I was going to reply to all your points seperately, but after some consideration I came to the conclusion that literally all of it is a semantics problem that shows best in your translation of the word 'philosophy'. I know it does not translate to critical thinking, but I'm equating it to that because that is what it is in its most basic form. 'To perform philosophy' is basically 'asking why'. I'm not saying curiosity necessitates philosophy, but rather that the two are one and the same. This is what I mean when I'm saying it 'drives' science: thinking is the baseline for all of it and (modern?) philosophy is mostly 'practicing thinking'. Science is a more practical form of it. I'm not claiming that every scientist goes and reads Kant before performing an experiment. It was mostly a response to Gradius who initially seemed to claim that, aside from ultimate origin, science has answered any questions we might have while religion hasn't. Which, I think, is simply not true.
You imply that religion answers ultimate origin? I always thought it does the contrary.
Science cant and might never be able to answer everything(All we know is knowledge understood and tangible from our senses, You cant go beyond that) . From the dawn of understanding, Its never even come close to answering the important questions of life. All it does is discover inventions, medicines etc, and explains the process behind phenomena. Useful in its own right nonetheless, but that it might have limitations is not far fetched.
I believe in Karma, Re-incarnation(to a degree) and similar concepts like that which is relegated on religion. Science cant answer that now, and might never so I dont care about waiting until the day it does when my life is now.
The universes runs on a cause<>effect system, There is no problem is believing human action might have a macrocosm effect thats not easily perceived. Surely it would justify many problems in the world that seem random and unfair in human life yet in a perfectly designed and ordered universe. This is where philosophy and wisdom(logic) comes in, and Science takes a backseat or tries to validate it.
If philosophy/religion/wisdom had any merit at all beyond idle speculation, you'd have one school of thought for the entire planet that people would have all come to independently of each other.
Not really. Science is the same. You telling me the level of scientific advancement for one group will necessitate into a reality for another group in an eventuality?. Possible, but not probable, and there are many factors. The same goes for religion/wisdom/philosophy. Major groups share very common collective thoughts(A God/s, Law of Karma, distinction between good and evil etc). The rest is the result of cultural difference and whatever else.
Luckily, science doesn't waste its time trying to validate any of these hypotheses, but merely ignores them.
Because it cant..
Although there does seem to be some evidence for things like past life regression, and some valid scientific endeavours in that field.
So yea, Science is slow, but eventually it might get to understanding and explaining the 'important" aspects of life. "Might". Hence belief serves a great role.
You imply that religion answers ultimate origin? I always thought it does the contrary.
Depending on the religion, it definitely does. I.e. 'God created everything, and God himself didn't come from anything - he was the beginning'. One can argue about the usefulness or quality of such an answer, but it's definitely 'an' answer to a philosophical question.
I was going to reply to all your points seperately, but after some consideration I came to the conclusion that literally all of it is a semantics problem that shows best in your translation of the word 'philosophy'. I know it does not translate to critical thinking, but I'm equating it to that because that is what it is in its most basic form. 'To perform philosophy' is basically 'asking why'. I'm not saying curiosity necessitates philosophy, but rather that the two are one and the same. This is what I mean when I'm saying it 'drives' science: thinking is the baseline for all of it and (modern?) philosophy is mostly 'practicing thinking'. Science is a more practical form of it. I'm not claiming that every scientist goes and reads Kant before performing an experiment. It was mostly a response to Gradius who initially seemed to claim that, aside from ultimate origin, science has answered any questions we might have while religion hasn't. Which, I think, is simply not true.
Curiosity and philosophy are not the same. You ask "Why?" because you are curious, not because you practice philosophy. You can be curious and not be a philosopher. However, you cannot be a philosopher without being curious. Likewise with curiosity, the same goes for critical thinking. You can be a critical thinker without practicing philosophy, but to practice philosophy requires critical thinking. That is why philosophy does not drive science. Philosophy and science are different paths to answer "Why?". In philosophy, you make up an answer from your mind, regardless of the answer's basis in reality. In science, you use data gathered from reality to answer the question.
Leave it to the scientist to equate linguistical sentiments to mathematics. If you sincerely didn't see the point in my last post there's little point in argueing for me. I think you should read some Hume, though.
Gravity is just a theory. Science has given multiple names to the true force that is at work just like how your ancestors perceived the transition from water to ice they thought some divine process had took place and never paying attentions to underlying work of temperature. Just like in electricity, temperature had developed a important role in how electricity will function as understanding of electricity progressed. Because the earth is spinning around that spin makes earth more massive than if it was still. The sun is spinning too and so is the milky way and the universe as well. The theory of "gravity" has put a governing from of control to keep everything from spinning out of control. Magnets are like springs giving compression and expansion forces and the earth is a spinning magnet not a strong magnet but is the reason why we have a moon. Our moons orbit was originally around the sun just like all the other planets. During this time the moon had a molten magnetic core and also was a slow mover because of the orbit between mars and earth and every time they went in to planetary alignment, the moon slowed until was one with the magnetic field around the earth. Because of the earth was faster moving relative to the moon speed, earth was able to keep its distance from the moon to prevent a catastrophic collision. This is the ultimate reason why there is a asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This force was understood by this man Edward Leedskalnin and is ultimately how he moved the megalithic coral blocks around. Now take some time and think about this man and his unusual accomplishment. Can you do it with your current understanding on how "things" work.
The problem is, in the interim of figuring out whether or not there's too much CO2, there has already long been government policy in place assuming there is. Not just that, but it opens the floodgates for crooked policy that has nothing to do with the environment. Such is with the bad joke that is "carbon taxes," whose purpose is nothing more than economic warfare/siege/wealth redistribution:
This is what I'm talking about with "priorities." These destructive policies that are undeniably changing the world are taking a backseat to, and enabled by, what "might possibly" change the world. Although in all fairness, if I were an atheist holding in my heart the ramifications of a meaningless existence, where humanity's destruction could happen at any time "just because," I would be haunted too by any number of calamities.
EDIT: I'm trying to wrap my head around this...but it just seems that everything the atheist mindset stands for invariably aids and abets the New World Order one way or another. Never mind, it makes perfect sense.
Yeah, atheists have hard time believing conspiracy theorists, so they must be part of the conspiracy.
Dont see why stupid policies have to do anything with the actual fact that there is a global warming.
Personally, I am against carbon tax or "green energy plants". Anybody with brain and with basic understanding in physics knows that nuclear and "plasma" energy is the future...
Instead Obama wasting money by giving support to unprofitable green energy companies, he should remove fossil fuel subsidies, break up OPEC, support state run cutting edge researches and so on....
Some science to fill or..rather highlight gaps in evolution theory(that its broken). Kudos if you understand it(not really complicated) and can answer/make sense of everything by yourself(Which I mean, you should be able to anyway).
One of the perils with science is, it acclimates people to let others make their discoveries for them, and that doesn't work with God.
Not one iota of affirmation will be given to the faithless, lacking all grace and humility, who beseech one another for answers (as the blind leading the blind), or treat God as a wind-up doll, that He should conform to our beck and call, however odious and disrespectful, and void of love. What a farce!
Ask Him POLITELY, with English words if you have to, until you get better and are able with your feelings (not the five senses).
@FDFederation: Go
I was going to reply to all your points seperately, but after some consideration I came to the conclusion that literally all of it is a semantics problem that shows best in your translation of the word 'philosophy'. I know it does not translate to critical thinking, but I'm equating it to that because that is what it is in its most basic form. 'To perform philosophy' is basically 'asking why'. I'm not saying curiosity necessitates philosophy, but rather that the two are one and the same. This is what I mean when I'm saying it 'drives' science: thinking is the baseline for all of it and (modern?) philosophy is mostly 'practicing thinking'. Science is a more practical form of it. I'm not claiming that every scientist goes and reads Kant before performing an experiment. It was mostly a response to Gradius who initially seemed to claim that, aside from ultimate origin, science has answered any questions we might have while religion hasn't. Which, I think, is simply not true.
@Mozared: Go
You imply that religion answers ultimate origin? I always thought it does the contrary.
Science cant and might never be able to answer everything(All we know is knowledge understood and tangible from our senses, You cant go beyond that) . From the dawn of understanding, Its never even come close to answering the important questions of life. All it does is discover inventions, medicines etc, and explains the process behind phenomena. Useful in its own right nonetheless, but that it might have limitations is not far fetched.
I believe in Karma, Re-incarnation(to a degree) and similar concepts like that which is relegated on religion. Science cant answer that now, and might never so I dont care about waiting until the day it does when my life is now.
The universes runs on a cause<>effect system, There is no problem is believing human action might have a macrocosm effect thats not easily perceived. Surely it would justify many problems in the world that seem random and unfair in human life yet in a perfectly designed and ordered universe. This is where philosophy and wisdom(logic) comes in, and Science takes a backseat or tries to validate it.
Not really. Science is the same. You telling me the level of scientific advancement for one group will necessitate into a reality for another group in an eventuality?. Possible, but not probable, and there are many factors. The same goes for religion/wisdom/philosophy. Major groups share very common collective thoughts(A God/s, Law of Karma, distinction between good and evil etc). The rest is the result of cultural difference and whatever else.
Because it cant..
Although there does seem to be some evidence for things like past life regression, and some valid scientific endeavours in that field.
So yea, Science is slow, but eventually it might get to understanding and explaining the 'important" aspects of life. "Might". Hence belief serves a great role.
Depending on the religion, it definitely does. I.e. 'God created everything, and God himself didn't come from anything - he was the beginning'. One can argue about the usefulness or quality of such an answer, but it's definitely 'an' answer to a philosophical question.
Curiosity and philosophy are not the same. You ask "Why?" because you are curious, not because you practice philosophy. You can be curious and not be a philosopher. However, you cannot be a philosopher without being curious. Likewise with curiosity, the same goes for critical thinking. You can be a critical thinker without practicing philosophy, but to practice philosophy requires critical thinking. That is why philosophy does not drive science. Philosophy and science are different paths to answer "Why?". In philosophy, you make up an answer from your mind, regardless of the answer's basis in reality. In science, you use data gathered from reality to answer the question.
@FDFederation: Go
Leave it to the scientist to equate linguistical sentiments to mathematics. If you sincerely didn't see the point in my last post there's little point in argueing for me. I think you should read some Hume, though.
@Mozared: Go
Lol, you will understand when you become a scientist. Teehee!
http://www.academia.edu/317781/Rat_pups_and_random_robots_generate_similar_self-organized_and_intentional_behavior
@FDFederation: Go
Funny thing is, I'm someone who partly studies science and scientists while working on being a scientist on the side. You'd say I understand.
I love potholer54.
Science vs Feelings:
Gravity is just a theory. Science has given multiple names to the true force that is at work just like how your ancestors perceived the transition from water to ice they thought some divine process had took place and never paying attentions to underlying work of temperature. Just like in electricity, temperature had developed a important role in how electricity will function as understanding of electricity progressed. Because the earth is spinning around that spin makes earth more massive than if it was still. The sun is spinning too and so is the milky way and the universe as well. The theory of "gravity" has put a governing from of control to keep everything from spinning out of control. Magnets are like springs giving compression and expansion forces and the earth is a spinning magnet not a strong magnet but is the reason why we have a moon. Our moons orbit was originally around the sun just like all the other planets. During this time the moon had a molten magnetic core and also was a slow mover because of the orbit between mars and earth and every time they went in to planetary alignment, the moon slowed until was one with the magnetic field around the earth. Because of the earth was faster moving relative to the moon speed, earth was able to keep its distance from the moon to prevent a catastrophic collision. This is the ultimate reason why there is a asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This force was understood by this man Edward Leedskalnin and is ultimately how he moved the megalithic coral blocks around. Now take some time and think about this man and his unusual accomplishment. Can you do it with your current understanding on how "things" work.
The problem is, in the interim of figuring out whether or not there's too much CO2, there has already long been government policy in place assuming there is. Not just that, but it opens the floodgates for crooked policy that has nothing to do with the environment. Such is with the bad joke that is "carbon taxes," whose purpose is nothing more than economic warfare/siege/wealth redistribution:
This is what I'm talking about with "priorities." These destructive policies that are undeniably changing the world are taking a backseat to, and enabled by, what "might possibly" change the world. Although in all fairness, if I were an atheist holding in my heart the ramifications of a meaningless existence, where humanity's destruction could happen at any time "just because," I would be haunted too by any number of calamities.
EDIT: I'm trying to wrap my head around this...but it just seems that everything the atheist mindset stands for invariably aids and abets the New World Order one way or another. Never mind, it makes perfect sense.
@TheZizz: Go
Yeah, atheists have hard time believing conspiracy theorists, so they must be part of the conspiracy.
Dont see why stupid policies have to do anything with the actual fact that there is a global warming.
Personally, I am against carbon tax or "green energy plants". Anybody with brain and with basic understanding in physics knows that nuclear and "plasma" energy is the future...
Instead Obama wasting money by giving support to unprofitable green energy companies, he should remove fossil fuel subsidies, break up OPEC, support state run cutting edge researches and so on....
@SolidSC: Go
Your lack of understanding of physics and science is astonishing.
Victims of confirmation bias as usual.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm
Anyways, here are some ACTUAL science links:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mind-rampage-killer.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/pharaoh-chariot.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/meteor-strike.html
Science is your friend.
Today's Science Friday program:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/playlist/#play/program/1673
@FDFederation: Go
Some science to fill or..rather highlight gaps in evolution theory(that its broken). Kudos if you understand it(not really complicated) and can answer/make sense of everything by yourself(Which I mean, you should be able to anyway).
http://evolutionfacts.com/Handbook%20TOC.htm
http://www.icr.org/article/260/
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1
http://www.emjc3.com/evolution.htm
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions.html
Will also just drop this..
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html
Edit: The above meme was something I found and not meant to be dramatic in anyway.
"I'm not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx
One of the perils with science is, it acclimates people to let others make their discoveries for them, and that doesn't work with God.
Not one iota of affirmation will be given to the faithless, lacking all grace and humility, who beseech one another for answers (as the blind leading the blind), or treat God as a wind-up doll, that He should conform to our beck and call, however odious and disrespectful, and void of love. What a farce!
Ask Him POLITELY, with English words if you have to, until you get better and are able with your feelings (not the five senses).
http://jahtruth.net
Dont hijack the thread!
Lets get back to the topic:
Alma recently started its first measurements: http://www.universetoday.com/100769/alma-the-view-from-a-different-world/
http://www.universetoday.com/ is quite nice site for astronomy btw.