No, thank you. The distinction wasn't clear to me and I needed some help understanding what you meant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If science can't explain it,,,,
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
No, thank you. The distinction wasn't clear to me and I needed some help understanding what you meant.
Morality is done in individual brains and we know this from brain scans done in a scientific manner. Did I get it right?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, here is a simple example as per the verb "see" in 2 different usage:
I see a cat. (to perceive by the eye)
I see that you did something wrong. (to be aware of)
In the 2nd one aware is a feeling in you. That is what you can find using brain scans.
Got it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Mathematics is the mother of Science. Right?
Is it real, please?
Has Science defined the natural word "Nature", please?
Science has no business to define "Nature", right?
Regards
Mathematics is the mother of Science. Right?
Is it real, please?
" science attempts to study the natural world "
Has Science defined the natural word "Nature", please?
Science has no business to define "Nature", right?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Science and or Scientific Method is useful to solve the physical and material problems of the humanity but out of its limits, it utterly fails and it must fail. Right?
Regards
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Do you know what Cook’s ship, the Endeavour, was doing in the South Pacific, just before making contact with the coast of Australia? It was there as part of a project co-ordinated by the Royal Naval college at Greenwich, to observe the progress of the planet Neptune across the face of the sun. Similar measurements were taken from various points around the globe, and when fed back to Greenwich, scientists at the RN college were able to calculate the distance of the earth from the sun, with remarkable accuracy. This was in the 18th century, before the industrial revolution, before railways and steam power, long before electricity and telephones. That represents an extraordinary vindication of the spirit and method of post enlightenment European scientific enquiry.
But my position, since you ask, is as follows: Whilst it is undeniable that the voyage of discovery undertaken by western scientific minds has gathered much information about the natural world, there remains in my mind this nagging question; why do we assume that the knowledge thus acquired, has more value, more wisdom, or more profundity than the knowledge of the natural world already held in common by the ancient civilisation Cook and his crew encountered in the continent we now call Australia?
Maybe in your world view, ancient cultures have nothing to teach we enlightened, educated moderns; that is not my view, and I would point to ancient scripture from The Bible to the Bhagavad Gita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Dhammapada and the Tao te Ching as evidence in support of this position. The thing is with evidence though, you have to know how to interpret it in order to make sense of it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who taught you that?
IMO
Thanks for your response.
You are not alone in making this kind of distinction, however, to my mind, I do not make such distinctions. We are simply talking about humans minds, the whole corpus of human thought.
From my perspective, knowledge is reasoned expectation based on experience. Knowledge is not static, but rather, it grows and becomes more detailed as we gain experience. With the advent of complex language, and later written language, knowledge (or experience) is passed along from generation to generation. What we know and think today incorporates what has been learned and experience throughout recorded history. Every one of us, from East, West, North, or South, all hail from ancient peoples and culture. In my case it would be the British Isles, predominantly Ireland. These ancient beginnings are the foundation upon which we have been building.
It is not only the manner in which one interprets evidence, as you seem to suggest, but rather, that all of the evidence is always considered when one interprets. And we certainly should not rely on our personal interpretation, as we human beings are notoriously fallible creatures. The mechanism used to interpret the evidence must acknowledge individual fallibility and actively mitigate it.
That's my perspective, anyway.
Thanks for your response.
You are not alone in making this kind of distinction, however, to my mind, I do not make such distinctions. We are simply talking about humans minds, the whole corpus of human thought.
From my perspective, knowledge is reasoned expectation based on experience. Knowledge is not static, but rather, it grows and becomes more detailed as we gain experience. With the advent of complex language, and later written language, knowledge (or experience) is passed along from generation to generation. What we know and think today incorporates what has been learned and experience throughout recorded history. Every one of us, from East, West, North, or South, all hail from ancient peoples and culture. In my case it would be the British Isles, predominantly Ireland. These ancient beginnings are the foundation upon which we have been building.
It is not only the manner in which one interprets evidence, as you seem to suggest, but rather, that all of the evidence is always considered when one interprets. And we certainly should not rely on our personal interpretation, as we human beings are notoriously fallible creatures. The mechanism used to interpret the evidence must acknowledge individual fallibility and actively mitigate it.
That's my perspective, anyway.
Luchito Prays
Member
Nope.
Mathematics is just using amounts to back up an explanation in science.
You can explain science without the use of mathematics.
You can't explain science with mathematics alone.
Luchito Prays
Member
Studies showing those as being good for nothing theories.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Heyo
Veteran Member
Can you please cite such a study (published in a referred scientific journal)?
And if you find you can't, would you stop spreading this nonsense?
Luchito Prays
Member
I will use one of my discoveries.
We can perceive the present of the universe only. No exceptions.
I didn't need any mathematics but a simple home experiment to prove the greater law of physics ever discovered is accurate and valid over any theory, because this is a law.
After this law of physics which involved the entire universe, its observation and tests of any kind, it also discards light as equal to time and similar theoretical stuff full of vain formulas and equations.
If I was to use mathematics, such should be a waste of time.
I can turn down relativity claims with simple reviews of its doctrines, and if you want to use mathematics I can do the same using simple additions and subtractions, lol.
We can perceive the present of the universe only. No exceptions.
I didn't need any mathematics but a simple home experiment to prove the greater law of physics ever discovered is accurate and valid over any theory, because this is a law.
After this law of physics which involved the entire universe, its observation and tests of any kind, it also discards light as equal to time and similar theoretical stuff full of vain formulas and equations.
If I was to use mathematics, such should be a waste of time.
I can turn down relativity claims with simple reviews of its doctrines, and if you want to use mathematics I can do the same using simple additions and subtractions, lol.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
How about posting such a link(s)?
Brian2
Veteran Member
Interesting statement that won't get much support here. But of course they are things that have not been observed (even though small changes in life have been observed) and cannot be tested. They are answers that the evidence seems to point to, and evolution of course does not mean no creation.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
Part of science is methodological naturalism, which deals with the world observable to our senses. That's what's meant when we say that science studies the natural world.
There are other uses of this term, too, but I do not see how they are relevant.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I do not think that science solves any problems. Problem-solving is usually the domain of engineering, although the two do frequently overlap.
Science also does not deal with abstractions. It deals only with what exists concretely, and with cause-and-effect. Anything which claims the existence of a thing or a causative correlation between things falls under the domain of science.
Abstractions are left to non-scientific fields like logic, mathematics, statistics, and philosophical schools like theology, aesthetics, metaphysics, linguistics, etc.