The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Science (10 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6
0pus
View Profile
Inner circle
New Jersey
1739 Posts

Profile of 0pus
In my first post in this thread I stated:

Quote:

. . . when you ask, "Do you believe in science?" my answer is, "Yes. I do."

But science is not a search for truth, or even causality; it describes (or attempts to describe) what is.



Your "observation" is superfluous and seems to be intended as some kind of obnoxious wisecrack.

Poor form.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 22, 2015, funsway wrote:
Quote:
On May 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Listen, everybody is perfectly free to have their personal beliefs and to worship as they wish in their own homes or churches. What more would one want/need? The religious are fond of emphasizing that their relationship with God is personal. That should be all that matters. So why intrude into the public square (or in the workplace or in schools) with one's own particular brand of religion? If you are so confident that you are right with God then YOU will be rewarded in the "afterlife" and all the other heretics will pay the price.

And this thing called science marches on. As will philosophy. And human curiosity. And it's all good. Smile

Ron


a worthy thought, but your statement of "then YOU will be rewarded in the "afterlife" and all the other heretics will pay the price," is s public statement of your own religious bias (particular brand of religion) that defies the point you are attempting to make.


We may have our wires crossed here, so let me clarify somewhat so that we're not misunderstanding each other. First, I am not religious. And second, I was speaking from the perspective of the believer. Most believers believe that there is a "correct" religion/belief system and if you adhere to said doctrines/practices you will be rewarded in the afterlife, while those who do not adhere to those particular doctrines/practices will be punished in the afterlife. It's not something that I believe, but most believers do believe it. That's the point I was making.

Quote:
Why is there even a presumption that "being right with God" has anything to do with religion?


Don't most people derive their God beliefs through religion?

Quote:
Spiritual contemplation is valuable and perhaps essential for the human intellect. Why mess that up with either religion or science?


"Spiritual" is one of those nebulous words that mean something different to everyone you ask. So to say that "spiritual contemplation is valuable" doesn't tell me much. Why not just say that "contemplation is valuable and perhaps essential for the human intellect"? Smile

Thanks Funsway.

Regards,
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 22, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
I know you can feel the universe is mysterious without a supreme being. But for me, it's seems hollow.


Thanks Hermit, I understand where you're coming from. My view can be summed up by the Douglas Adams quote...

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

So it's great that we can both at least appreciate the beauty and the mystery of this universe we find ourselves in.

Best,
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
Quote:
On May 22, 2015, 0pus wrote:
Actually, both religion and atheism have their missionaries. I view both as zealous proselytizers. I am not too thrilled with either; a conversation with either (regardless of purported subject) sometimes makes me feel like I am stuck in one of those interminable timeshare pitches.


I don't know anything about you, so I won't say I agree with you.

However, I would agree with this sentiment.

There are few things as boring as people who insist that the "Theories" of science are a fact, or that the stories of religion are fact.
Religion and science have "proven" themselves true for centuries, yet always have been proven wrong.
They themselves mock themselves for their arrogance in the past and see nothing wrong with their current arrogance.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
That's really a false equivalency based on a false premise. Science is NOT, nor has it ever been, in the business of "proving" things to be true. Scientific theories simply supply the best explanation,based on current technology knowledge and understanding, of empirically observed facts. All scientific theories must be falsifiable otherwise they are not science. Hence it is actually the LEAST arrogant of disciplines.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16264 Posts

Profile of tommy
What do you think a scientific proof is?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
"Scientific proof" is a misnomer. What it refers to is simply persuasive evidence. "Proofs," per se, only exist in mathematics and logic.

Quote:
...One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the......ic-proof
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16264 Posts

Profile of tommy
Are mathematics and logic sciences?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Logic derives from philosophy and mathematics are symbolic logic. There are many definitions of what mathematics actually is. Einstein observed, "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9090 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On May 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:

Don't most people derive their God beliefs through religion?

"Spiritual" is one of those nebulous words that mean something different to everyone you ask. So to say that "spiritual contemplation is valuable" doesn't tell me much. Why not just say that "contemplation is valuable and perhaps essential for the human intellect"? Smile

Ron


Your first question indicates why distinctions of "contemplation" are necessary. The ability to contemplate is simply a mental ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind and compare them without discorporation or insanity. Human seem to have this ability more than other animals, at least to comparing two imaginary concepts, or a "known fact" with an imaginary alternative. The process itself seems to provide some endorphin rewards.

To contemplate on the differences between two existing organized religious practices may assist in making a decision, including rejecting both.

Contemplation of a concept that life has more meaning than eating pizza requires no decision, but can lead to a spiritual postulation useful in the first contemplation, e.g. how does religion "A" deal with the concept of "more than the sum of its parts."

Your later quote illustrates this (for me).

I do not feel that one can just appreciate the beauty of a garden without some prior contemplation of what "beauty" is, why many (or all) humans find such a garden esthetically pleasing and a reenforcement of memories of similar gardens and related pleasures.

The longer one sits in this garden the greater the chance that contemplation will be of a spiritual nature (no pun intended), and one's knowledge and experience will flavor that contemplation.

A Christian might ask, "What was the Garden of Eden really like?" or "is it allegorical to my concept of heaven?" Those are religious questions.

A scientist might ask, "How can that pine tree have cones that only germinate when burned?" This could lead to a scientific study or spiritual musing or religious fear.

A poet might muse, "The attention that allows the incredible flower also tolerates me," is very spiritual but neither scientific or religious.

Some, like myself, might engage in all three processes, plus one asking, "I wonder is my beloved is also looking at a garden today?"

The point is that "spiritual" thinking is not necessarily religious or scientific or fanciful,

and my learning so thus far is that such contemplation is more basically human that the other three examples.

The philosopher should not have said, "I think, therefore I am," but "I question, therefore I am."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, funsway wrote:

The philosopher should not have said, "I think, therefore I am," but "I question, therefore I am."


Actually, he did. That's precisely the sort of "thinking" he was talking about. Questioning can't be done without thinking. So asking questions proves I am thinking, and it is the nature of questions that they are my own. So if I ask a question like, Am I thinking, then I know that the thought is my own rather than thoughts put into my head by some devil or angel. If the thought is my own, then I know I exist.

I'm not saying that I agree, mind you. I'm just letting y'all know what Descartes's argument was.

Which is not totally off topic, by the way. Descartes is widely considered to be the first philosopher of "modernity" (whatever that is), and would thus stand at the threshold of "natural philosophy" becoming modern science. Descartes view of knowledge arguable helped lead to that change.

Or so I've been told. Again, I'm not sure that I agree. I'm just reporting the facts, Ma'am. (Whatever "facts" are.)
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, funsway wrote:

Your first question indicates why distinctions of "contemplation" are necessary. The ability to contemplate is simply a mental ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind and compare them without discorporation or insanity. Human seem to have this ability more than other animals, at least to comparing two imaginary concepts, or a "known fact" with an imaginary alternative. The process itself seems to provide some endorphin rewards.

To contemplate on the differences between two existing organized religious practices may assist in making a decision, including rejecting both.

Contemplation of a concept that life has more meaning than eating pizza requires no decision, but can lead to a spiritual postulation useful in the first contemplation, e.g. how does religion "A" deal with the concept of "more than the sum of its parts."

Your later quote illustrates this (for me).

I do not feel that one can just appreciate the beauty of a garden without some prior contemplation of what "beauty" is, why many (or all) humans find such a garden esthetically pleasing and a reenforcement of memories of similar gardens and related pleasures.

The longer one sits in this garden the greater the chance that contemplation will be of a spiritual nature (no pun intended), and one's knowledge and experience will flavor that contemplation.

A Christian might ask, "What was the Garden of Eden really like?" or "is it allegorical to my concept of heaven?" Those are religious questions.

A scientist might ask, "How can that pine tree have cones that only germinate when burned?" This could lead to a scientific study or spiritual musing or religious fear.

A poet might muse, "The attention that allows the incredible flower also tolerates me," is very spiritual but neither scientific or religious.

Some, like myself, might engage in all three processes, plus one asking, "I wonder is my beloved is also looking at a garden today?"

The point is that "spiritual" thinking is not necessarily religious or scientific or fanciful,

and my learning so thus far is that such contemplation is more basically human that the other three examples.

The philosopher should not have said, "I think, therefore I am," but "I question, therefore I am."


Thanks funsway. But still, I'm just seeing the word "spiritual" tossed about with no actual definition.

Quote:
The longer one sits in this garden the greater the chance that contemplation will be of a spiritual nature


Why? But more importantly, what exactly is meant by "spiritual" nature?

Quote:
The point is that "spiritual" thinking is not necessarily religious or scientific or fanciful,


Then what is it? We know what "thinking" is, so what then is the "spiritual" component of thinking? Is it possible to think deeply about a subject without that thought process being "spiritual"?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, funsway wrote:

The philosopher should not have said, "I think, therefore I am," but "I question, therefore I am."


Actually, he did. That's precisely the sort of "thinking" he was talking about. Questioning can't be done without thinking. So asking questions proves I am thinking, and it is the nature of questions that they are my own. So if I ask a question like, Am I thinking, then I know that the thought is my own rather than thoughts put into my head by some devil or angel. If the thought is my own, then I know I exist.

I'm not saying that I agree, mind you. I'm just letting y'all know what Descartes's argument was.

Which is not totally off topic, by the way. Descartes is widely considered to be the first philosopher of "modernity" (whatever that is), and would thus stand at the threshold of "natural philosophy" becoming modern science. Descartes view of knowledge arguable helped lead to that change.

Or so I've been told. Again, I'm not sure that I agree. I'm just reporting the facts, Ma'am. (Whatever "facts" are.)


That's the sort of thinking that's going to get us in trouble with robots!
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9090 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Is it possible to think deeply about a subject without that thought process being "spiritual"?
Ron


Of course -- never meant to imply that spiritual is a requirement or default, only that "spiritual contemplation" need not be either religious or scientific.

However, some of the neurobiology texts I have read suggests that any consideration of mystery is "of spirit" rather than "of nature." Thus, "spirit" does not necessarily imply divinity or etherial or ghostly -- only consideration of something other then the 4F's.

This sort of discussion works well in person and poorly on the Internet. Then I might say, "I can sense your presence across the room," and we could explore whether that is a spiritual statement or not.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, funsway wrote:
Quote:
On May 25, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Is it possible to think deeply about a subject without that thought process being "spiritual"?
Ron


Of course -- never meant to imply that spiritual is a requirement or default, only that "spiritual contemplation" need not be either religious or scientific.

However, some of the neurobiology texts I have read suggests that any consideration of mystery is "of spirit" rather than "of nature." Thus, "spirit" does not necessarily imply divinity or etherial or ghostly -- only consideration of something other then the 4F's.

This sort of discussion works well in person and poorly on the Internet. Then I might say, "I can sense your presence across the room," and we could explore whether that is a spiritual statement or not.


Ok, so you're still repeating what spiritual isn't without ever saying what it is.

Quote:
any consideration of mystery is "of spirit" rather than "of nature."


What does that even mean? I consider lots of mysteries, but I don't know where "spirit" enters into it.

Quote:
This sort of discussion works well in person and poorly on the Internet. Then I might say, "I can sense your presence across the room," and we could explore whether that is a spiritual statement or not.


I don't see how the "in person" aspect adds anything useful to the discussion of what "spiritual" means.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Science (10 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL