The Gold medal in being AWESOME.


You can have the WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH award though.

...scientific results aren't much good unless they do something good for society. Of course, that's just where you meet up with uncertainty.

How is that comparing science to faith?

I'm talking about the scientific results. Because of all the uncertainty, you have to have faith in how the results are used. Lack thereof allows someone to easily question the value of their research.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone that might have been researching nuclear energy and has a strong sense of ethics. You discover the potential good that nuclear energy has and want to see it through. However, you see the potential use as a massive bomb. Are you going to move forward with it?

Not really, science is objective. Take the A-bomb for example: They made the bomb, but didn't have much faith that it would be put to good use, and volia, it wasn't.

Having faith in how the results of science are used is not necessary for science at all. As a matter of fact it is something separate from the actual science and results themselves and that is the implications of scientific research/results.

I don't understand how the feelings of the person behind of an experiment have to do with the data gathered through science.

How do you know that that's not just a bunch of emotional crap that your organic computer is just tricking you with? Isn't it entirely possible what you think is "spirituality" is just a meaningless series of chemical reactions?

I remember two years ago when Obi_Kwiet was a hard core christian... Oh how the times will change.

I know I have emotions. We all do. We have willpower, feel tragedy, hurt, pain, joy, etc.
I just don't cout it all crap.

And in regards to your second questions, yes, but I don't believe that to be completely true.

Just one thing I want to point out. I respect many people here and I don't want to start a heated argument :). I don't see how totally physical processes such as natural selection and mutations would allow for beings to be sentient, cogniscient, have an appreciation for art or music, care for lower beings and such. I don't see how that aids in anyway for either survival or reproduction.

Nuclear energy came first. The A-bomb is the negative use of the results. Even though it's still debated, I suggest watching Copenhagen and reviewing the lesson's it offers.

You're right. Faith may not be necessary for science, especially the basic stuff like testing gravity. But consider all the new, ambitious scientific studies. Consider nanotechnology -- some of it is very controversial. Researchers have to find a way to justify what they're doing and convince themselves, society, and their source of income (grants, mostly) to have faith that the projects are worth pursuing and will benefit society. The research may produce positive results, but we can't be certain of the risks that are being taken (risk society). In many cases, the risks are simply too numerous to consider and evaluate. The scope of a single risk may be so great that proper evaluation would itself slow progress.

Scientists have to convince people to have faith in them and their research. If the government has no faith in a particular program, why fund it? That poses a major threat to the continuation/success of the project.

So, science can be carried on without faith. BUT, imagine the pace that it would be at. The limitations would be brutal.

I don't have faith in the results of science. I'm sorry if you do, but I don't.

My life is improved daily by the results of science. These results of science include my automobile, my microwave, and the computer I'm using to send you this message.

I certainly understand where you're coming from. It's definitely digging deep. It's also tough to look at in terms of what has happened. It really has to be looked at with the question of what will happen if I go forward with X project?

Yes, many scientific endeavors and experiments could be considered "controversal". But the great thing about science is that it is a system that is not driven by such subjective forces such as emotions. When you said "as far as faith and science goes, most of the faith is in the results of science" it seemed you claimed that faith is somehow an inherent element to the interworkings of science. It is somewhat true that "science can be carried on without faith" but, I believe, it would better to say "science should be carried on without faith."

It appears you are talking more along the lines of how science is perceived and how people's views have influence the development of science's role in society.

Who cares? Fortune-telling isn't science.

I'm approaching it more from the standpoint: If they do not have faith in you or your project's results, they probably will not fund you. If you have no funds, you have a big brick wall standing in the way of your project's progress.




Predictions. It's an immense part of the scientific method.

It's definitely not fortune-telling. If that were the case then uncertainty and risk would not be an issue.

And that has literally nothing to do with science. It's bull**** politics.

Wow. When you didn't think the FAITH VS SCIENCE arguments couldn't get any more stupid.

Sure it does. It has a big effect on it's progress.

Rob: You're late posting. The Faith vs. Science arguments are a couple pages back.

But this is the problem. Funding/ethics and science are two different subjects. Funding/ethics and the personal morals of scientists and the mainstream scientific community do relate and influence each other.



Where on the scientifc method does it state that "the possible implications on people's feelings and the state of the society from the outcome of the experiments and research" is considered?

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant with that comment.
Predictions as in predicting what will happen when you run your test/experiment.

THATS WHAT A HYPOTHESIS ****ING IS.

You know. THAT FIRST QUESTION ASKS AND THEN YOU KNOW, PERFORMS A ****ING EXPERIMENT FOR...

Oh no, this is THE SAME ****ING THING.

Only you're trying to champion the argument BY ATTEMPTING to compare faith and science.

..........

You're trying to say people have faith in science because they need to have faith that some ******* will give them money to conduct experiements.

I'm saying that's bull****. Faith is not required to believe in science; you know, facts. Evidence. experience. technology resulting from proven scientific principles.

The **** you're talking about is POLITICS. No, I DONT have faith in politics. If there's a single goddamn thing on the face of the earth one should NOT have faith in, it's politics.

To restate a point already made:

Science depends on logic and reason not faith. When you make a hypothesis, you're not acting on faith, you're assuming that something will happen in a certain way based on logically deducing the possible outcomes according to your pre-existing knowledge base.

Are religious people scared of scientific/philosophical knowledge because it threatens their understanding of their religion? I'm really curious here as to why those of you defending "faith" have picked science to attack. Science is an unbiased tool. People are biased.

Really?

First nuclear power plant to generate electricity: BDR-1, Arco, ID, Dec. 20, 1951

First nuclear bomb to be used for its intended purpose: "Little Boy," Hiroshima, Aug. 6, 1945


Sentient or sapient? I think you're getting them confused. Some higher primates display sapience, in very basic ways; it's not entirely unique to humans. Art and music stem largely from evolution of the regions of the brain that are responsible for spatial understanding, and mathematics.

pffttt...

People are imperfect. Science is a methodology developed by people. Science is imperfect.

If people are biased, science is as well.

Science reinforces my "faith" as in, the Christian faith. Scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge are worth exploring because they are both things created by God for us to discover. If I (personally) ever came across as attacking science, I apologize. Science is good, but as you say, people are biased. We can't help it.

Thank you captain obvious. I said that. I pointed it out because Free said there was none of that in Science.

And no, it's not the same thing. I'm trying to show the effects faith has on science. It is entirely different. Don't post unless you are willing to actually make an effort to read though a single post.

Also, quit *****ing.



Implementation is entirely different from discovering the concept. I'm not talking about when the first plant or bomb was built.



Unfortunately, many of the people that provide the funding don't see it your way. Facts, evidence, experience....it's all part of convincing someone to have faith in them. One slip up and it's history.



I'm not attacking science. I'm simply saying science and faith work together quite frequently. Not in the basic, underlying principles of science but in the much bigger picture.

Right, but the developement of the bomb drove a lot of the research into nuclear energy.

if scientific experiments were conducted by robots, then there would be no faith involved. there is no faith involved in "science" per say, however there is faith in scientific research. as soon as you add a human element faith is also added into the equation. each and every human has faith to some extent, sorry if you don't like it, but its true. and because i know I'm going to get the "no its not." yes, yes it is. people exercise faith without even realizing it or meaning to.
so... take the human element away and you can separate faith and science, otherwise there stuck with each other.

They make no sense.

FAITH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT.

The only thing that they would have to do with the data would be a bias, but other than that I agree that it's irrelevant

What you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the actual science itself. Funding science =/= faith

I'm surprised how confused some people can get when using certain words.



Well if that can be used for science, then it applies even more relevantly to religion obviously.


And one important point about faith in science:

Those people trying to defend religion by saying "you have to have faith that the results are true" or in science at all. This seems to be an argument that a skeptic would make, for example "I don't really know that this table is here, but I have faith that it is."

Now if someone is that much of a skeptic about things like science and laws of nature, etc. Then how the hell can they be so sure about something as logically flawed as the Judaeo-Christian God.

If I'm somehow looking into it too much, explain how I'm not.

I'm being rhetorical. You're kind of missing the real point I'm making.

Times have changed indeed, now that Obi's posts are the most interesting in a thread. Less asterixes anyway.



This is very much what Descarte is all about when he says 'I think, therefore I am'. How can we believe that which we see around us is actually what there is? How do I know that I am not just being decieved by a higher power?
Well, the one thing I know for certain is that I exist for I am able to ask these questions. I must exist because I am able to think. This assertment is not based on deduction, but rather because it is self-evident.
However, I only know that I exist, I cannot tell for certain if anything else or any other minds exist. How then can I assertain the truth of that which I sense? Well, while my senses may well be decieved by a higher power, I know for certain that I am a thinking thing of sorts. Perception may be decieved, but deduction cannot.

Science was shaped by philosophers and as such science is spoken not in the language of perception but the language of deduction. Science does not describe temperature in the way that we percieve it (a chemical reaction is not described by "ooh, that's very hot") but rather the way we deduce it. Mathematics. Mathematics is built upon the logical progression of that which can be deduced (mathematics does not require you to be able to 'see' it; you can work in however many dimensions you want, despite existing in only three), and is the language that describes science.



Well, you have to understand that the concept of 'force' does not correspond to any observable quantity, it is entirely derived from the momentum. Newton used the concept of force to derive equations of motion in the form that we now call Newtonian Mechanics. But there is no reason for you to be limited to Newtonian Mechanics, you can work any problem in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian Mechanics; and you can derive equations of motion without the concept of force (using only the kinetic and potential energies).



We don't need experience from 'outside' the Universe to validate our own. As far as we're concerned, the Universe is entirely self-contained and is entirely all there is (quiet at the back, string theorists).



Religion wishes it could ask questions that science or philosophy cannot answer. It hasn't, yet, and instead beats away at all the ones they already have.

They'll never be as interesting as yours. *swoon*

I would have Mort Hog's children.

Hi guys.