Does Science create any facts?

[paarsurrey]

Well, this verse is accepted by virtually all Sunni, Shiite, and other divisions of Islam that Muhammad is the last prophet and the Quran is the last Holy Book. This is how the Islamic World understands this. If want quote or cite more, please do, but it will not likely have much of an impact on Islamic dogma.

Again . . . it is not quotations from the Quran that necessarily represent dogma in and of themselves, but the beliefs held rigidly without exception that represent the dogma of Islam, as well as Sharia Law, which within the divisions of Islam is variable and conflicting.

The concepts that people "think to be correct" while Quran does not support them but rejects them are the dogma. The lasting teaching are the real ones, please, and are not dogma.
Since, one asked the question and if one wants a meaningful discussion, then please quote the verse and the context verses, as requested .
Else we will go to the topic of the thread "Does science create any fact?". Please
Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

The concepts that people "think to be correct" while Quran does not support them but rejects them are the dogma. The lasting teaching are the real ones, please, and are not dogma.
Since, one asked the question and if one wants a meaningful discussion, then please quote the verse and the context verses, as requested .
Else we will go to the topic of the thread "Does science create any fact?". Please
Regards

It remains that you failed to respond. As far as the topic goes you brought up the claims of how you believe in the nature of Islam not me.

The heart of the thread topic has been made clear, Science does not 'create facts.' The facts of nature exist regardless of how science deals with the facts. Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy of how science develops hypothesis and theories based on the falsification using objective facts of nature. The methods developed by science are not 'facts.'

 

[Quintessence]

My observation applies to all religions who use either Tradition or Special Literature, to pass on their dogma.

Religions without dogma? May as well not exist-- as they only last as long as the individual who imagined them does.

You really believe that? That's so strange to me, because I'm aware of so many religions that are non-dogmatic and are well more than a couple generations old. According to you, these should not exist. And yet the do. What's up with that, huh? I guess maybe you don't believe they are religions to reconcile this incongruity?

Until gods actually prove themselves to everyone, equally? Gods are either 1) evil (because of playing favorites), 2) indifferent and uncaring or 3) not-existing.

That's an interesting take on it. I'm not sure how it follows. According to you, because I cannot prove myself to everyone equally, I am either evil, indifferent/uncaring, or do not exist. This same logic would apply to any sort of knowledge, come to think of it - if we can't prove climate change to everyone equally, it's either evil, indifferent/uncaring, or doesn't exist too. That does not make much sense to me. It seems more logical to posit that humans have a rather limited scope through which they experience the world such that they cannot know everything. If a human is not aware of something, that is indicative of such limitation. Conclusions beyond that sound like assumptions to me.

 

[paarsurrey]

It remains that you failed to respond. As far as the topic goes you brought up the claims of how you believe in the nature of Islam not me.

The heart of the thread topic has been made clear, Science does not 'create facts.' The facts of nature exist regardless of how science deals with the facts. Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy of how science develops hypothesis and theories based on the falsification using objective facts of nature. The methods developed by science are not 'facts.'

Kindly read post #38. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It remains that you failed to respond. As far as the topic goes you brought up the claims of how you believe in the nature of Islam not me.

The heart of the thread topic has been made clear, Science does not 'create facts.' The facts of nature exist regardless of how science deals with the facts. Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy of how science develops hypothesis and theories based on the falsification using objective facts of nature. The methods developed by science are not 'facts.'

Thanks for mentioning that science does not create any facts. Please
Regards

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You really believe that? That's so strange to me, because I'm aware of so many religions that are non-dogmatic and are well more than a couple generations old. According to you, these should not exist. And yet the do. What's up with that, huh? I guess maybe you don't believe they are religions to reconcile this incongruity?

"non-dogmatic"?

What does that even mean? If the religion is passed on? How? Osmosis? Telepathy? <grin>

No-- the passing down of the religious practice is the very definition of "dogmatic" -- the very fundamental assumptions that all religions must have, are passed down.

These are the very epitome of Religious Dogma.

 

[Willamena]

Science just discovers them; they exist already in nature created by God. Right?

Please

For an idealist, yes.

 

[paarsurrey]

For an idealist, yes.

Thanks and regards

 

[Nakosis]

"it's a fact there are 50 states in the US. That's something man created. We could have divided up the US into a different number of states.
I don't agree".

The facts or the real facts are realities. Man itself is a temporary being, the same is of the Earth and its portions only named as US of America, some centuries ago after Amerigo Vespucci,the Italian explorer, who explored the new continents.
The realities have the characteristic of permanence. Right? Please
Regards

Permanence? No not really. Things always change. It's just sometimes that change is on a very, very long cycle.

Even the universe probably won't last for ever...

Every star will die, nearly all matter will decay, and eventually all that will be left is a sparse soup of particles and radiation. Even the energy of that soup will be sapped away over time by the expansion of the universe, leaving everything just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. In this "Big Freeze", the universe ends up uniformly cold, dead and empty.

How will the universe end, and could anything survive?

Then where will all our facts be?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's an interesting take on it. I'm not sure how it follows. According to you, because I cannot prove myself to everyone equally, I am either evil, indifferent/uncaring, or do not exist. .

False analogy--- you exist in meatspace. Your life also had impact on other lives who also exist in meatspace.

This impact may be examined, and gives us a clue as to what sort of meat-person you were. <sorry-- could not resist continuing the analogy-- are we not made of meat? >

But even more importantly, you can be asked-- and you answer. Using a variety of media, at present, words-in-a-row, but it could easily be vibrations in the air, or writing on paper. Or some other method.

The key, is that you interact, without needing to create elaborate ritual beforehand. Nor do people who interact with you, need to be in a particular state of mind, apart from being (more or less) awake.

Even better: we can easily observe you, interacting with non-sentiment life, such as plants or less sentient than us, animals.

We can easily observe the behaviors of these life-forms, in response to your direct activity.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This same logic would apply to any sort of knowledge, come to think of it - if we can't prove climate change to everyone equally, it's either evil, indifferent/uncaring, or doesn't exist too.

False analogy. Climate change isn't sentient. It's not supposed to have Magical Powers. It is simply a non-sentient phenomena, no different than say hurricanes or tides or the flow of rivers down hill.

Your analogy does not hold.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It seems more logical to posit that humans have a rather limited scope through which they experience the world such that they cannot know everything. If a human is not aware of something, that is indicative of such limitation. Conclusions beyond that sound like assumptions to me.

Of course humans are limited.

But gods? By definition are without limits (or nearly so).

As such-- if the knowing of them is literally a matter of infinite torment or infinite bliss?

It rather becomes important, if the being is Ethical, that they make considerable effort to communicate this Importance with us lowly victims of whatever it is.

Deliberately obfuscating their very existence, as is the current state of affairs? Is pure evil.

 

[Nakosis]

No you create narrative and call it facts. Gravity is a fact, I can self levitate is not.

Yes, folks create a narrative and call it fact. That's a fact.

Science is trying to find a way to shield objects from gravity, That's a fact. Someday they may, then matter can levitate.

Facts are time depended. Can't guarantee a fact will be a fact forever. Facts are what folks accept to be true, hopefully with a lot of evidence, but there's no gurantee there either.

A good scientist will always question what is fact. Always testing verifying. Good thing we have folks around who don't buy into the absoluteness of facts.

 

[Willamena]

"it's a fact there are 50 states in the US. That's something man created. We could have divided up the US into a different number of states.
I don't agree".

The facts or the real facts are realities. Man itself is a temporary being, the same is of the Earth and its portions only named as US of America, some centuries ago after Amerigo Vespucci,the Italian explorer, who explored the new continents.
The realities have the characteristic of permanence. Right? Please
Regards

Everything (even permanence/impermanence) is relative. The fact of temporary human existence doesn't negate the reality of human existence: the 50 states we have made and named are really the 50 states we have made and named.

 

[Quintessence]

@Bob the Unbeliever It makes it hard to respond when you put things in multiple posts like this.

From your post responding to dogma, might I ask how you are defining "dogma?" It's my understanding that "dogma" means "some body of teachings laid down by an external authority as (incontrovertibly) true." This is definitely absent in many religions. "Tradition" is not the same thing as "dogma." It sounds like you are using the two to mean the same thing?

As for your claims of "false analogies," they are not false from all perspectives. Once we start hitting up non-transcendent theologies (aka, the gods are the world or various aspects of it), the gods very much do exist in "meatspace" as you call it. Please remember, I'm not coming at things from a Christian perspective. I'm a Pagan. Only certain types of theism demand the gods have the characteristics you are assuming. What you write doesn't make sense to me, from what I know about religions (Paganisms in particular) or the diversity of theistic beliefs.

 

[paarsurrey]

Everything (even permanence/impermanence) is relative. The fact of temporary human existence doesn't negate the reality of human existence: the 50 states we have made and named are really the 50 states we have made and named.

So it is a relative notion, not a real fact.
Regards

 

[David T]

Yes, folks create a narrative and call it fact. That's a fact.

Science is trying to find a way to shield objects from gravity, That's a fact. Someday they may, then matter can levitate.

Facts are time depended. Can't guarantee a fact will be a fact forever. Facts are what folks accept to be true, hopefully with a lot of evidence, but there's no gurantee there either.

A good scientist will always question what is fact. Always testing verifying. Good thing we have folks around who don't buy into the absoluteness of facts.

Yes Richard Feynman states that very clearly. Science theories can't be proven true only false aNd over time they change. Evolution works in creeps and jerks. Science moves daily, more obviously than religion it's creepy that way with occasional self evident statements that are proclaimed NEW, like evolution. Religion is extremely slow, it to creeps slowly but way more slowly, like glacial speed. Then one day Bang a hug hug jerk and everyone is all excited. In its history it's called pentacost, the reformation, the great awakening etc!!! Apparently human thought in science aNd religion in development matches snails evolution precisely!!!

 

[Willamena]

So it is a relative notion, not a real fact.
Regards

Relativity is a fact.

 

[paarsurrey]

Relativity is a fact.

A relative fact, not the fact in real terms. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes Richard Feynman states that very clearly. Science theories can't be proven true only false aNd over time they change. Evolution works in creeps and jerks. Science moves daily, more obviously than religion it's creepy that way with occasional self evident statements that are proclaimed NEW, like evolution. Religion is extremely slow, it to creeps slowly but way more slowly, like glacial speed. Then one day Bang a hug hug jerk and everyone is all excited. In its history it's called pentacost, the reformation, the great awakening etc!!! Apparently human thought in science aNd religion in development matches snails evolution precisely!!!

"Science theories can't be proven true only false"
Is it a pity? They laud science so much while its theories cannot be proven true, these are only proven false. Is that what one wants to say? Please
Regards