arent philosophy and science interconnected tho?....as in something like the sciences are the method to philosophize sort of thing?....i think the science and philosophy forums can enjoin from time to time....
I enjoy philosophy but feel the two can not be compared side by side. While both may strive to explain life, science is more inclined to explain the physical dimension. But philosophy is inclined to expalin the intangible aspect of life.
Lol, that's funny because I feel the same way about those long ass philosophical posts that don't achieve much of anything.
Not to be rude, but this is a very very illogical argument. For one, this increasing amount of knowledge, whether you accept it or not, is still useful knowledge. Without it, you would not be able to sit here and debate against the foundation of your own belief system. Who we are? Science explains on some level what we are in the physical realm that we are able to perceive as a whole, as a race, without this basic foundation of WHAT we are, you would never be able to fathom the question WHO we are. Science brought you somewhere, so I believe it can still go somewhere. Sense when is being objective not truth? At least in this reality, or someones. It is a truth, of something. You cannot deny that. Well, I guess you can, but you would be limiting yourself beyond reason. You know what, I agree that many truths, if not most, can come from looking within. But what happens when there is nothing to look into? Without knowledge of something, for yourself, through experience, looking in can be useless. Why do you think religion causes so much trouble? It's a group looking inwards based of something that at an individual level they know nothing about, or can even understand WHY they believe WHAT they believe. and wait WHAT!?!? Sense when can science not delve inito the metaphysical, intangible? Yea okay, maybe its not "science" but "philosophy" or "psychology" or paranormal studies, like dude, Science will be the foundation for studies/formulas/techniques used to GO THERE. Science was created to explain/understand phenomena we don't grasp.....your going backwards here yem.... Also, btw, everything could be solid and permanent, I personally am not sure I believe this, but I know that it could be a possibility, especially considering that my view on almost everything would subjective, even to another observer we are unaware of.... I think it is ignorant to say that you are limiting yourself for learning all you can about science. Your not losing any room in your memory bank, so I see no harm. You my friend, are limiting yourself by making a statement that something is limiting. Whether it is science, or cheesecake, there is NO SUCH THING as useless knowledge. Please, do yourself a favor, and rise above the obvious. Also on a different note, what if "who we are" meant absolutely nothing. One of the greatest evolutionary characteristics, "emotional beings", could be one of these things you speak of that "limit" you. Everything is going to have a good and bad. Everything is going to open and close doors. TOO MANY POSSIBILITIES!!! Ignorance of the beauty that we know nothing is errr not proactive. hope i didn't contradict myself too much anywhere, and not trying to attack you or anything YEM, just trying to understand how in the world you came to the conclusions you did.
No. But science allows us to share experience on some level, and also look at experience through different experience. Assuming we are all real, and assuming that everything else we observe in the physical realm is real, you would never be able to experience anything you are experiencing now, without science. You had to go through the "science experience" in order to come to your conclusion in the first place.....just saying....collective unconscious, your psyche/memory, blahdy blah Oh and, perhaps realizing that you are empty has ceased your suffering, but I know many people that If they realized they were "empty", they would most likely kill themselves or someone else, thus increasing suffering. If suffering is actually "suffering" of course. The end. <3
"What is this increasing amount of knowledge doing for us and how is it helping us discover who we are?" I have a 46" TV that can show me a football game being played 1000 miles away using signals from outer fucking space. Science did that for me. As far as finding out who "we" are... That is not the job of science! Chock-full-o-fail!
This is an aspect of philosophy and spirituality that many don't want to consider. Constantly hoping that there is a divine plan and some salvation at the end of life, purely to avoid having to face life itself, is a waste of time and existence. 1) Science doesn't know everything, but science doesn't claim to, relgion does. 2) Science never set out to prove abstract problems of 'why', but offers the best proof it can about 'how'. 3) Science gives us usable facts about our reality that have saved billions of lives and made the existence of billions more vastly better. Religion and the divisions caused by spirituality has caused millions to be killed, tortured and persecuted. There's no doubt about which has most benefited humanity. There is an idea that science is ignoring the spiritual, when in fact that's wrong. A vast amount of money has been poured into science (including by christian, hindu and other religious/spiritual groups) in an effort to prove religion or religious ideas. Thus far not one such study has come up with a single provable fact, or usable data. If one of these groups were to do so, contrary to belief the scientific world wouldn't leap on the information to suppress it, they would actually embrace it and pour money into it. The opportunities for research it would create, the jobs, the new thinking, would be world-shattering - and just the kind of thing that science would love to get its teeth into. The religious say "Science is wrong, we are right'. Science says, "We await proof either way." Which point of view seems most closed-minded? MelT
It's an illogical idea that 'science' has robbed us of our spirituality, it's tantamount to saying that scientists are unable to feel or care for others, and that they're dull shells because they can't see the same beauty in life that the religious can. You don't need a god to see beauty. You do not need to believe in Heaven to give your life meaning. You do not need divine retribution to make sure you stay good and moral. Scientists see and can create beauty, have meaning in their lives, and are righteous - but without the need for religious threats and fear of what may happen to them when they die to make them that way. You have to wonder, do the scientific have more moral fibre than the religious, when they're able to act in such a way without being pressured to do so by religion? That they can be good purely because they want to be? Who is the better person, the man who is good because he fears god and wants a place in Heaven, or a man who is good because he has the strength to be that way? MelT
Or alternatively, enjoy life and seek those same answers, but without religion and with a completely open-mind. The scientific approach MelT
Science to me is like the movie the invention of lying and spirituality is discovering you can actually lie. Scientists tend to bind themselves to laws and codes and that in itself prevents growth its like saying you know everything just because you've reached the limits of your mind. Sometimes you'll have to go behind science and say what invokes this thought? Not chemical reactions in the brain but what gives that thought meaning? No the prerequisite for a discovery but what makes that thought unique and beautiful? The interconnectivity of it. This is where science and spirituality get along. Lets put it this way, if science were to die today spirituality would still live and would never die. Kind deed for gain is science and kind deed without is spirituality
It all helps us. and hurts us, there is too much of a good thing even science or spirituality, whatever the preferece. Both attempt to offer explanations. Science does so by disproving others. Spirituality is what science cant measure. and yes scientists, there are "real" non physical components to life that you CANT measure, cant disprove. i think most scientists would agree with that, and that nothing period can truly be proven. Anyways, its all good, and maybe understanding both sides is the complete answer.
There is nothing 'metaphysical', that exists. The physical world, the natural world, is all there is. If you profess something exists, in any form, it is part of the physical world. Science does not deal with things that do not exist, it does not deal with the super natural. 'Super', meaning to exist outside of, and 'natural' meaning to exist in nature. The only things that exist in reality and are metaphysical, are ideas. Mathematics, the conciousness, emotions. These things are simply the product of the human desire to organize and label.
This is what I love about science. Can't be proven therefore it doesn't exist. Disprove it then. Show me what the figments of thought are I can't see them. WTF? How does chemichels make mah brains shee shit I must to know
Idunno.. I think the biggest part of his argument comes down to the subjective nature of the word 'progress'. Sure, we can watch a football game being played 1000 miles away using signals from outer fucking space on our 46" TVs -as Mister Meaner so eloquently put it earlier... But what does that really say about our direction of progress? We could be doing so many other things with that effort, but instead we're dumping all of our time and motivation into laying out millions of miles of fiber optic line, figuring out what materials work best in space, how to milk the most bandwidth out of our super high technology.... all so we can watch a few guys throw a football around? or see a bead of sweat trail off their helmets? I mean, I'm not really sure I'd call that 'progress'. What's worse, is that we're pushing the medical field so far, keeping people alive and moderately healthy for years and years past their natural point of death.... for what purpose? so that they can play with their pricks for an extra ten or twenty years? We've sunk so far into this cycle of pointless distraction that we're totally missing the boat with what we can actually achieve with science and research! (Though, on second read, that moves this conversation away from 'science' being empty, and puts the blame more on human nature as being empty I suppose, lol) I imagine that if aliens were to ever find our planet after we've long been extinct.. they would see this MASSIVE network of cables and wire... They would see this web of copper and plastic crisscrossing every mile of our civilization, and imagine what wonderful things we've accomplished, and that we must have really had a goal in mind when we set out to build such a communications network.. Would they be disappointed to learn that all that effort was spent just to play with our pretend farms and watch pornography?
You're thinking too small. The point is: if it exists, it is part of science. You're committing a logical fallacy in misplacing the burden of proof. If you're making the claim that something exists, you need to prove that it does exist, not the other way around. Also, science does not ever say 'if it can't be proven it doesn't exist'. It says, 'if it can't be proven, there is no reason to believe it exists'. You should take greater steps to understand science before you come to view it in such a negative light.