Is Science Necessary...

[rational experiences]

If science as a human just thinking only does new experiments on human biology and human biological owned chemicals...aren't you seeking advice how to eradicate us all?

You know the history intent of the most evilest of scientists before world war II?

Just humans.

Who conscious as a human claim I am healthy. Consciously. I am safe. Looks at humans owning human biology sick dying and sacrificed. Involved himself in causing new thesis for new life death. By science.

Says I agree by my human consciousness seeing I am a superior being. About any type of human death caused by my thinking.

Yet any moment it could be your life as the origin reason why a human was sacrificed as it was lived instantly?

Is what father told me about our science brother looking for the holy grail. About life existing destroyed not about machines or machine reactions itself a totally different topic altogether in science.

As it is direct to Alchemy building machines only reacting machines only.

His theist says it is the same reason. Life existing. Life sacrificed is a machines reaction cause he claims.

Reasoned life began with holy dusts.

In a biological human science teaching it says the radiating of holy dusts supports natural biologies health and existence. Was a human teaching by humans for humans life health safety.

Is a correct taught reasoning. Is not the destroyers human personality involved in theorising. Saying I will find by chemical biological attacks. That he began years ago.

The warning about your brother just a human.

 

[lukethethird]

And of 'scientism'; both equally foolish and dangerous.

The "scientism" on this forum is so far proving to be invisible.

 

[Audie]

The "scientism" on this forum is so far proving to be invisible.

Thats what makes it dangerous.
You never see it coming.

 

[PureX]

The "scientism" on this forum is so far proving to be invisible.

Only to those who have succumbed to it. The rest of us can see it plain as day. But it's always that way with cults. The participants never think they are actually in a cult.

 

[Audie]

Only to those who have succumbed to it. The rest of us can see it plain as day. But it's always that way with cults. The participants never think they are actually in a cult.

Cultists are noted for seeing things that are not there.
So far all you have, evidently ever will be
able to show, is excuses.

 

[1213]

....Its (ice) been there for 200,000 years
...

No good reason to believe that. Also, if the the ice thick enough, it will be stuck to the land and doesn't float to anywhere.

 

[PureX]

No good reason to believe that. Also, if the the ice thick enough, it will be stuck to the land and doesn't float to anywhere.

Actually, the ice traps airborne pollen and dust particles in layers that can be identified with specific time periods on the Earth. So we can date the layers of ice to when they were formed, and know how old the ice in that layer is. So we actually have a very good reason to trust in the age estimation of the ice caps.

 

[ppp]

No good reason to believe that. Also, if the the ice thick enough, it will be stuck to the land and doesn't float to anywhere.

Not enough water.

 

[ppp]

Actually, the ice traps airborne pollen and dust particles in layers that can be identified with specific time periods on the Earth. So we can date the layers of ice to when they were formed, and know how old the ice in that layer is. So we actually have a very good reason to trust in the age estimation of the ice caps.

Is that an example of scientism? I'm not being snarky. Well, not very snarky. I am actually curious if you consider that to be scientism, and if so, why not?

 

[Audie]

No good reason to believe that. Also, if the the ice thick enough, it will be stuck to the land and doesn't float to anywhere.

Nice guesses, but not well informed.

Actually, there has been a great deal of research on ice dating.

Ice sticks to sidewalks. It doesnt have to be thick to stick down.

However, glaciers move, so they may not be
stuck?
Also, there is " regelation" at the base of glaciers, melting caused by pressure.

Too, you could calculate the buoyant force per
square foot of a column of ice underwater.
Lets call it 100 tons per square ft under for 2 mile thick glacier.
That you be mighty glue, to resist 100 tons lift force on a square foot.
But glaciers are not stuck down anyway.

Any more reasons?

 

[PureX]

Is that an example of scientism? I'm not being snarky. Well, not very snarky. I am actually curious if you consider that to be scientism, and if so, why not?

From wiki:

Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"
​

Do you think it would be an "exaggerated trust" to accept the evidence of dust and pollen trapped in layers of ice that are specific to known time periods? I don't. It' pretty good material evidence that the ice formed during those time periods; thus dating the ice to those time periods and telling us how old the ice is, now.

"Scientism" is the assumption that material (physical) existence is all that exists. And that any mysteries and questions not of a material origin or nature (and therefor not investigable by scientific methods) are just meaningless imaginings; irrelevant to any understanding of reality or truth.

 

[ppp]

"Scientism" is the assumption that material (physical) existence is all that exists. And that any mysteries and questions not of a material origin or nature (and therefor not investigable by scientific methods) are just meaningless imaginings; irrelevant to any understanding of reality or truth.

What you describe is philosophical naturalism, whereby science is methodological naturalism. I am sure you know this. You seem to be saying that scientism refers to something other than science. A little confusing. Intentionally so?

 

[PureX]

What you describe is philosophical naturalism, whereby science is methodological naturalism. I am sure you know this. You seem to be saying that scientism refers to something other than science. A little confusing. Intentionally so?

'Scientism' refers to a popular philosophy, not to science. It is a philosophy based on a very grandiose (and false) concept of what science is, what it investigates, and what is can and cannot do for us.

 

[ppp]

'Scientism' refers to a popular philosophy, not to science. It is a philosophy based on a very grandiose (and false) concept of what science is, what it investigates, and what is can and cannot do for us.

Ok. How does that apply practically on this particular thread?

 

[Audie]

'Scientism' refers to a popular philosophy, not to science. It is a philosophy based on a very grandiose (and false) concept of what science is, what it investigates, and what is can and cannot do for us.

Nobody here does that tho its equivalent is rife among the religionists.
Why dont you ever complain about people who are actually here posting?

 

[lukethethird]

From wiki:

Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"
​

Do you think it would be an "exaggerated trust" to accept the evidence of dust and pollen trapped in layers of ice that are specific to known time periods? I don't. It' pretty good material evidence that the ice formed during those time periods; thus dating the ice to those time periods and telling us how old the ice is, now.

"Scientism" is the assumption that material (physical) existence is all that exists. And that any mysteries and questions not of a material origin or nature (and therefor not investigable by scientific methods) are just meaningless imaginings; irrelevant to any understanding of reality or truth.

I don't have a problem with:
Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist"

However as far as this goes:
some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"

So far, nothing but hollow accusations. Anybody can make accusations, but it takes someone of substance to back them up. Would be nice to see someone step up to the plate but I know better than to hold my breath.

 

[1213]

...
But glaciers are not stuck down anyway.

Glacier in Antarctica seems to be stuck, doesn’t float away, except small parts that have split from the main glacier.

 

[1213]

Actually, the ice traps airborne pollen and dust particles in layers that can be identified with specific time periods on the Earth. ...

Sorry, I don’t believe that. But, can you explain how they can be sure that the particles are not the result of something else?

 

[Audie]

Glacier in Antarctica seems to be stuck, doesn’t float away, except small parts that have split from the main glacier.

Come now.
Its very simple

If one of a log is in the lake, other on land,
the part in the water is floating. If its all in the water
all of it floats

Same with the ice. Add more water, it all floats.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I don’t believe that. But, can you explain how they can be sure that the particles are not the result of something else?

Like pollen is not pollen, volcanic ash is not ash?