Just stop the useless complaining.
POSTED BY: LostInTheVerse
UPDATED: Thursday, November 25, 2004 04:27
VIEWED: 24069
PAGE 12 of 17
heh, Anthropology, sociology, psychology are all admittedly soft science. Still, they use the scientific processes and principles of investigation, theory, testing, and experimentation. They are no less rigorous. They might not involve as much math and they might not smash atoms to get the story. However, their impact is no less powerful. But you make light of these fields.
I've never made the assumption that you do *not* have a PHd. Is that a sore point? I am sorry if I've touched upon something like that. I don't mean to condescent that you do not. In fact, I was sure that you do - I thought that you had mentioned it, but now I could not find the reference. I also am not sure where you found that I implied that you are in fact not capable of it. I've never questioned your capability as a physicists. We haven't really had a in depth discussion in the field. I wouldn't assume that you are or not either way.
And in fact, I read your entire post. You position from your last post is, in fact, that absolutely in no way, can any scientists arrive that "Science is a religion". In fact, you stated quite clearly that - It is a scientific fact that science is not a religion.
So, I went on tell you that I know of no such fact and that as a scientist myself, I can clearly state that I believe that "Science is a religion" - not only as my point of view, but also that it is a known in the field of anthropological study.
But here, you go on to say that Anthropology and Sociology are not sciences, when in fact they are. I won't argue that they do not have the same type of rigor as Physics or Chemistry, but they are sciences all the same.
I don't know why you keep coming back with a need for validation. I've state my interpretation of what I read, if I read smugness and attitude, then that's my interpretation. If that's not what you would like to be interpretated, maybe it's your choice of words or maybe it's the method of speech. Either way, I am not concerned about it.
Is there a difference in explaining how something works and what something is? Sure there is, but I think you are confusing the issue. It certainly is true that science provides a model to how nature and how the universe works - in fact, it supplies us with many many models to accomodate all sorts of situations. But science doesn't just describe the mechanics of the models, it also describes physical properties. In fact, thru science, we get a model of what the universe is composed of. It tries to tell us what it is. Science also, most importantly provides us with a world story - the much disputed Big Bang theory and the soft expansions, etc. BTW, the fact is that, these "creation myths" (actually world stories), doesn't always involve a supreme being actually molding matter from nothingness. Many times, the myth itself *is* in fact a spontaneous event.
You keep confusing the "God" figure with religion, I have explained to you numerous times that my stance and viewpoint is not strictly from the stance of theology. It involves the study of why people need these believes and how these systems of believes evolved. Many many of these systems do not involve "Gods" or necessarily worship at all. I think you have a huge misunderstanding of what the discussion here is.
In this way, both the God worship type of religion and science as religion answers the "how", the "what", and in fact, they both provide a "why". They are both, in their own way, fairly elaborate and complete believe systems that let's people understand and explain the world around them.
I've explained to you and provided examples to you that a bushman's believe in how and why things work around him is, to him, no less rational than your system of explain how the world works around you. But you brush it off as "not scientific" and something less rigorous and sophisticated. In fact, you are correct that it is in fact not scientific, but it doesn't make his system of believe any less real to him. To him, his explanations work.
I hope that you
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Jasonzzz
I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with you. After reading the first few paragraphs here I feel that you read but are dismissing my points. I have tried to address your points and back up my objections with reasoning. I don't think that you are doing the same. It's along the same lines as talking with someone and talking at them. As such this will be my last post. Any parting remarks will be ignored. Though I will mention that I appreciate the reduction in your tone, thank you. I hope that you can read this post as I have read yours.
You also still haven't told me what your field is.
My reason for *knowing* that anthropology and the such are *not* sciences can be addressed by *very* simple reasoning. They aren't part of the Faculty of Science. They are part of the Faculty of Arts. Which is pretty much what they are.
I'll mention at this point that I really don't think (and many people feel this way as well) that Math is a science. To me it is more of an art as well. I personally call it, the linguistics of science. I'm sure others do as well.
Also, I'm not confusing anything. I've given this topic a great many hours of thought and have spoken to make people, both "in the know" and not, from multiple fields. I have come to the conclusion that science is not a religion. Scientists also come to this conclusion. Non-scientists that I come across that I speak with also do not deny it as well.
Point of fact. My wife was telling a college of hers about this little discussion and he just got a confused look on his face, thought for a few seconds and stated clearly, "But they're completely different." And in case your wondering about a homogenous set of people here. I'm Canadian, my wife's German and her college mentioned above is Iranian. Just a little bit of different backgrounds, eh?
I also think that you are confused about what information you have provided. You mention many things that you say you have provided yet you have not provided.
And in any future discussion please don't patronize me by telling me that I don't understand things about religion. Or did you miss the part when I told you that I've studied it for the past number of years? Yes, I realize that ther are (and know of), a number of religions that don't have a diety. etc.
To the rest of the things that you bring up. I leave for my posts to tell what I know. And I would hope that your posts tell of what you do not. I'm not being smug here. I'm only telling what I, along with countless other *in the field*, know for a *fact*. Sorry, but you reading books that tell the contrary don't put a dent in what I, my wife, etc *live*.
And by the way, gravity waves are purely theoretical. Every attempt to detect them has failed. Just like your arguments.
You might look to my comment on what science and religion attempt to explain (how and why respectively). Think about that.
You might also want to think about the fact that every point that you've made I've showed to my wife. Her response in every case is, confused look, "What!" And that's not a I don't understand what he's saying thing, it a, this man's (woman's?) mad. So, if you're not going to trust someone still in the mist of his studies, at least trust someone who *is* in the field living it every day.
And on this note, since this conversation is going nowhere and you refuse to admit basic facts about a community that myself and my wife live in. I'll bow out now as I've wasted too much time on this already.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ebonezer:
1) As I am not an agent of the government, I cannot impede your freedom of speech.
2) I never have once stated, and never will state, that there should be any legal consequence for saying anything you want.
3) Your freedom to bitch and moan is exactly the same as my freedom to clearly and concisely tell you to shut up. Nobody said you have to listen or obey. A respectful discussion of conflicting ideas, however, is always a welcome event.
Excersize your right to free speech, I implore you. Just don't think it exempts you from scorn and/or ridicule. All it exempts you from is legal action.
(and just for reference, my gripe is not with people who complain. It is with people who complain and don't do anything to try and better their situation.)
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to this religion vs science thing...
I think the point that is trying to be made is:
To an anthropologist looking in at both religion and science, the purposes are strikingly similar. An argument could be made that religion describes why things happen, and science describes how things happen. Their underlying purposes, while the mechanics do differ, can appear to be flip-sides of the same coin to an un-involved observer.
I could be completely off the mark with that, but that's what I think i'm reading...
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
my understanding and belief is that science as a field and as a concept serves to define and explain the world around us. That in itself serves as a form of religion.
Here's what I want to leave you with: In the field of anthropology and many other fields, as I have briefly outlined here and in other posts, science is considered a form of religion. It's fine that you yourself do not believe this or cannot understand this...
They are both, in their own way, fairly elaborate and complete believe systems that let's people understand and explain the world around them.
I've explained to you and provided examples to you that a bushman's believe in how and why things work around him is, to him, no less rational than your system of explain how the world works around you. But you brush it off as "not scientific" and something less rigorous and sophisticated. In fact, you are correct that it is in fact not scientific, but it doesn't make his system of believe any less real to him. To him, his explanations work.
I hope that you would dispense with the notion that knowing that science is no less a religion than diety worshiping is a religion, in that, they both provide a fairly complete system of believe in explain the world around them.
The word "belief" shows up a lot in your posts. What is "belief"? It's a state of mind, a subjective phenomenon.
While both religion and science offer a word story, religion is not always tested against reality. It is founded on "belief".
Science is a system of testing hypotheses against reality, an objective phenomenon. By constantly ignoring this distinction, you've completely eliminated the ESSENTIAL difference between religion and science. I don't think that science has "proven facts". I think EVERY scientist understands that scientific concepts are provisional. I can look forward to paradigm shifts as our understanding becomes more encompassing.
As a counter example, the belief of the Mayan culture was that a god of the underworld brought rain. In response to a three-hundred-year drought, their answer was to sacrifice more and more people to the rain god until their society collapsed.
If what you're saying is that AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE PERSON IS CONCERNED science may as well be a religion, that is a deficiency in teaching the scientific method, not in science itself.
I do, however, disagree with the notion that only highly trained people can engage in science. There was a theory in tiling (math) that four colors could only be arranged into several unique combinations, until a housewife in San Diego started tiling her kitchen. The greatest advances in mathematics handling n-dimensional space (where n is 5,6, or 7) was developed by physicists, not mathematicians. Paradigm-breakers are often not well-educated in their field of study.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
it seems like anything obscure that's more than 1 year old is lost in the river's vast flow.
'Tis always the way. Just too much out there. I'll talk to some Profs next week and see about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
My observation about the science/religion debate is that the frustration stems from having sociological explanations of what science does and how it functions made by non-scientists who don't actually know the process. It's like having someone explain to an auto mechanic how an IC engine works by starting out 'first you turn the key, and then it makes a noise ...'
[snip]
As for religion, in its very process it is antithetical to science.
[snip]
Finially! Thank you!!!
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From Slate, a more critical view of religion, and ignorance (from a much longer article http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/
I just had time to read the first part, but I look forward to reading the rest. Thanks
I haven't watched it yet but there is a 3 part documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" that just finished airing on the BBC. You can find the torrents at www.uknova.com (registration required, probably other places as well
). It's gotten the nod from many. To tempt you here's the introduction (actually just a part. I'm tired.):"
In the past polititions promised to create a better world. They had different ways of acheiving this, but there power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered there people.
Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, polititions are seen simply as the managers of public life.
But now they have discovered a new role that restores there power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, the polititions now promise to protect us from, nightmares.
They say that they will rescue us from the dreadful dangers that we cannot see and cannot understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world.
...
"
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OpenBSD !!! The people I know who know about these things say - way cool.
Thanks! I'm just lucky that my needs for applications and such allow me to run OBSD for my desktop OS as well as my server. The TV out on my video card is the only reason why I boot into windows Now I'm all giddy
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
To an anthropologist looking in at both religion and science, the purposes are strikingly similar. An argument could be made that religion describes why things happen, and science describes how things happen. Their underlying purposes, while the mechanics do differ, can appear to be flip-sides of the same coin to an un-involved observer.
Very true, and this is where the confusion lies and my reasoning behind why someone has to be "in the know" to distinguish the to. How much someone has to know is open for debate. But, I would gather that the figure is variable depending on the person. In the end though, once all the scrutiny is said and done, they are *very* different beasts.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason that you are feeling you are spinning your wheels is you have not read anything and considered anything I have said at all. Instead, you've held steadfastly that:
1. you are the absolute authority of what I am trying to convey.
2. you are the supreme most intelligent person on this conversation.
3. there is absolutely nothing that you can learn.
4. you haven't read anything that I typed.
5. Not only are you the supreme master of everything Physics and Science, now you know everything there is to know about Religion, Religion studies, Anthropology, Mathematics, Sociology, and Philosophy.
Well, I appreciate the space and time of me talking to a block wall.
As for your other conversations with your wife and then as yet another 3rd or 4th party. Is that suppose to mean anything? You are going to bring a brand new concept to them, thru you who devoutly refuse to understand it even a smidgen as an intermediary, and then come back and say "Oh, they just looked confused". Is the fact that you are Canadian, she is Germany, and yet another foreign friend is suppose to be some sort of petri dish experiment in communication? Why would you let someone like yourself who doesn't understand the concept, who refuses to acknowledge it to make an attempt to describe it to someone else. If anything, it's an affirmation to the absurdity of your attempts to bring in even more unqualified people to the conversation.
In fact, I am beginning to realize that you are pretty much unqualified to hold your part of this conversation. Your understanding of this field is too limited, you can't grasp the very basic concept that every social groups needs to share a common world story, that every person and group needs to have a common system of belief to explain what is around them. Religion of all forms are considered to be a type of this common system of belief.
You don't have to abandon any of your way of thinking as a scientist to acknowledge something in someone else's field.
Perhaps you are right, you are not qualified to hold up your side of the conversation at all. You are stuck in your own field and you hold stedfast to your own thinking that I am trying to strip your of your world and your way of thinking. Whatever you think, whatever you do is fine. It's not going to change the fact that it is what it is. Science is a religion as defined. There is no arguing it. It *is* in fact not in your field, even if you refuse to acknowledge it and refuse to understand it despite the fact that it is only a very basic and standard definition. Then there it is. There is, in fact, no point in proceeding further.
My only regret is that we have someone working in a scientific endeavor that is completely closed minded to understanding the very basics of human and societal relations. Someone who believes that religion is absolutely, utterly, and completely irrational and has no place in the world. When in fact, people depend on having well and elaborately defined system of beliefs to explain the world around them. Just like you do. In a very small way, you've helped me understand how religious fundamentalists hold to their precious beliefs stedfastly. To that, thank you.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Jasonzzz
I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with you. After reading the first few paragraphs here I feel that you read but are dismissing my points. I have tried to address your points and back up my objections with reasoning. I don't think that you are doing the same. It's along the same lines as talking with someone and talking at them. As such this will be my last post. Any parting remarks will be ignored. Though I will mention that I appreciate the reduction in your tone, thank you. I hope that you can read this post as I have read yours.
You also still haven't told me what your field is.
My reason for *knowing* that anthropology and the such are *not* sciences can be addressed by *very* simple reasoning. They aren't part of the Faculty of Science. They aNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unfortunately for you, someone "in the know", many many folks "in the know" defines knows and understands that Science falls into the category of religion from an Anthropological studies viewpoint that both science and religions provide sets of very elaborate system of beliefs to explain the world around us.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
To an anthropologist looking in at both religion and science, the purposes are strikingly similar. An argument could be made that religion describes why things happen, and science describes how things happen. Their underlying purposes, while the mechanics do differ, can appear to be flip-sides of the same coin to an un-involved observer.
Very true, and this is where the confusion lies and my reasoning behind why someone has to be "in the know" to distinguish the to. How much someone has to know is open for debate. But, I would gather that the figure is variable depending on the person. In the end though, once all the scrutiny is said and done, they are *very* different beasts.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science is a system of testing hypotheses against reality, an objective phenomenon. By constantly ignoring this distinction, you've completely eliminated the ESSENTIAL difference between religion and science. I don't think that science has "proven facts". I think EVERY scientist understands that scientific concepts are provisional. I can look forward to paradigm shifts as our understanding becomes more encompassing.
Thank you, for voicing something that I wasn't able to!
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If what you're saying is that AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE PERSON IS CONCERNED science may as well be a religion, that is a deficiency in teaching the scientific method, not in science itself.
Very true!
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I do, however, disagree with the notion that only highly trained people can engage in science. There was a theory in tiling (math) that four colors could only be arranged into several unique combinations, until a housewife in San Diego started tiling her kitchen. The greatest advances in mathematics handling n-dimensional space (where n is 5,6, or 7) was developed by physicists, not mathematicians. Paradigm-breakers are often not well-educated in their field of study.
I disagree... partially. I've been speaking in general terms. And in general, the average person cannot contribute to science. Is this an absolute? No. There are always exceptions to rules and you listed one of them.
But when I comes to Physicists doing math. It is known that Physicists have created more math lately than the mathematitions... kind of. Physicists don't like proving things as rigorously as the math people do so the math people finish it off. Which isn't always the easiest thing to do.
Also the distinction (and my wife wouldn't necessarily agree completely here) between mathematics and Physics isn't really all that distinct. At least if you're talking about theoretical Physics.
It is also fairly common for people to switch from mathematics to theoretical physics and vis versa (the wife and I agree here). They are *very* related fields.
To back myself up here, there are many university math departments that offer degrees in General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory, etc. There are also Physics Departments that offer degrees relating to chaotic systems, which is a largely mathematical field right now. Or when it comes to mathematical physics, well, that's rather mathy and could definitly be considered an area of applied math, so much so that it is taught through the math department (and I think it is in some places).
Another closely related field is Computer Science. Even some Com.Sci. Departments are the ones to offer the universities Graph Theory course (which is traditionally math).
Basically, what I'm saying here, is that you don't have to be a specialist in the field to contribute. But, in general, you must be rather educated in that field or a closely related one. But, now we're starting getting picky on details. Do we really want to define things so rigorously?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME