can u believe in science

[ckBejug]

all im saying is that its gonna take take time till doctors can give u the theraphy. thats all.
this tread is more about reason and faith, not about the "controversy" over stem-cell research.

So what? It's going to take time until therapy is made so it shouldn't be amde at all? And I gave you my opinion about the reason and faith...

[garegin]

i am nto against science.
but, im against arrogantly "playing" with nature. many scientists already have concerns that the smell-cells may cause widespead cancers and because of lack of genetical diversity things could go bad.
when thing are done, they should be done with viginance and caution. history has shown what happens when men try to make Frankesteins.

[Sip]

The beauty of science though is that it has the ability to fix itself. When was the last time any "faith" tried to correct it's past mistakes? I might start considering faith when I see maybe bible V13.5 or something (heck it's been over 2000 years)

For one thing, there is really no "thou shalt not play with genetics" clause in the bible ... so the Christian faith at least doesn't really say much in this case ... but science does warn us to play carefully with those kinds of powers (so I agree with you garegin). I think an update (or a patch at least) to the bible is waaaay overdue.

As another example, we really need a rewrite on the "thou shalt not kill" clause.

[ckBejug]

The beauty of science though is that it has the ability to fix itself. When was the last time any "faith" tried to correct it's past mistakes? I might start considering faith when I see maybe bible V13.5 or something (heck it's been over 2000 years)

For one thing, there is really no "thou shalt not play with genetics" clause in the bible ... so the Christian faith at least doesn't really say much in this case ... but science does warn us to play carefully with those kinds of powers (so I agree with you garegin). I think an update (or a patch at least) to the bible is waaaay overdue.

As another example, we really need a rewrite on the "thou shalt not kill" clause.

"thou shalt not kill"*































*Above commandment excludes members of the population unfortunately endowed with minimal intelligence. One may dispose of such individuals at one's discretion.

[Anonymouse]

Science is belief, in another form. It uses different criteria and cirriculum. More importantly, science is that particular society's perception of itself. Knowledge can only come with faith and trust.

[spiral]

Knowledge can only come with faith and trust.

Please elaborate?

[Anonymouse]

Please elaborate?

I was hoping you wouldn't ask. But you did.

All knowledge is, is the psychological perception of learning, and reasoning. What we come to learn we put our faith in, that what we learn is true. We take trust in our forefathers, in our parents, in our books, in our professors, in previous thinkers and philosophers, in the Medieval monk who translated documents, that what we have is authentic.Not only that, but the criteria and method which we use to acquire knowledge is itself based on a certain kind o ftrust. We must first have faith in something before we accept it as a working model to explain other things. The scientific method, or our number system is an example. In order for any of it to be valid, it must first be believed and accepted. Everyone believes that the notational system that we use now is the official one, with minor exceptions who knows where. Why is one written as 1? Why could it not be another symbol conceptually? Why is two written as 2? It must first be agreed upon, and trusted, for it to be disseminated as knowledge. The same applies to the criteria science uses in order to learn about the natural world. It must first have some faith in what it uses, otherwise it would not use it. To show how science is a society's perception of itself and changes with faith of people in that particular scientific theory, I only offer my own quote during the theory of evolution discussion.

"The history of science is a process of finding descriptive models of the nature around us and with each epoch they change (i.e. from Newtonian physics to Modern Physics ). It is to the point that we delude ourselves into thinking that we are very clever to have been able to figure out how nature really works. We will even go so far as to imagine that we have achieved understanding of the world around us. But on a more serious reflection we realize that all we did was add another name or another word or another guess in the form of a theory. Scientists speak of energy, momentum, wave functions as if they were on the same status as objects of everyday experience such as rocks, trees and water. There is a difference between real and invented concepts. A hypothetical change of a scientific model may do away with some concept such as a black hole as a conceptual entity, but it can't absolve a lake or a canyon. "

Of course, the scientific people here will kindly disagree.

[spiral]

I don’t see how you have apposed science in any way.

From what I understood, you believe that the only thing that gives science validity is our trust, or willingness of believing in it. I’m not sure if that’s what you meant, but that’s what it basically comes down to.

[Sip]

Of course, the scientific people here will kindly disagree.

The only thing I would "disagree" with is how you make "faith" be the central thing when talking about knowledge. You make it sound the same as the "faith" in a religious/spiritual context. Learning mechanims such as deductive reasoning, logic, inference, memorization, and maybe even "common sense" are more attributes of intelligence than faith. And I think intelligence is much more important of a criterion for aquiring knowledge than "faith" or "trust".

After all, an uneducated man marooned on desolate island will eventually aquire some knowledge before his death even though he doesn't have access to any prior art to base his "faith" on.

[Anonymouse]

The only thing I would "disagree" with is how you make "faith" be the central thing when talking about knowledge. You make it sound the same as the "faith" in a religious/spiritual context. Learning mechanims such as deductive reasoning, logic, inference, memorization, and maybe even "common sense" are more attributes of intelligence than faith. And I think intelligence is much more important of a criterion for aquiring knowledge than "faith" or "trust".

After all, an uneducated man marooned on desolate island will eventually aquire some knowledge before his death even though he doesn't have access to any prior art to base his "faith" on.

Even then, there is the question of if he is a man from the civilized world that is stranded on the island? If he is, then he has ideas and images of what he believes are knowledge to aid him being stranded. He obviously has most likely heard of how to make fire, therefore he has faith in what he has been taught.

You see, faith is a centrality to this issue because it is central to how one views knowledge, and mans proper place within the world, whether we ascribe knowledge to God or a supernatural cause, or just some unseen chaotic and random evolutionary forces.