Faith in science?

[Audie]

I have been told this before but the "tentative" does not come over in the publishing to the public and even scientists claim many theories as factual and use them against religion.
And what you said does not mean that in parts of science where there is a clash with religion the whole idea of naturalistic methodology may barking up the wrong tree and lead to naturalistic conclusions which, at the most, only tell part of the story.

"MANY", Is it. You are very unlikely to find one.
Try. Double dare.

See, science DOES NOT DO PROOF.
ANYONE WITH HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL
UNDERDTANDING KNOWS THAT.

IT IS IMPOSDIBLE TO EVER EVRR EVER PROVE A THEORY.

Its a poor scientist indeed who does not know that..

If that did not come through to the public, wel,
they should quit relying on the tabloids.

And finally, its not argiung against religion.

Religions / subsets of believers, make absurd
claims. Like Noah's ark. Researchers studying
geology realized 150 years ago that the story was nonsense.

There is no "argument" from scientists with a
"Theory"against the biblical flood, any more
than there is against the flat earth belief.

Care to give an example of how "naturalistic"
science, the metivulous gathering of data,
could somehow be "barking up thecwrong tree"
and missed that there really was a flood?
Or any other bible-claim that can be investigated?

 

[ratiocinator]

I have been told this before but the "tentative" does not come over in the publishing to the public...

I agree that communication with the general public is far from perfect on this issue.

...and even scientists claim many theories as factual and use them against religion.

Science really doesn't say anything about most varieties of religion. However, when religions make claims that conflict with tested theories, it's perfectly valid to challenge it with the evidence (observations and/or experiments) that supports those theories - the obvious example being young earth creationism, which directly conflicts with copious amounts of hard evidence.

 

[Brian2]

You say verified, I say not.
That would be a verified miracle.
Anecdote equals not verificstion.

There are anecdotal reports for mermaids
and Bigfoot. All sorts of miracles, anecdotverification.
Not one supernatural event has ever been
shown to be true, ever.

If one wants to believe, that does not matter.
Wanting to believe leads straight to confirmation
bias, intellectual dishonesty,


As for proof / science, the qua,ity of reporting
on, say, yahoo News is at fault, not science.
Yahoo also says scientists report finding Noah's ark, which is just garbage.

For confirmed out of body or "proof in science"
you have the same problem with unreliable
sources.

Near-Death Experiences: In or out of the Body? | Skeptical Inquirer

I could agree with what your link says but she leaves the one thing hanging which I concentrate on. Some people have verified reports of things they could not know while unconscious. That is what leads me to the conclusion I have.

 

[Audie]

I could agree with what your link says but she leaves the one thing hanging which I concentrate on. Some people have verified reports of things they could not know while unconscious. That is what leads me to the conclusion I have.

Conclusion, or tentative acceptance?

Do you prefer the idea that it's real?

What to you mean, " verified"?

Are there not equally well verified reports of
Bigfoot and flying saucers?

 

[shunyadragon]

What happens with some NDEs is reasonable evidence imo for the existence of spirit that can travel from a body at the death of the body. Unless a reason can be given for people verifiably knowing stuff about what happened in other places while their body was not functioning then we have our evidence for the spirit realm.
But ideas that are too simplistic and religious and from laymen won't have an impact on science, so science will come up with their naturalistic answer and it may even be true in many of the NDE examples.

You may consider the evidence sufficient for the existence of spiritual worlds and the soul base don your belief, but science has a higher standard.

Not really. In some hypotheses the assumption is just assumed, and that leads to get a naturalistic answer.

ALL hypothesis and theories proposed are based on previous knowledge of science. The only result in science is whether the hypothesis or theory can be based on 'objective verifiable evidence. It is the nature of science that it can only test hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems uncalled for and unwarranted, to say the least

Nonetheless it still remains a problem when someone asserts opinions about science without a knowledge of science.

 

[rational experiences]

Science I understand destruction reasoning not intelligent.

Ape one body less human. You seem to understand that reasoning yet still try to preach that we came from an ape.

Only an ape can be an ape by data.

Two first parents deceased. Still preach as if they are alive.

Babies conceived continued life.

You are only as old as the data age science gave a human life. Completely ignored in science thesis.

 

[Yerda]

Nonetheless it still remains a problem when someone asserts opinions about science without a knowledge of science.

It was in reading about the science that I formed my opinions. For the record I have taken my fair share of science courses over the years as well.

From what I gather it isn't controversial at all to say that there is not yet a science of consciousness. I've heard many respected scientists and philosophers lament the complete lack of a useful approach in treating consciousness scientifically.

If I'm wrong, then you could have set me right by now rather than making claims about my ignorance. This is kind of the point of posting on message boards. So what was it in the OP that showed I "lack knowledge of science"?

 

[rational experiences]

The science "of" life was medical.

To review the existing body presence.

Truth.

Healer science was stated real.

Occult science fake as the machine reaction. Only human controlled not active til it was reactive.

The status between telling truth or falsifying fact.

Water oxygen heaven.

Humans claim living.

As a bio water human body.

Animals living self bodies as a human live within the same environment.

As equals.

So a medical statement said human babies and animals own the same heavenly reasoning.

To continue life as babies the heavens need to be stable.

Stable meant non nuclear.

Science once spoke its expressed human evaluations differently. As the mind thought in a variation atmospheric conditions.

Dust on ground reacting. Nuclear.

Only a human witnessing the event could talk about it in stories themes.

When an ape has a baby it is named by. Scientist an ape. It's origin word.

When a human has sex and has a baby it is a human baby.

Factual scientific observation.

When science today in ego wants to claim I know. The truth is you summarise.

That status is I believe. Not I know.

Before a human thinking by data is an ape body.

When a human never existed you cannot discuss.

If humans all died from old age no sex. Apes still having sex would own life.if you reacted nuclear all bodies would mutate and be sick.

DNA would be gone.....left.

A medical teaching only.

Hence a human cannot claim an ape their parent. It is not fact.

Science says science is fact as human stated facts.

Religion. Taught don't tell lies.

 

[YoursTrue]

The sun has a pretty good track record when it comes to rising and setting every day (I am using "rising/setting" as shorthand for the actual processes vis-à-vis the rotation of the Earth about its axis and about the sun and so forth). I have faith that the sun will rise again tomorrow and the day after AND even many, many days to come. One can have faith in a process, method, person, idea, etc., based on a good track record as well as evidence and more. Faith is not synonymous with "blind faith."

it's kind of like a pothole that one doesn't see. Good track record goes with things like polio vaccine, that's tested and works.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was in reading about the science that I formed my opinions. For the record I have taken my fair share of science courses over the years as well.

From what I gather it isn't controversial at all to say that there is not yet a science of consciousness. I've heard many respected scientists and philosophers lament the complete lack of a useful approach in treating consciousness scientifically.

If I'm wrong, then you could have set me right by now rather than making claims about my ignorance. This is kind of the point of posting on message boards. So what was it in the OP that showed I "lack knowledge of science"?

Some people don't want to have children because they are afraid if passing on bad genes. I respect that kind of reasoning. Bad genes is a term used to describe things like genetically disposed illnesses inherited.

 

[rational experiences]

Medical science.

Not any bible occult science list of causes.

Science a human by age as old as a human is. The age a science given factor for a human. Occult scientists cannot argue about the age of a human. Yet you do.

Lying for motivated self science beliefs is how everyone loses their life. In the state natural human not a liar first condition.
Medical awareness.

A human baby born by sex owns a life.

A scientist looks at the baby.

You can only talk about a human baby in your own adult human life presence.

As natural water holy holy ox generation by presence CH mass that arose. Gets held at ground. We should be equal and healthy.

Animals although diverse can live as long as an old human.

Baby status life continuance stable.

Nuclear unstable teaching.

Science in occult lies. Everyone knows you did. Humans are all meant to live equal healthy.

Common sense....is about using common sense.

If a baby born sick dies. Early age death.

If you quantify it sacrificed and claim it holy and we all should be equal. Then we all will inherit death of a human aged 33 years. Common sense.

The age data sickness says so. Then you witness it. Too late when you cause it for everyone.

Science copied you know.

 

[rational experiences]

Moses age of three events. Over a time studied realisation 40 years.

Quotes law attack of life equalled age. Based on flooding itself an atmospheric cause was rain for forty years. Increased raining effect.

Flooding owns two taught concepts in data.
A study. A documented kept data named star watching.

Dropped sacrificed age jesus to 33 years.

Healers. Biologist medical aware told you so. It was kept records owning no dispute

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The problem of how a subjective world of experience is able to emerge from gooey material in our bodies is still a total mystery. As in, there isn't even one decent guess as to how subjective experience can come from matter as far as I can see.

If you think about all the biological processes that occur within us they seem to be reducible or explanable in terms of physiological concepts. For example, the nephron is the unit of kidney i.e. one nephron = one bit of kidney (roughly speaking). The nephron does what it does because of its shape, its composition and the surrouding fluid concentrations. You can model and explain how the nephron is able to filter out waste materials using these ideas from physiology. Digestion, muscle contraction, respiration, etc all seem to be explainable in much the same way; we look at the relevant structures and suggest models of action from the physiological concepts.

So taking our cue from other biological processes and assuming that consciousness is one of those maybe the magic comes from the particular way our brains are arranged in space. But this seems to get us nowhere. Neurons are a very peculiar shape and the agglomeration of neurons in the brain and rest of the nervous system is highly ordered (as in any unordering apparently leads to no consciousness or death). Impulses are carried around quickly by the particular method of cell-to-cell communication. A stimulus from my finger hitting these keys is carried to my brain and from there it whizzes about and fizzes and pops and whatnot and then I feel the keys. Where in that process is the feels?

There's a whole cascade of action/reaction going on when I see this screen. But none of it seems to imply blueness. There is always a gap.

Most days I'm confident (almost sure) that at some point, with enough work, we'll make the empirical and conceptual breakthroughs which will get us over the hump towards a science of consciousness.

Am I excercising faith in science?

Sorry if this post itself isn't highly ordered, this stuff confuses me no end.

Of course you are ignoring the complexity of the human brain.

When a single-celled organism touches something that might be harmful, you can see under the microscope the almost instantaneous withdrawal. Yet, with a single cell, it's not "thinking," it's merely reacting. So it is obvious that stimulous can result in a response, yes?

Now, moving to more complex creatures, you can easily observe that they are aware of their surroundings. The ability of a pack of wolves to "plan" an attack on a potential venison dinner shows you that something is going on -- but do you ask yourself what that something is? Are they not individually conscious, or do you assume that the pack is a single organism, and thus not in need of consciousness, and the concommittent communication that enables the lan to succeed in landing the buck?

Even more complex creatures, like humans perhaps (of which I claim to be one, and assume you are too), have feedback mechanisms within our skulls. The fact that you finger touches the keyboard and sends a message back to your brain is just the beginning! You forget that one part of your brain (or most parts, actually) can communicate with one, many or most other parts of your brain. And that communication is in itself the cause of more reactions.

I contend that it is this "reactive response to reactions," a very simple sort of feedback loop, that is what makes consciousness possible.

I mean, just do a simple thought experiment -- think of your dog, who has had a "little accident," or perhaps shredded daughter's bunny. Have you ever confronted such a pet with such a serious crime? Will you tell me, if you have, that you do not attribute to them a very robust consciousness? (If not a very robust sense of guilt -- that's probably something more like "will I still get dinner?"

 

[rational experiences]

As a human who thinks. Knowing by observation an ape behaves in his life as ape behaviour.

I would wonder at the mental..mad scientist self human man description.

Given to his owned self..human and man.

Claiming his maths a circle and numbers represents all natural existing form.

And still today believed

So I did a healer human conscious perceptive study on his life.

Seeing he is using all his machines to study natural presence discluding self claiming he is all powers God.

He thinks first not for self origins but for science concepts.

Gave his spirituality away. Why thinking gives him no conscious answers

So instead studied mind contact. When AI by machine caused design attacked his designer brain. And he was never the same man human since.

Humans design and control machines. His else did your programming work?

So when he says blue light sky he says human and not blue light sky.

Says humans own it.

A rational mind says humans use it and depend on it

The difference with saying I am a human and am self human conscious. Depending on my nature. To someone who wants everyone's single owned thoughts better than his to become his possession. As the greedy liars you became

Rational advuce to a secret threat. Where destructive non relative descriptions are used in replies on forums

 

[Yerda]

When a single-celled organism touches something that might be harmful, you can see under the microscope the almost instantaneous withdrawal. Yet, with a single cell, it's not "thinking," it's merely reacting. So it is obvious that stimulous can result in a response, yes?

Hi, there. Yes, agreed.

Now, moving to more complex creatures, you can easily observe that they are aware of their surroundings. The ability of a pack of wolves to "plan" an attack on a potential venison dinner shows you that something is going on -- but do you ask yourself what that something is? Are they not individually conscious, or do you assume that the pack is a single organism, and thus not in need of consciousness, and the concommittent communication that enables the lan to succeed in landing the buck?

It seems to me to be obvious that wolves experience a world as rich and potent as the one we do.

Even more complex creatures, like humans perhaps (of which I claim to be one, and assume you are too), have feedback mechanisms within our skulls. The fact that you finger touches the keyboard and sends a message back to your brain is just the beginning! You forget that one part of your brain (or most parts, actually) can communicate with one, many or most other parts of your brain. And that communication is in itself the cause of more reactions.

I contend that it is this "reactive response to reactions," a very simple sort of feedback loop, that is what makes consciousness possible

Ok, cool.

I mean, just do a simple thought experiment -- think of your dog, who has had a "little accident," or perhaps shredded daughter's bunny. Have you ever confronted such a pet with such a serious crime? Will you tell me, if you have, that you do not attribute to them a very robust consciousness? (If not a very robust sense of guilt -- that's probably something more like "will I still get dinner?"

Yes, dogs are conscious.

How does this all relate to the OP?

Do you think that the belief science will one day furnish us with a theory of consciousness is faith?

What do you make of the problem of consciousness?

 

[Brian2]

"MANY", Is it. You are very unlikely to find one.
Try. Double dare.

The theory of evolution without any intervention from God is claimed to be a fact when that is not known.

Care to give an example of how "naturalistic"
science, the metivulous gathering of data,
could somehow be "barking up thecwrong tree"
and missed that there really was a flood?
Or any other bible-claim that can be investigated?

Science shows that the Biblical flood was real and that it should have been translated as covering the whole land in stead of whole earth and covering the high hills instead of the high mountains. Science shows also that there were many such floods at about the same time. The Bible flood does not have to have covered the whole earth to have done it's job. Science has given many Christians an insight into what the Bible meant.

With other claims and hypotheses of science that seem to go against the Bible, it is not the data that does this it is the naturalistic ideas behind it, which end up meaning that scientists say that such and such must have happened when such and such may not have happened but is just the best naturalistic explanation.

 

[Brian2]

I agree that communication with the general public is far from perfect on this issue.

Science really doesn't say anything about most varieties of religion. However, when religions make claims that conflict with tested theories, it's perfectly valid to challenge it with the evidence (observations and/or experiments) that supports those theories - the obvious example being young earth creationism, which directly conflicts with copious amounts of hard evidence.

Yes the evidence should lead the way. What I am saying is that evidence can be interpreted differently depending on the assumptions made.

 

[Audie]

The theory of evolution without any intervention from God is claimed to be a fact when that is not known.



Science shows that the Biblical flood was real and that it should have been translated as covering the whole land in stead of whole earth and covering the high hills instead of the high mountains. Science shows also that there were many such floods at about the same time. The Bible flood does not have to have covered the whole earth to have done it's job. Science has given many Christians an insight into what the Bible meant.

With other claims and hypotheses of science that seem to go against the Bible, it is not the data that does this it is the naturalistic ideas behind it, which end up meaning that scientists say that such and such must have happened when such and such may not have happened but is just the best naturalistic explanation.

You said scientists claim theories as
fact and use them against religion.
I asked you for an example.

An example of any scientist doing that.
Not an example of a theory so used.

If many scientists claim theory as fact,
name even one. That was the challenge.

Some misconceptions to clear up.

A theory is not a fact.
Anyone who says it is, is simply ignorant.
We can't do much about what ignorant
people say.

In science, "fact" is limited to such as
"Its a fact that this is my data ".

No scientist will claim a theory is a fact.

Ok so far? If so we can look at the next one.

 

[Brian2]

Conclusion, or tentative acceptance?

Do you prefer the idea that it's real?

What to you mean, " verified"?

Are there not equally well verified reports of
Bigfoot and flying saucers?

I mean conclusion based on reason.
Verified means verified. The people were unconscious and they knew things that happened in other rooms etc at that time.
It is not as if these are rare events, there are millions of people who claim to have had them.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality