Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

69. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 12:03 yuastnav
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:

[...]
Science is in essence experimentation repeated until a clearly predictable result is defined.
[...]

That is not entirely correct for two reasons:
1. You only described experimental science. There are also theoretical sciences that come to conclusion based on mathematical calculations. The anti-particle is a good example of this because the idea, that something like that exists, wasn't even conceivable until the theoretical predictions of Dirac.
It was an experiment that verified this, yes, but the prediction itself was theoretical.
2. If science would only describe theories that completely predict a phenomenon then quantum mechanics would not be a scientific theory. It predicts a lot of outcomes but it ultimately fails to predict which one will actually happen.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...] I wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion from blind faith but from inductive or deductive reasoning (which I learned in the 8th grade). [...]

I would be careful with inductive reasoning.
If I use inductive reasoning to say that the sun will rise tomorrow I need to have faith in the fact that the universe does not change in a way that science wasn't able to predict due to a lack of data; there are a lot of things we do not know yet.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
No. We don't know the end (if there even is one) of the trail.

I think Beamer was talking about the end of science, not the end of everything. While the end of everything arguably does not exist you can actually historically guess when scientific argumentation may have begun.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
And what we learn from science directly improves our quality of life, whereas religion's only practical function is to give people hope.
[...]

Which also improves their lives because it gives them, psychologically speaking, comfort which can result in physiological changes.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
Science will make gods of men.
[...]

I know you are being hyperbolic but that is impossible by definition because you will never be able to create energy out of nothing. That is, most likely, scientifically impossible.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
Actually, that already happened back in the Dark Ages. Ironically it was monks who painstakingly preserved what knowledge humanity had by then accumulated.

Afaik most of the preserved knowledge that led to the renaissance actually came from the middle east, i.e. from the Arabic countries which were the stronghold of civilisation.


[edit]
Hmm, my syntax seems to be faulty but currently I don't see the problem (i.e. where I forgot to open or close a quote). Sorry about the mess

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2013, 12:51.
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo