Modern Science And The Establishment Clause.

In reply to Emanresu-

Fine, you win. Your science is better than mine. My worthless arguments are filled with contradiction and sanctimony.

Enjoy your science....

You see, the difference between my science and yours, it seems, is that my paradigm accomodates both my science and your science, whereas your paradigm rejects my science altogether, because mocking something you don't understand is easier than retaining an open mind and trying to understand it.

There's a word for that, oh yeah... closed minded that's it.

Knock yourself out with your imfallible, scientific methods for all I care.

 

Yes we can, it's called scientific conjecture and often forms and becomes the basis of provable science. Without the imagination of past philosophers science likely wouldn't have progressed as far as it has today.

 

Science is not defined as the process of attempting to answer questions about the universe and existence through observation and introspection. Computer science for example makes no attempt to answer questions about the universe or existence through observation and introspection and yet it is clearly a science. Many people attempt to answer questions about the universe and existence through meditation or drug induced trances. That might be a valuable process, the answers they arrive at might be true, but that isn't science, and calling it science simply reduces the usefulness of an already established term.

I agree that music that sounds bad to me is still music. And I stated explicitly that science that arrives at a false conclusion is still science. I even said that if Intelligent Design produced a testable hypothesis and the hypothesis turned out to be false that that would still be science. So you seem to be responding to claims I never made in an attempt to convince me of something I already knew to be true. One more time for good measure: In its current form, even if true, Intelligent Design is not science. That is not a value statement, just a statement of definition (and I think the current, strict, definition of science is the most useful definition).

 

I don't understand why you are not capable of having this conversation without making claims about the mental lives and personalities of the people involved in the discussion. I am not attempting to win anything here. You are the one who has been attempting to place your intellect above those who disagree with you. I am capable of disagreeing with you without thinking that I am better, smarter, more open minded etc, but you seem incapable of that. You have made several attempts now to claim that those who disagree with you are somehow impoverished and that is simply silly. First you couldn't possibly know that. Secondly perhaps it is true for you that your perception of the world is defined by your views on science, but mine are not (most people's most likely are not).

You accuse me of mocking your position, I have not done so. Have you read my posts? Again for good measure: I object to your use of the word science, and have made it clear that even if what you say is good and true, it does not fit the definition of science to which I adhere.

The difference between "my science" and "your science" is a difference of definition only. I am very capable of thinking about all manner of things that don't fit into my understanding of science. You seem to think that something must be included in a person's definition of science in order for them to think about it or have it impact their perception and experience of the world. Perhaps that is true for you, but certainly not for me.

And yes it is very common, and almost always wrong, to accuse those who disagree with us of being close minded. If only it were that easy. unfortunately I know that my opponents are intelligent, open minded, reasonable people. I cannot dismiss them so easily.

And yes I will enjoy my science, at work where I use it to accomplish specific tasks in specific ways, then I go home and live the non-scientific portion of my life.

I have never claimed science to be infallible. I explicitly stated that I find all attempts to explain the world to be lacking.

And finally I entered this discussion to talk about the definition of science. A very plain and non emotional topic for me. The one thing that I hate doing here is talking about boring things like "Emanresu" or "The Walking Dickhead". I don't know why you are so compelled to talk about me and my mental life. I assure you it is a boring topic. After all if Emanresu or The Walking Dickhead were actually interesting then we wouldn't be wasting our time on a site filled with people talking about legal highs and fantasizing about relatives.

You are free to continue making claims about my mental life, but I have no interest in that topic.

 

I think you'll find advanced computer science is quite the ontological mystery these days, in particular quantum computing.

The branch of "computer science" which you are refering to is really a form of engineering, a practical application of science.

I'm not going to argue over semantics, whether intelligent design is a branch of science or not. As far as I am concerned it is, or at least certain aspects of modern theories of the origin of life which share an affinity with it are, and have real, peer reviewed and nobel prize winning science to back it up. The science behind it is also starting to have many applications within various advanced engineering disciplines.

Experimenting with halucinogenic drugs is also science, that's why many scientists have "experimented" with them, either on themselves or on subjects. Why would that not be science, or considered a valid part of the ultimate search for answers.

 

Where in the hell did I make claims about your mental life?

This discussion is starting to take a turn for the bullshit.

I thought folk's around here might be a little more perceptive towards thinking outside the box, holistic science and spirituality.

 

I have thought along lines such as this....the black holes...collapsing of stars...only to spit out new universes on and on an on for an eternity.....
I wonder if the cosmos has its own consciousness at all....and how can matter ever get lost in all of it...it just changes.
The question remains will we still be part of it forever, too....
only in ways we are not conscious of, I reckon....but it is fun to conjecture otherwise.....

 

I always find it amusing that people accept the big bang theory, black holes, superstring theory, dark matter and various cosmological hypothesis as valid scientific conjecture, but when it comes to things like intelligent design, or any hypothesis that dares to flirt around the edges of that, spiritual dimensions, reiki energy, chakras... that's all unscientific bullshit.

 

I was responding to an earlier post of yours here and being very nice....Most people do accept the spirituality, god aspects of things.....I am in the minority of being an agnostic, I think, so what is your problem really?

 

Not sure. I appear to be unable to have a debate about things on here without inadvertently offending someone at some point.

So, what exactly did I say to piss you off now?

Feel free to explain to me the undending failures of my character, because that's so relevant to the discussion here.

 

Why is everyone on here so fucking tetchy?

 

Why are you such a b****? lol... said in humor now.....said in humor.....

I don't get alot of spiritual terms reki, etc.....so all of these terms tend to lose me in conversations, as well as hardcore mathematic talk....etc......I think in simple terms.....basic.....I never said there were no spiritual aspects to me....as I think one can be very spiritual without being religious, too....Living teaches me things....not so much books.....

I do think what goes around comes around eventually...but that is simple terminololgy that can be applied to physics, as well...I constantly search for universal truths that make sense.

Doesn't everyone?

 

OK ok, are we good again?



Yeah, I say reiki and folk tell me it's bullshit. It is until you've tried it and then it's not bullshit. There's no point in trying to explain how contemporary models of life science share an affinity with the ancient spiritual concepts of chakras and all that, because then most folk'll think I'm a delusional schizophrenic.

Which I take as a compliment always...

I think people are genuinely frightened by the idea of such things, perhaps cognitive dissonance plays a big part.

Anyway, more packing to do... shitting hate house moving!

 

Still you insist on interpreting what I'm saying about intelligent design as there being a God that created the universe..

 

Not necessarily, as I have previously explained.

However, I'm open to the notion that, in line with the psychological template of Carl Jung there may be higher levels of consciousness, collective consciousness. Who is to say there isn't. Since we don't understand what thought or consciousness actually is who are we to say that all the way up to the highest level, the universe is not conscious of itself in some way?

Maybe that is what God is. Maybe on some deep level their is an omnipresent mind throught the entire universe that is bringing forth itself, and we are all part of it in some small way.

Science offers no proof of that, although there is arguably some evidence. Science can neither prove nor disprove that hypothesis.

 

and the universe keeps on redesigning itself until it gets it right....

humor again.