Are there phenomena which simple rationality cannot adequately explain?

[Order 66]

science is cool because it led to videogames and stuff. but at some point you need to quit talking about it coz it makes you sound like a fag. i just want to go around hitting people

[reprise85]

But is it not quite a smaller leap to go from the dinosaurs existed to maybe they had scales/feathers/whatever than the original scientific jump to "only creatures we see now have ever existed" to "dinosaurs existed"? Yes, scientists "changed" some of their views, but the fact that we have methods of determining more exact science and perhaps figure out that our views are completely wrong is a testament to science itself. So yes, science hasn't figured everything out and never will. That doesn't mean it's only as trustworthy as a man flipping a 20 sided die.

Another example:

It was only hundreds of years ago that Europeans ("civilized peoples") didn't know the Americas existed. Yes, it was an "update" in science to realize that the earth was bigger than thought, but is that not a much smaller leap than how many years it took to to realize the Earth wasn't flat, for example? Or however long it took to invent boats to even navigate the oceans? So: if we find out man is not as old or is older than we thought, isn't that small potatoes compared to the original discovery that man is millions of years old?

[The Omega Concern]

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

omega on the off chance that you are answering seriously, science cannot be a "lie," it's a method of investigation that determines probabilities. no real scientist would tell that science is "the truth" like it is some sort of index of objective facts or something, and also no real scientist would believe science is capable of identifying objective facts to begin with

Fair enough. Science is a big term though. If mathematics is the language of Source as some believe, then the savants in the field are likely always tapped in to the 'truth' of it, visualizing geometric patterns and their formula's or dreaming in code.

I can agree with the purity of science and the aim of researchers in the various fields, unfortunately much of what we know of it is in the political realm and that's anything but truthful. What hnibos cited above is stuff that was known but was kept hidden and/or not allowed to be disclosed until recently.

[reprise85]

this is a good thread, don't keep shitting in it TOC. please.

John Lennon absolutely is in hell if it exists

[slunken]

Originally Posted by reprise85

this is a good thread, don't keep shitting in it TOC. please.

Yes please go back to discussing "christianity" - that is much more important than science.

[redbreegull]

john lennon once stood on a balcony and pissed on some nuns walking below

[redbreegull]

one reason I like science better than religion is that science is descriptive and asks questions and makes observations, whereas religion is prescriptive and tells me how the universe is and what I should do and fuck that.

It is interesting though in all seriousness that part of this debate thus far has been whether or not certain phenomena are "unexplainable," and we have science on the side of everything can be rationalized and faith on the side of unexplainable is out there... whereas really, religion tells you exactly how the whole universe is and science shrugs its shoulders and says cool I have no fucking idea when confronted with unknowns

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by slunken

Yes please go back to discussing "christianity" - that is much more important than science.

Him saying the word "science" doesn't mean he's talking about science

[redbreegull]

in all fairness, I think that there is widespread, endemic misunderstanding of what science is. If you polled people about what science is, I bet very few in the general public would say science is a method of testing ideas and determining likelihoods

[reprise85]

TOC, I'm sorry I was an asshole to you.

Here's what I should have just posted and left it at this:

Originally Posted by reprise85

But is it not quite a smaller leap to go from the dinosaurs existed to maybe they had scales/feathers/whatever than the original scientific jump to "only creatures we see now have ever existed" to "dinosaurs existed"? Yes, scientists "changed" some of their views, but the fact that we have methods of determining more exact science and perhaps figure out that our views are completely wrong is a testament to science itself. So yes, science hasn't figured everything out and never will. That doesn't mean it's only as trustworthy as a man flipping a 20 sided die.

Another example:

It was only hundreds of years ago that Europeans ("civilized peoples") didn't know the Americas existed. Yes, it was an "update" in science to realize that the earth was bigger than thought, but is that not a much smaller leap than how many years it took to to realize the Earth wasn't flat, for example? Or however long it took to invent boats to even navigate the oceans? So: if we find out man is not as old or is older than we thought, isn't that small potatoes compared to the original discovery that man is millions of years old?

[null123]

Originally Posted by Aeris Hilton

John Lennon absolutely is in hell if it exists

this

[null123]

let's settle this conversation by a vote of who is smarter, me or killtrocity

[hnibos]

is it because he was a jew

[Order 66]

kiltrocity. there aren't any women scientists (that i know of)

[Future Boy]

Charmbag, kill likes duo, thats says it all

[redbreegull]

i'm not sure the comparative "smarter" can be applied to anyone who posts here

[null123]

hehe

[Trotskilicious]

redbreegull if that's true how are you the smartest one

[Trotskilicious]

in the whole wide world

[Order 66]

my intelligence is even more better

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

redbreegull if that's true how are you the smartest one

smartest is a superlative, not a comparative

[mxzombie]

suck it, nerd

[Bread Regal]

so how about that new pope. he's pretty rad (for a pope).

[Bread Regal]

i'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be about, but i will take a stab.

the nature of consciousness is very poorly understood. if science is able to answer the questions about the mechanics behind judgement, memories, the "mind's eye" and the perception of ego then it will have basically answered affirmatively nearly every question that religion has attempted to answer.

whether science will actually answer these questions, i can't actually say, but to say its inherently unknowable really shuts a lot of doors. what is known by mankind about the natural world would be simply unimaginable a thousand, or even 300 years ago, a rather slim sliver of time in the grand scheme of things. to put self-imposed limits on what we can learn seems like a philosophical cop-out.

[Trotskilicious]

yeah what's up with commie pope

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Bread Regal

i'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be about, but i will take a stab.

the nature of consciousness is very poorly understood. if science is able to answer the questions about the mechanics behind judgement, memories, the "mind's eye" and the perception of ego then it will have basically answered affirmatively nearly every question that religion has attempted to answer.

whether science will actually answer these questions, i can't actually say, but to say its inherently unknowable really shuts a lot of doors. what is known by mankind about the natural world would be simply unimaginable a thousand, or even 300 years ago, a rather slim sliver of time in the grand scheme of things. to put self-imposed limits on what we can learn seems like a philosophical cop-out.

it's all math man, whether we can comprehend the computations or the data set is the question

right

420 smoke weed

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Bread Regal

i'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be about, but i will take a stab.

the nature of consciousness is very poorly understood. if science is able to answer the questions about the mechanics behind judgement, memories, the "mind's eye" and the perception of ego then it will have basically answered affirmatively nearly every question that religion has attempted to answer.

whether science will actually answer these questions, i can't actually say, but to say its inherently unknowable really shuts a lot of doors. what is known by mankind about the natural world would be simply unimaginable a thousand, or even 300 years ago, a rather slim sliver of time in the grand scheme of things. to put self-imposed limits on what we can learn seems like a philosophical cop-out.

Is it conceivable that, at some point, we can really know everything about consciousness? Can all questions be answered, or do answers inevitably lead to more questions (okay that sounds lame, but I hope you get my point)? If we did completely understand consciousness, wouldn't the new way we think about consciousness bring up new questions about the nature of consciousness? Or, to put it another way: How can there be an end game to understanding, when the act of understanding changes how we experience reality?

This is of course a complete hypothetical, because I don't know how experiments on consciousness could not have inherent experimenter bias... but I'm not a scientist.

[Trotskilicious]

because math