Science is empty

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by YEM, Oct 9, 2010.

  1. And what does my explanation tell you? I still don't see what you were trying to get out of this as all the questions had obvious answers.
     

  2. Your explanation told me the defiance of not being able to accept that a unit of measurement could be without decimal points until placed in a hypothetical sense. That was my obvious answer
     
  3. #63 Looshin, Oct 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2010
    It's a little different, I mentioned before that something can be impossible to detect but still can believed to exist. However a unit of measurement as you suggested cannot exist with any math that exists right now, think about what you're trying to do, you want to make a unit of measure that makes sense so it has to be accurate on the small scale, yet if you expand that to the size of a few galaxies suddenly it doesn't make sense, you can still use it but a more reasonable option would be to use an alternate measuring system altogether. Unless this unit of measurement is Planck's scale, there HAVE to be decimal places at some point but you could technically use Planck scale and then avoid decimal places altogether however that would make for a vastly inferior system.
     

  4. So why is spirituality so hard to believe? Mind you I'm not referring to religion. With the Planck scale even though I have no idea it what it is what I can say is it would be inferior or superior to the user although there may be better ways of recording measurements you get what I'm saying?
     
  5. #65 Looshin, Oct 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2010
    Spirtuality is hard for some scientists to believe because science gives us facts about the universe, generally scientists are people who has an extreme thirst for knowledge, they need to understand how things work. Spirituality on the other hand offers no facts, no absolute truths, just anecdotal stories that some people find comfort in. I won't cross the line to argue religion since you said you didn't mean that but that pretty much leaves philosophy. Philosophy doesn't lead to a brighter future, it doesn't usefully contribute to society in any form hence the fact that there are no jobs for it, it's a useless profession, although it can be an interesting hobby.

    If the point of your hypothetical was to the pose the question, could we be using a better system of measurement, then the answer is yes it's entirely possible there's a superior method for measuring things that we simply don't use yet but that's not to say that aspects of it can be impossible. You wanted a system that was useful for measuring everything in a single unit, without decimals, I can tell you right now that that is completely impossible with the math we use and unless in the future we use a math not based on our current math then that will remain to be impossible.
     
  6. Exactly, Exactly. There really isn't any difference between spirituality and science they are both intuition based and if they were two loaves of bread philosophy would be the meat in between them. Philosophy is not a useless profession unless money becomes the motivation because you will only spew a thought for a paycheck making it only worth that amount if not less. Spirituality gains answers from within and Science gains answers from without/external stimuli and I would say the facts of spirituality are proven by science which firms the beliefs of both parties.


    This was a great panel discussion between a spiritualist, a preacher and a scientist about the theory of everything.
    Highly insightful I suggest everyone watch it
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA"]YouTube - Larry King Live - Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Deepak Chopra, Robert Spitzer - Part 1 of 3[/ame]
     
  7. Unfortunately there is a gap between philosophy and science now because philosophy has failed to keep up with science. It is a useless profession, not only because the only thing you can do with it is teach but because your knowledge is useless, and you don't have any skills to show for it. It's takes the greatest minds to push the boundaries of science whereas any average Joe can have a completely legitimate personal philosophy. Science gathers data from facts, there's nothing factual about philosophy as it can vary from person to person based on nothing more than preference. I find it insulting to even compare the two, the sciences require great minds, great academic ability especially Math for Physics and Chemistry, extreme dedication and hard work to go from bachelors to masters to phd, if you're one of the elite who are even capable of it, whereas philosophy is something that a highschool dropout could understand. Try to picture a world with scientists and no philosophers, what do we have? Our world as we know pretty much since the impact of philosophers is nonexistant outside of religion, now picture a world of philosophers and no scientists, guess what you're living in the Dark Ages.
     
  8. Is it then ok to say that science has failed philosophy for the sole reason that we allow people to get away with bullshit because they deem it 'personal philosophies'?
     
  9. Why would you say that science is responsible for that? That would be the fault of the government's philosophy.
     
  10. Science doesn't lead us further away from the truth. On the contrary, it allows us to realize how far we really are from the "truth."

    A truly wise man is one who realizes how foolish he really is.

    Perhaps in our pursuit of science one may begin to feel as if we have strayed from the truth, as we examine the surreal possibilities of quantum entanglement, parallel universes and string theory.

    Yet I believe the implications of the scientific method are quite the opposite. Science has shaken us from our blissful ignorance and awakened us to the uncomfortable truth of how little we know.
     
  11. What would happen if everyone just agreed with you? Science would become the new religion. There needs to be duality.
     
  12. what is an absolute truth? it is something that we as human beings have accepted as being consistent through our own experience. therefore, we assume that it will remain so indefinitely since it has remained so under many tests(which are simply using other assumptions to compare them to our new assumptions) throughout a long period of time.

    there is however always the chance that we are wrong, we have been in the past and will be in the future and are right now in certain beliefs. have absolute truths been wrong in the past? im not sure because im not sure what was accepted as such in the past, but im open to the distinct possibility to acceptions presenting themselves in the future.
    it is possible that these "absolute truths" could in the future be shown to have exceptions, or be wrong even. is it likely? no. possible? anything is possible.

    a theory is an educated guess. simply a very vigorously tested hypothesis which in definition is little more than, if not an educated guess.

    we as humans trust science because its really all we have to go on, but in essence, if broken down to its core... its just us taking stabs in the dark using the resources and logic that we can comprehend to make sense of the world around us. its philosophy. guesswork.

    thats all im trying to say, not that science is all bullshit.
    its not, i love thinking and philosophizing and learning about the world around me. science is seriously my favorite subject... im not trying to put it down, just to bring into view the fact that in the end, we really cant KNOW anything for certain.
    IMO. ;)
     
  13. Science, if not simple observation is just a collection of discernable facts. Science is the process of finding the truth, not steering one towards ignorance.
    If anything, science implores us to think for ourselves
     
  14. I guess what the argument boils down to is "No one can know anything for sure, so science is just as good as guessing."

    What an utterly ignorant and incorrect statement. Yes, no one can know anything for sure. Was that the point? Congratulations, that's true, but it's absolutely useless argument. Where do you go from there? If science is useless, what better way is there to discover the truth? Science does not deal with absolutes, it is the best method we have to discern the truth.
     
  15. you've got it backwards, philosophy has failed as a science. That's why people can get away with bullshit answers because it's based on each person's point of view. Also the reason it's in the art's department rather than the sciences. The day "cold" for me means the same thing for everyone else is the day it will become a science, and also the day we learn to communicate feelings as well as words. Call it adding an extra dimension to our communication skillset if that makes you feel better. Words can only describe things to a particular degree, without adding in the feeling a person had at that same particular moment also we can't ever truly know what the other person means.

    This is also why science is so powerful, because it removes the need of the feeling to know what another is talking about (thus it's also the universal language). You don't need to know what the number 1 feels like in order to do any math with it.
     
  16. #76 Continuum, Oct 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2010
    Guys, philosophy is just as objective as science, only it is a method of finding truths that can't be proved with physical evidence. It deals in objectivity and logic, just like mathematics.

    So many misconceptions in this thread, about science and philosophy both. Go learn about them, the worst thing you can have is an misinformed opinion.
     
  17. Philosophy isn't objective, it's subjective there are truths there are simply opinions, a physicist may have a sudden brain wave for an idea but on paper it will be fleshed out with math to be truly objective. The same cannot be said for philosophy.
     
  18. #78 Gonjaninjitsu, Oct 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2010
    This is fail thinking. This is exactly why science has failed philosophy. How do we know what we know? Why? Why not? Objectively you could derive answers from those set of questions which would still have relevance in today's world but not without going through subjective experience first, which is always going to be subjective anyway. Through subjection we arrive at objection. To say philosophy is subjective is as inane as saying the color of the sky is limited to the observer's perspective no disrespect of course. We all know the sky is blue and no amount of logic or bullshit is going to change that. The smell of a rose is a smell of a rose however objective the meaning of the rose's smell is subjective.
     
  19. #79 Looshin, Oct 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2010
    There is a scientific reason for why that flower smells, an objective reason, the smell's affect on the person smelling is of course subjective because different people will react to in different ways, if you add philosophy into the equation then all the order goes out the window because there isn't a single philosophy that's generally accepted instead you have hundreds. I still don't see how science has failed philosophy when science doesn't consider philosophy, we do our scientific research to understand the universe and nothing more we don't believe in pretentious nonsense, at least not usually, there are of courses some scientists who dabble in philosophy whereas I simply learned as much about philosophy as I could to understand it and understand why I think it's worthless.
     
  20. The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge
     

Share This Page