- #1
FinixUnion
Is Science a Man made Invention or something else? I think it's a man made invention. But I need more opinions.
What might be the alternative? We stole the idea of science from jellyfish?FinixUnion said:Is Science a Man made Invention or something else? I think it's a man made invention. But I need more opinions.
"see something -> try something -> did it work? -> no, ok so try something else ->yes, ok do it again"
zoobyshoe said:What might be the alternative? We stole the idea of science from jellyfish?
FinixUnion said:Is Science a Man made Invention or something else? I think it's a man made invention. But I need more opinions.
Science is the study of what is around us. What we call "science" meets certain criteria.FinixUnion said:I was debating another science enthusiast, and he was insistent that religion was man made, and that science wasn't.
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
TheStatutoryApe said:The best analogy for this that I can think of is probably from Robert Anton Wilson.
"Don't confuse the map with the territory."
I am unaware of any serious scientific studies that present data for religious behavior in animals. You have also fallen into a common fallacy of assuming that science has a dogmatic statement against the "supernatural", but you cannot use unfounded explanations because it gets you worse than nowhere because not only does it have no explanatory power it often gives you the illusion or explanatory power. Of course science investigates the supernatural and supernatural claims, it just never finds any evidence for it.FinixUnion said:"Don't confuse the map with the territory." - Robert Anton Wilson
That was a very excellent way of putting it. During my argument, I brought up something similar to that. I was trying to explain that abstract ideas seem to be a human thing. It is what appears to separate us from other primates. Not to mention, I also find that animals do exhibit, at times, religious behavior. This happens when they correlate random phenomenon with their behavior. That could in time create a religious belief, with supernatural answers. Science, doesn't allow such answers. "Thou Shalt not use the supernatural."
FYI: There is this famous claim for superstition in pigeons:Ryan_m_b said:I am unaware of any serious scientific studies that present data for religious behavior in animals.
I question the validity of the statement on the basis of one very old paper but I digress.zoobyshoe said:FYI: There is this famous claim for superstition in pigeons:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/
Whether or not you would put superstition in the same class as religion is another matter.
FinixUnion said:I stand corrected. Not religious behavior, but superstitious behavior.
If we were to allow any supernatural explanations, than science would still be in the realm of alchemy and astrology, and worse of all, ID/Creationism. Science only deals with natural phenomenon, it wouldn't be able to validate a supernatural claim, because then that would lie outside the realm of science. My statement was pretty foolish, although, I was under the influence that science was about the investigation into the natural.
I think part of the problem here is the use of the term supernatural. As chronos says if something is measurable then it can be investigated by science, since the vast majority of supernatural claims/beliefs involve some sort of measurable event it isn't correct to say science can't investigate it. How often to we see crackpots on the internet, TV, magazines etc saying "science can't investigate the supernatural" before claiming that ghosts move objects or psychics dream the future etc. Essentially they are saying that there is a measurable phenomenon (they must be considering they are claiming they have measured it) but then saying science can't investigate it. It's wrong, it's a poor argument that attempts to define their beliefs beyond investigation and critique.Chronos said:Science predicts the future based on measurable [and measured] properties of the environment. Religion predicts the future based on supernatural authority. Both methods produce incredible results, but, science produces repeatable results.
zoobyshoe said:FYI: There is this famous claim for superstition in pigeons:
psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/
Whether or not you would put superstition in the same class as religion is another matter.
Chronos said:Science predicts the future based on measurable [and measured] properties of the environment. Religion predicts the future based on supernatural authority. Both methods produce incredible results, but, science produces repeatable results.
Evo said:Why do people insist to try to compare science and religion? To be completely honest, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
LOL, yeah but one - science, looks for real explanations, the other - religion, makes up myths.SHISHKABOB said:well they both explain things that are mysterious
Evo said:LOL, yeah but one - science, looks for real explanations, the other - religion, makes up myths.
But that's just more nonsense.SHISHKABOB said:one could then bring up the god of the gaps, etc.
Evo said:But that's just more nonsense.
Religion is not about explaining mysterious things. I believe this document explains religions well:SHISHKABOB said:well they both explain things that are mysterious
Neither I understand why some scientific people feel the urge to devalue and misinterpret religions.Evo said:So why do some religious people fear knowledge? Science doesn't care about religion, not does it try to debunk it anymore than it tries to debunk fairy tales.
My point was that there is a respectable scientific claim that animals can be superstitious. That can be construed as partway toward being religious, depending on the extent an observer equates religion with superstition.FinixUnion said:I've read about Skinner's Pigeons in recent psychology textbooks. I believe zoobyshoe was using that as an example. This was a classic experiment, not to mention the fact that the web page was called psychology Classics. This is a real effect. People debate about for Skinner's experiment, but only in the context of whether it is operant conditioning or classical.
That's not it at all. Religion has a place for people that need it. But it is not science. No one should try to pretend religion is science, or is even remotely similar. Scientific people would like the religious to stick with their religion and stop attacking science, like the two have anything in common, they don't.rootX said:Neither I understand why some scientific people feel the urge to devalue and misinterpret religions.
No it doesn't. Faith is the acceptance of a claim without and even in spite of evidence. Science works on the acceptance of claims that have met their burden of proof. People often think and say that science has "faith" when what they are really referring to is that it relies on tentative trust.chiro said:Both science and religion have to at some point work under faith.
Of course science speculates on the why for example: "Why does Y happen when X happens" or for a more practical example "why do organisms seem suited for the environment they are in?" Obviously the scientific method is then employed to find answers to these questions. The utterly mundane problem comes when people conflate the use of the term why with some sort of intent/purpose/intelligence.chiro said:But the thing is that science does not answer why: people speculate about the why just like priests speculate about Jesus Christ, Krishna, Mohammed, and even what many call 'God' and this reality that we perceive and engage in.
Yes, science speculates on the basis of previously established conclusions (in turn based on previously established data) in an attempt to construct logical hypotheses to test in order to answer questions about the universe. Saying "it's just a different way" is true but misleading because you neglect to point out that one way is logical and useful in determining truth and the other isn't.chiro said:Scientists speculate about these things in different ways. Look at for example Quantum Mechanics. You have the Copenhagen interpretation and you have also the Everett interpretation and even now we have various additions and twists on these kinds of things.
I have no idea what your point is here. A foundation of science is that there is no absolute certainty whereas many religions not only claim absolute certainty but do so even in the face of contradictions and changes in dogma over time.chiro said:The thing that underlies both science and religion is the nature of uncertainty. We have abandoned the idea that we can have complete predictive power as a result of the results in Quantum Mechanics. Both the scientists and the religious of the world are bound by this even though scientists make highly controlled observations from highly controlled experiments and religious do not.
We are all bound by uncertainty, and scientists if they think that they are less bound by it even with their current understanding of the 'how' should think long and hard about what they are saying.
Ryan_m_b said:No it doesn't. Faith is the acceptance of a claim without and even in spite of evidence. Science works on the acceptance of claims that have met their burden of proof. People often think and say that science has "faith" when what they are really referring to is that it relies on tentative trust.
Yes, science speculates on the basis of previously established conclusions (in turn based on previously established data) in an attempt to construct logical hypotheses to test in order to answer questions about the universe. Saying "it's just a different way" is true but misleading because you neglect to point out that one way is logical and useful in determining truth and the other isn't.
I have no idea what your point is here. A foundation of science is that there is no absolute certainty whereas many religions not only claim absolute certainty but do so even in the face of contradictions and changes in dogma over time.
chiro said:The point I'm trying to make is that there is faith. Scientists do use their results to back up their argument, but it is faith. There is nothing wrong with this and I would rather see faithful arguments based on something that is clarified and also based on what is known, but it is faith.
At the very end of it all people will have to take a leap of faith. It's a lot easier for many people to accept the scientific method, but again there is going to be uncertainty and when it comes to putting your foot down on making a decision what to believe and what to trust, then that is where faith comes in.
But this is more or less also a large reflection of human beings. Human beings do this all the time. You can't tell me that there are no scientists that don't 'cook data' or 'fudge numbers' when something big is at stake because that is absolutely ridiculous.
The other thing is that logic is different for different people depending on not only what is being proposed but who is proposing it. I would never expect on average a person who has been intimately working in a field to have a lower logical understanding of something in that field than someone who hasn't had much experience in that field.
You can have scientists (and anyone for that matter) make claims on what they think is 'logical' for things that they do not know and it doesn't make it any better just because they are scientists.
Yes, I fully agree with this.Evo said:That's not it at all. Religion has a place for people that need it. But it is not science. No one should try to pretend religion is science, or is even remotely similar.
Scientific people would like the religious to stick with their religion and stop attacking science, like the two have anything in common, they don't
However, you are talking about politics here not science. Science is a profession and converting other people to believe in or accept science is not a part of that profession IMO.FinixUnion said:To say that the scientific method and religious belief don't conflict is ignorant of the controversy, and is practicing wishful thinking.