1. 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!

Featured Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Jun 10, 2019.

  1. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    The irony is that Darwin couldn't have been more wrong without actually using a ouija board.
     
  2. dianaiad

    dianaiad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,551
    Ratings:
    +797
    Religion:
    LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
    They are if it is appropriate to do so.

    Mythological narratives, especially wide spread and ongoing narratives, are pretty good sources to look at if one is attempting to, say....find a forgotten city, or deal with some geological event that those peoples were also attempting to explain.

    You know, to find a thread of commonality and observation? The kernel that might be the basis for the morality lesson being taught? Scientists who ignore this stuff are cutting off a valuable source of information. For instance, Troy, which most archaeologists have acknowledge as having been found, would NEVER have been found if the guy looking for it wasn't using the Iliad as a source text.

    Please note; nobody figures that Athena, Paris and the contest between goddesses, Achilles, etc., were being partisaned by real deities...but the story DID talk about where Troy probably was...

    Baloney. What is an archeologist, but a historian trying to fit his narrative into the evidence found? Are you going to claim that archeologists are not scientists? That geologists aren't? Is your definition of 'scientist' "someone who doesn't use human historical narrative as part of his data set?"

    Because that's a tad circular.

    Which, er, makes them scientists. Unless you don't consider archeology to be a science.

    I was afraid of that....going on...

    I see. "No true scientist can be an archaeologist?"

    Or "no true scott?"

    You are going to have to define what a scientist IS.

    Because your opinion of archaeology as 'not a science' is biased, snooty....and utterly incorrect. YES, archaeolgy uses data from history, cultural narrative, etc., but modern arcaeology uses chemistry, biology, physics...all the 'hard' sciences, too. If it did not use data from both sides of the spectrum, nobody would be able to find anything.

    However, you have certainly supported my point regarding the propensity of 'scientists' (meaning, in your case, 'hard' scientists, since obviously 'no true scientist' would have anything to do with history or human narrative) to utterly ignore, disparage and even fear data coming from such sources.
     
  3. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    646
    Ratings:
    +366
    Religion:
    agnostic
    Give me a quote where he says such a thing and you might have a case.

    Einstein didn't put much truck in quantum mechanics. He was wrong. Nice thing about science is that it doesn't stagnate based on the views of one person or another if their view is contradicted by further data.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,561
    Ratings:
    +3,707
    Religion:
    Pi π
    That's not how the way history and archaeology works.

    Just because some authors of myths can "name" cities, regions and monuments that are real, doesn't mean the myths are historical.

    Rowling can describe some real locations in London in her Harry Potter's books, doesn't mean that Harry and various characters are real people or that magic and witchcraft are real, and it doesn't mean there were real wizard battles.

    I know all about Greek myths and I know about geographical locations both real and imaginary were used as setting of the stories, but it doesn't qualify everything in the stories to be true.

    Lot of fiction authors used real locations as the scenes of the stories, but it still make the stories (plots, characters) fictional. They do all the time.

    You are being terribly ignorant and very frivolous with the truth.

    As to Troy, I know about Heinrich Schliemann's discovery. It is great that he had uncovered Troy, but he is also made assumptions that are baseless.

    For instance, some of the Bronze Age artifacts, he called "Priam Treasure", for instance, Priam being the last king of Troy in the Iliad.

    How does he know these objects belonged to Priam?

    No names in the Bronze Age were found anywhere that have names inscribed.

    He did the same thing with the city of Mycenae, making baseless claims like the shaft tombs he had found, calling the tomb of Atreus or the tomb of Aegisthus, and the gold mask of Atreus. Schliemann applied names to places and objects, where there are no names. Atreus was the father of Agamemnon and Menelaus, the main Greek leaders of the Trojan War, while Aegisthus is the cousin who had murdered Agamemnon.

    In Mycenae, of the mid- to late 2nd millennium BCE, the writings used were the Linear B scripts, similar to that being used in Crete. Names like Atreus, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Aegisthus, Clytemnestra, Helen, Orestes, etc, were never found in Linear B inscriptions, ANYWHERE in Greece.

    All Schliemann had done is to jump the gun and to sensationalize his findings, by attaching mythological names to places and objects, which he had absolutely no basis to use.

    To me, Schliemann's discoveries were wondrous, but as an archaeologist, he was incompetent amateur, because he like to sensationalize everything he did, without proper investigation. And his method of excavation is appalling destructive; he was so heavy-handed with the dig sites, resembling of more of butcher than a surgeon.
     
    #204 gnostic, Jun 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,561
    Ratings:
    +3,707
    Religion:
    Pi π
    WOW! You are really being st####ly ignorant.

    Archaeology is a very wide variety of disciplines, some that do involve science, and some that don't.

    Not every archaeologists get to specialize every single disciplines.

    To give you some examples, there are some people who specialize in pottery and ceramic paintings. You don't need expertise in science to understand the different styles of different periods, therefore you wouldn't need a science degree in this area of archaeology.

    And some specialized in philology, and you don't need science degree to be a linguist.

    Although there are some archaeologists who can competently date materials, objects and bodies using C-14 radiometric method, often these are sent it to be tested and dated by radiometric specialists.

    Some archaeologists may have degrees in engineering, so they may focused on town or city planning of ancient cities. Civil engineer only used specific science that are related to their works.

    I am a former civil engineer, from the mid-80s to mid-90s, and though I can understand some fundamental designs that are universal, my expertise only related to contemporary civil projects, not ancient ones.

    My points are not everything in archaeology involved science.

    You are the one who keep using Troy as example. Well, Heinrich Schliemann is a classic example, of archaeologist who has no background in science whatsoever.
     
    #205 gnostic, Jun 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    The usage of existing knowledge (scientific tools) to try to understand the unknown (history) is "applied science" or "philosophy". It is not science any more than a child with a chemistry set.

    Science is the application of knowledge, imagination, and experience to the scientific method such as hypothesis formation or experiment design.

    If science did exist in archaeology it would manifest as the systematic and methodical application of knowledge on a real time basis to studying ancient artefacts. Infrared imaging has been available for over a century yet results on the pyramid are not available. THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY. Peers vote on reality without access to data.

    Science is dead. long live science.

    Science died in 1883 and no one noticed.
     
  7. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Science didn't die of natural causes. It was murdered by Darwin, Masperro. Champollion, Freud, et al.

    The rest the scientific community sat back watching and marveling at how smart we are. It didn't matter we took a bad turn because everyone figured that we'd get back on path eventually. This was never a certainty because with science dead there can be a new "science" based on opinion and peers as an institutionalized circular argument.

    If science were still alive we wouldn't be wearing blindfolds and determining reality through math instead of experiment. Individuals wouldn't all accept the same premises.
     
  8. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,561
    Ratings:
    +3,707
    Religion:
    Pi π
    There you go again, with your flaky paranoia and New Age conspiracy theory.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    And there you go again in your quixotic attempt to paint me as a believer in conspiracies. There you go again calling what I say "new age" despite the fact it is unique and no new age ideas are similar to my own. There you go again ignoring every single fact and idea I put into a post.

    You are supporting "Look and See Science" which has been growing since the time of Champollion. Its inroads are exploding everywhere and will continue until the planet does as well if we don't get off our present course.

    That there IS NO SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY is an observable fact just as is that Egyptological Peers are now meeting to determine reality itself without the data necessary to understand the ancient culture. This is now pervasive in most branches of science. No, Peers are not engaging in any sort of conspiracy to mislead us. Rather They know not what They do because They are following on the footsteps of the past and we got off the road in the past. We made bad assumptions and now we have derived what They each sincerely believe is reality from bad assumptions.

    Again you will ignore every fact and every thought in this post and instead look for ad hominins and semantical arguments. You will not engage in the argument and instead tell me what you believe.

    Why don't you tell me why you believe it's OK for Peers to determine reality without ever seeking the data? You won't because you ignore everything I post and ESPECIALLY direct questions.
     
  10. dianaiad

    dianaiad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,551
    Ratings:
    +797
    Religion:
    LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
    I think...

    You are going to have to define 'science.'

    Because from what I see, your definition of it is so narrow as to be unusable.
     
  11. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    Bible Archaeology is very different from archaeology.. Bible archaeology tries to prove the Bible stories.. Real archaeology stands alone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    Archaeology, or archeology,[1] is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities.

    In North America archaeology is a sub-field of anthropology, while in Europe it is often viewed as either a discipline in its own right or a sub-field of other disciplines.

    Archaeologists study human prehistory and history, from the development of the first stone tools at Lomekwi in East Africa 3.3 million years ago up until recent decades.

    Archaeology is distinct from palaeontology, the study of fossil remains. It is particularly important for learning about prehistoric societies, for whom there may be no written records to study. Prehistory includes over 99% of the human past, from the Paleolithic until the advent of literacy in societies across the world.

    Archaeology has various goals, which range from understanding culture history to reconstructing past lifeways to documenting and explaining changes in human societies through time.[6]

    The discipline involves surveying, excavation and eventually analysis of data collected to learn more about the past. In broad scope, archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research. It draws upon anthropology, history, art history, classics, ethnology, geography, geology, literary history, linguistics, semiology, textual criticism, physics, information sciences, chemistry, statistics, paleoecology, paleography, paleontology, paleozoology, and paleobotany.

    continued

    Archaeology - Wikipedia
     
  13. dianaiad

    dianaiad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,551
    Ratings:
    +797
    Religion:
    LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
    Some people do use archaeology to prove that the bible stories are true, especially the miracle tales. That's their problem.

    Plenty of reputable archaeologists use the bible as a source for the placement of cities, mountains, rivers, etc.,

    And it works for that, when used along with other historical evidence.
     
  14. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Yes. I am using an exceedingly narrow definition of "science" to draw attention to the simple fact that "science" has been redefined in the last 150 years to include ouija boards and throwing darts. It has been redefined to allow Peers sole discretion in defining reality without even needing data, experiment, or common sense. Of course I'm not saying there is a problem WITH science, there's a severe problem IN science.

    It has been perverted and not used to explore its premises, axioms, and definitions. It is used to manipulate the masses (no Gnostic, there is no conspiracy) and to support the status quo. Grants are awarded based on pecking order among peers and government now funds most research so military research gets top billing. Basic and fundamental research is almost a thing of the past especially in fields like anthropology. They've not only done no science at the pyramids but they haven't taken measurements since about the time of Petrie; at least not systematically.

    "Science" is simple; it is the scientific method (which has nothing about Peers or their opinions) and its results. It is the analysis of these results in terms not only of what is known but in terms of what might be. It is about putting knowns together to discover new knowns by means of experiment.

    Archaeology can be performed scientifically but it appears that it isn't happening. If people were concerned about science they'd be concerned that science isn't being performed on the pyramids and when tests are finally done, Peers have to vote without the results of those tests. Nobody is concerned and this concerns me very very deeply.
     
  15. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,561
    Ratings:
    +3,707
    Religion:
    Pi π
    For one you are making straw man again.

    Peer Review belonged to those are referred to experts that review falsifiable hypotheses or scientific theories and researches of any branches of Natural Science.

    Natural Science is divided broadly as Life Science and Physical Science.

    Life Science are broken down into many biological fields and sub fields including anatomy, zoology, botany, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, molecular biology, palaeontology, etc.

    Medicine can falls under Life Science, but not any psychology-related medicine, because all psychology and related fields of psychology will fall under the very broad umbrella of Social Science; I will get to Social Science later.

    The other Natural Science - Physical Science - can broken down to a number of different branches:
    1. physics,
    2. chemistry,
    3. Earth Science
    4. and astronomy.
    Each of these branches will have their own fields of studies and subfields.

    There are only peer review of Natural Science, not for Social Science.

    Social Science related to human behaviors, human activities and human cultures.

    Different Social Science would include history, archaeology (of both history and prehistory of human activities and cultures), anthropology, politics (including political science), laws, ethics, anything related to human psychology, which I have already mentioned.

    What I am not too sure about whether the branches and fields of Humanities falls under the category of Social Science or not. So I will leave Humanities and Social Science as open questions.

    Humanities include studies of languages and literature (are very useful to historians and archaeologists, particularly written languages and philology, and that’s the very reason why I am not sure if Humanities fall under Social Science or not), all forms of arts, like visual arts, liberal arts, architecture, music, etc.

    None of these (Social Science) will be reviewed by Peer Review.

    The reasons why Social Science don’t fall under the Peer Review, is because human psychology and cultures are too varied and too complex.

    Sure, their works may be reviewed by panels of experts, but unlike Peer Review, things like archaeology and history are not subjected to Falsifiability and the Scientific Method, which are requirements that the peers look for in reviewing the hypotheses/theories and the experiments and test results made available with the hypotheses/theories.

    You don’t need science degree in Natural Science to become an archaeologist.

    Archaeologists don’t need science to study, read or translate ancient writings and inscriptions. Archaeologists don’t need science to categorize styles of art works and pottery. Archaeologists don’t need science to studying styles and architecture of some buildings, but if they do want to know anything were built they may ask some civil engineers for their expertise. Archaeologists don’t need science to excavate sites.

    The physical and life science in archaeology, is when they actually the physical remains of deceased, learning how they died, taking DNA samples for testing and comparisons, or when a person investigate the physical and chemical properties of objects, studying the layer of strata when sites and bodies were found, dating anything using radiometric dating methods, and so on. It is these science

    Archaeologists can learn these science-related fields (like dna, radiometric methods, geology, civil engineering), but these are not requirements of being archaeologists.
     
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,561
    Ratings:
    +3,707
    Religion:
    Pi π
    More paranoia and conspiracy theory.

    You don’t even understand archaeology falls under the category of Social Science and Humanities, not Life Science and Physical Science, hence not Natural Science.

    Only Natural Science are subjected to Peer Review, because any hypothesis or theory formulated has to meet the requirements of being both Falsifiable and Scientific Method.

    Archaeology don’t need to be falsifiable or to be rigorously tested under scientific methodology.

    The Peer Review are used to ensure that they followed protocols of scientific method, and that there are no errors and no cheating.

    Peer Review are not being used in archaeology.

    Are you so ignorant that you cannot see that?
     
  17. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    This is just another one of those assumptions.

    Of course everything we say involves numerous assumptions but I point this one out because it is a false assumption.

    To the degree that peer review only works to falsify experiment or to find faults in design I have no problem with it. It was never a part of the scientific method until the modern age but the problem is one of practice more than concept. It is especially problematical in fields like Egyptology where the Peers are not even let in on the latest test results. This is neither science nor linguistics. It is neither fish nor fowl. It is an abomination of the highest order!

    Considering so much of our "understanding" of history is based on Egyptological beliefs and applied science is dependent on understanding our place in the greater scheme of things this utter failure is of critical importance. I believe Darwin started the ball rolling and it has come to infect almost all human endeavor. We misunderstand a great deal. This may or may not have led to physics getting mired in the 1920's but it won't surprise me if in the future this is seen as the reality. I suspect Einstein was wrong about more than "thought experiments" and being near a "unified field theory".
     
  18. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    903
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Shhhhhhhhhhh!!!

    Don't let the Egyptology Peers hear you say that. They've been conspiring to keep it secret. o_O
     
  19. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,561
    Ratings:
    +3,707
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Archaeology is the study of any man-made objects (eg tools, farming methodology (eg man-made irrigation), art works, like painting, sculptures, pottery), or structures (any building eg city, city planning, palaces, tombs, roads, aqueduct and sewers), or history (written records, inscriptions, the study of ancient languages and styles of writings can be useful to archaeologists).

    Anything that can make, in prehistory or history, archaeology are involved in study, and while using science and technology may assist with archaeological findings, liking dating objects or DNA comparisons, they are not the skills they require to actually learn. They can learn it, but these are not requirements of being an archaeologist.

    Archaeologists are not being tested or reviewed by Peer Review, because archaeology don’t involve with being falsifiable and they don’t require to follow Scientific Method, therefore making Peer Review pointless.
     
  20. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    1. Egyptology - Wikipedia
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptology
      Egyptology (from Egypt and Greek-λογία, -logia. Arabic: علم المصريات ‎) is the study of ancient Egyptian history, language, literature, religion, architecture and art from the 5th millennium BC until the end of its native religious practices in the 4th century AD.

    2. Egyptology | study of pharaonic Egypt | Britannica.com
      www.britannica.com/science/Egyptology
      Egyptology: Egyptology, the study of pharaonic Egypt, spanning the period c. 4500 bce to ce 641. Egyptology began when the scholars accompanying Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt (1798–1801) published Description de l’Égypte (1809–28), which made large quantities of source material about ancient Egypt
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...