I dont see what your issue with science is?
My issue isn't with Science, it's with the false claim that it's the "best" way to get to the truth. Why not just call science the "truth"? From where I stand, there are "sciences" and then there is "Science." What I see is a push for the sciences to go away and be replaced with Science, which is a mistake, imo, one that will cost humanity a lot of precious time. For example astrology is a science that took thousands of years to catalog, but Science now rejects it. Heavyweights such as Dawkins are on the assault.
It's role is to determine what is probable in the observable and it does it perfectly well.
Like I said, what is probable/improbable cannot be ascertained. What you are claiming is a constant is not a constant.
The only thing I can thi k, is,that you are trying to say science is flawed?
No, I think that Science lacks the ability to discover certain truths and the community doesn't seem to accept this. Truths like God and the Spirit Realm for instance. Science cannot detect numerology and astrology so it's forced to explain it as some sort of trick humans play on themselves. I believe more people need to accept the limitations of Science and leave spiritual people to their devices. A little respect goes a long way.
But we know it works, that is why we use it, by saying ....well maybe it COULD be better offers nothing and ignores that it works, it doesn't make it flawed.
I don't think Science "could be better" I think it has design specifications/limitations. By claiming that because God/Numerology/Astrology/Spirit isn't empirically demonstrable therefore He/they doesn't/don't exist is going outside of the design of the scientific method. I wish people would be more humble and accept that the natural world is not the end of existence. You keep saying "it works" over and over, I have never claimed otherwise. I know it works, and I am happy to have it. But it doesn't do diddly from a spiritual perspective. It's a tinker toy compared to what is actually out there.
We are the weakest link in science and we can't remove ourselves from the universe. So this is all nothing more than verbal masturbation.
This statement reminds me of Christian's saying all humans are sinners. Science tells us that we are our own worst enemy and that we should not "trust our hearts." This dampens the true potential of anyone who accepts it and weakens the core of humanity. Without belief, there is no lifeforce, even in Science.
unless you have a better method and more reliable method for observing the universe....what is the point you are trying to make?
There is that either or fallacy again. I am not suggesting anything that supercedes science, but something that fills the holes that Science leaves behind. There is the finite reality, which Science catalogs, and the infinite reality which the human mind, body and spirit interacts with. Science cannot teach us about the spiritual just as religion cannot teach us about the physical.
You want to talk about the unobservable, that is ok but that is changing the topic....that is not science that is faith, that is hope in things not observed, that is religion or supernatural belief, having NEVER observed it, this is not a topic I am qualified to discuss. As for science, it is limited to the observable as we are too, as you said. So again I am unsure why you bring ut up, however it is a good reminder why science does not cross over into the realm of the supernatural as science is limited to what we can observe.
When we "observe" the supernatural we call that revelation.
As for your issue with humans, yes...we are human, we only have our senses and the knowledge we have collected so far including such specialties as mathematics. Again, nothing we can do about that. If you have s suggestion better than science for observing the universe, then promote it. To say simply 'maybe there is a better way' offers nothing and ignores the fact that again.....science works just fine!
Your point about mathmatics is a little bizzare, maths works, that why we use it. But ignoring sll that saying we may have better means of empirical measurment than mathematics in the future but not yet discovered, well fine, but again that is of no use to us now and again....science DOES work fine so it is kimd of irrelevant.
It's fascinating for me to see you unable to get out of the either/or fallacy. It's very similar to talking with a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. They operate on the false notion that if their organization is not the truth, that another organization must be. It's like you are saying, "Who else shall we go to?" But I am not suggesting that we go to anyone else. I am not suggesting that science be shelved for something superior. I am simply saying that many paths to truth exist side by side and Science is but one of those paths. It appears to me that you are making the false claim that Science IS truth, or THE truth, which is very reminiscent of my previous overlords.
For the observable, science works, it is the best thing we have. Asking someone about science then looking for flaws in all the parts in it that may have flaws is not offering the world anything new. The world has already worked forward and worked through those flaws to reach the scientific method we currently use. Plus you are looking at it back to front, you are using your flawed human mind, logic and senses to question empirical mathmatics and science. The empirical data will always be more reliable than us.
When I read that paragraph I couldn't help but hear, "We are sinners (bias), we need to repent and humble ourselves before the data." I am not saying that I am an authority on observed truth, I am saying that my brain has the capability to observe reality in a mysterious way and that I shouldn't "count myself out" by default.
We understand such human interactions fully, i dont know what you think we are missing or is left a mystery?
The reason I used the example of racial prejudice was because it's something that humans had to transcend as a species. That process is NOT fully explained through the sciences of physiology and evolution. Your description lacked a very key element which is the spiritual, which you simply ignore. You cannot "caluclate" it as you attempted to do. You can break down the physiology of the experience, but you cannot fully explain it. You left a lot out and then called it good. This is the problem that I am bringing to the forefront of the conversation.
From a Darwinian perspective, submitting to a brutal authority is an act of survival. Why then do we have people like Rosa Parks? Why do we have people who give their lives for causes? How does that happen? Why does that happen? If you try to "calculate" it, you will come up short. That's because what happened was beyond a math equation and ventures into the spiritual. There is an incredible amount of mystery in human interactions and I find it surprising to hear you say otherwise. I submit that you may have a fear of mystery.
How bizzare?! The people you see worship the 5 stages of observation, were they clinically unwell?
Yes, I would say that they are clinically unwell. Their dysfunction is probably connected to past trauma which kept them in a powerless situation. The scientific method presents itself as a powerful tool which can satiate a need for power. It's not a healty coping mechanism, however. Trauma is a spiritual disease which means it's going to be tricky to cure.
So after this long discussion your point is that science if for the observable and not the unobservable. Well i knew that yesterday and if you are saying you knew that yesterday, why were you asking me about the scientific method at all? Seems like a waste of time.
Like I said, the unobservable is sometimes observed and we call this revelation. Religion/Spirituality is a way of collecting that data and furthering it. Science doesn't want anything to do with it because it goes well beyond it's design specifications.
i assume you feel you have experienced miracles and supernatural events, or are you tsking the word of others that say they have? Been as I havent experienced them and choose not to take the word of other on the matter AND been as science cannot offer any help to us with it, I naturally have no reason at all to believe in it. it is not testsble, repeatable, observable and so it is just the testimony of the person claiming to have done something that breaks all the rules of nature something science says is impossible. Of course i habe no reason to believe in it, so I can't.
Isn't it interesting that people who believe in the supernatural have supernatural experiences and people who don't, don't? Isn't it interesting that both sides will argue that their experiences, or lack of experiences, represent reality? This is because of the power of the human mind and shows just how much free will we actually have. God designed us not to be the way he wanted, but the way we wanted. Because we are made in HIS image and he has free will.
When I was a Jehovah's Witness I had "demon experiences" which is very common for them. This is because they believe in them. Does that make demons real? For Jehovah's Witnesses yes, they choose that reality. They choose to live in a world where they are hunted by dark spirit forces. It's what gets them off. Yet, the second you stop believing in them, they seem to vanish. Isn't that fascinating? We literally create our own reality.
For example you seem to wish to live in a world where human cooperation gives rise to understanding the natural world. And that's exactly what you get. You seem to want to work really hard, and then get satisfying results that improve the conditions for everybody.
I want to live in a world where faeries and dragons exist. The question is how does my world reconcile with yours? How do we both create our own reality AND exist within the same time and space? The truth is that we all have wishful thinking and, in a very mysterious way, our wishes come true. But, we live in an existence where our wishes are allowed to conflict which means there has to be some sort of middle ground. Some sort of compromise.
I have no idea why you just had that conversation with me
I had this converstaion with you because it's fun for me. I highly respect you and what you have to say. I am just a hobbyist.
