of people heart valve defects when it was released without long term evaluation for weight loss.
The problem is not science in and of itself or scientific method, that is not what my post was about. It's about the supposition that anything presented by a scientist or said by one, or invented by one is truthful or beneficial. Scientific method fails when not used properly and it is not used properly a SHOCKING lot of the time.
Scientific principles can be enlarged upon and our understanding of the universe will change, making previous suppositions wrong. There's nothing wrong with that unless you're still believing that heavier than air flight is impossible like a lot of totally reputable 19th century scientists, using their best information and thinking at the time, reasoned. Some of them did right up until the Wright brothers proved them wrong and they had seen birds fly their whole lives!
To say science is always truth is somewhat bad terminology. What is more accurate is to say that scientific method, properly applied a good way to try to find truth, and there's not a thing wrong with that, of course.
But, science fails to convince me there is no god, because I simply don't see enough evidence of non-existence. Of course, my concept of god has changed a lot since I was a Witness.
I think of terms of universal energies, now, not mean old narcissistic Bronze age warrior gods, issuing barbaric laws in a high handed fashion and killing people for not groveling enough. I don't know how appropriate it is to personalize them, but I think they are there.
I do believe in the supernatural. Why? Because I think it's just what some people call "quantum energy" now if they're scientists. Once I read about quantum physics, it made sense to me that this is what people have always called the nether realms, other dimensions of existence and it interacts with our dimension in some really interesting ways.
-
misanthropic
"It's just your perception.
This year is scheduled for Christian vs Atheist discussions,
but last year was devoted to Scientologists vs Wiccans.
I think next year will be Hassidic Jews vs Flying Saucer Cults."
LOL
-
Qcmbr
Your attempt to inflate science to a worldview is a mistake. Science is not a worldview it is a set of disciplines. The scientific method is unparalleled in human endeavour and is a very recent process. Peer review, rigorous control and factual evidence are all things that combined have produced the most incredible explosion of knowledge. This knowledge has saved countless lives, has freed many of us from the constant fear of hunger and has increased life expectancy. Please do not talk out of your backside about scientific mistakes unless you are willing to go and live a pre 16th centuary lifestyle. Progress requires mistakes but that does not invalidate the astounding successes. If you live to the average age there is a high likelihood that you owe 40 years to scientific discoveries. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Religion , on the other hand, provides little beyond social interaction and a tax on the gullible.
-
tec
I don't think acknowledging that scientific mistakes are made can be compared to biting the hand that feeds you. Its not like science is going to have its feelings hurt, and in fact one SHOULD acknowledge the mistakes made and the possibility of others being made... in order to progress and lessen the likelihood for those mistakes to be repeated.
There is no conflict between science and faith (not religion) though; not in my opinion. There can, however, be a conflict between our current scientific understanding and faith.
Tammy