PDA

View Full Version : Heaven, Hell, who cares — I pick Earth



BAMAPHIN 22
06-29-2007, 10:07 AM
Do you believe in heaven or hell? If not, why not? If so, who's going there and how do you know?


it's a stupid question, because the only sensible answer is "no" and "because there is no evidence for it, nobody has been to either place and come back to tell us about it, and everyone who makes claims about them is using them as a carrot-and-stick to compel you to obey them".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/heaven_hell_who_cares_i_pick_e.php

Stitches
06-29-2007, 02:04 PM
I don't believe in either, but I know Earth is here. So why not make the best of the time I know I have.

PhinzN703
06-29-2007, 03:00 PM
I would think that since nobody has proof of heaven or hell that neither exist. Isn't that scientific enough for us to assume they don't exist?

But life in itself is very mysterious and I don't think this topic will ever have a final answer. I mean it isn't like we'll know we're in heaven or hell when/if we get there.

Dolphin39
07-01-2007, 04:43 AM
Make no mistake, heaven and God is real, as is hell and Satan.

I personally choose to spend eternity in heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ, who is my personal savior. Jesus died that all who believe in him would have everlasting life.

Satan is the great deceiver and as you can read, many will spend eternity with him in hell if they do not repent and accept Jesus.

John 3:16 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

muscle979
07-01-2007, 11:10 AM
The mindset that we are only here as some kind of preparation for some other life is a pretty harmful minset in society. Just look at what it's driving crazy muslims to do and what it has driven others to do in the past. When you're just using your life as some springboard to an eternal paradise you can pretty much throw live and let live out the window. Now suddenly you're comdemning people and waging wars on people so that you can please the big man and reserve your spot in paradise.

Stitches
07-01-2007, 08:27 PM
Make no mistake, heaven and God is real, as is hell and Satan.

I personally choose to spend eternity in heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ, who is my personal savior. Jesus died that all who believe in him would have everlasting life.

Satan is the great deceiver and as you can read, many will spend eternity with him in hell if they do not repent and accept Jesus.

John 3:16 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Can you show me that hell is real?

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 08:37 PM
Can you show me that hell is real?

can you show me that the big bang was real? No. All you can do is hope the latest guess/ theory is right. You have a right to CHOOSE what you want to believe. Can you show me that hell IS NOT real. NO. If I am right and you are wrong, you will be in a world of hurt. If you are right am I am wrong, so what. The only thing about that last sentence is......I am sure I am right. You refuse to give it a real chance. But then again, that is your choice.

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 08:41 PM
The mindset that we are only here as some kind of preparation for some other life is a pretty harmful minset in society. Just look at what it's driving crazy muslims to do and what it has driven others to do in the past. When you're just using your life as some springboard to an eternal paradise you can pretty much throw live and let live out the window. Now suddenly you're comdemning people and waging wars on people so that you can please the big man and reserve your spot in paradise.
There are extremests in most every religion. There are also millions of muslems that are not out to kill every one else.

Stitches
07-01-2007, 08:43 PM
can you show me that the big bang was real? No. All you can do is hope the latest guess/ theory is right. You have a right to CHOOSE what you want to believe. Can you show me that hell IS NOT real. NO. If I am right and you are wrong, you will be in a world of hurt. If you are right am I am wrong, so what. The only thing about that last sentence is......I am sure I am right. You refuse to give it a real chance. But then again, that is your choice.

How come? I am a good person after all.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 08:54 PM
can you show me that the big bang was real? No. All you can do is hope the latest guess/ theory is right. You have a right to CHOOSE what you want to believe. Can you show me that hell IS NOT real. NO. If I am right and you are wrong, you will be in a world of hurt. If you are right am I am wrong, so what. The only thing about that last sentence is......I am sure I am right. You refuse to give it a real chance. But then again, that is your choice.

Your concept of "show" is misplaced here. If by "show" you mean "humans can observe it", then how does one show gamma rays exist for example?

There's a HUGE difference between theories of physics that predict a Big Bang versus any argument for or against the existence of Hell: the theories in physics that predict a Big Bang make LOTS of other predictions we can test right now. None of the religious texts that claim Hell exists allows you to test that claim, but you can test whether a Big Bang occurred or not.

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 08:57 PM
What I have a hard time understanding is, how so many people can throw out even the possibility of GOD being real, when they havent given HIM the chance. They havent even tried to read the BIBLE. That is hard to comprehend.
Alot of Christians have gone through a period of doubt or hardship, myself included. But by reading the BIBLE, and seeing how Jesus's deciples, almost every one of them, were put to death for believing in Jesus and GOD. Why would ANYONE go to their death, especially when they were about to have their heads cut off, Or being stoned, or being boiled alive in oil, and not admit they were making something up before the they were killed. The only REAL answer I can come to is, because they KNOW THEY SAW AND TALKED TO THE RISEN LORD after he had been crusified and dead for 3 days. If I had been given the choice of death by loosing my head, or admitting I was making it all up, when I really WAS making it up, I am admitting it..If I was making it up, what would I have to gain by letting them kill me. It makes no sense. These guys SAW the real thing. That is the only REAL logical answer. How can you throw the possibility out without checking it out first. There is to much on the line. BUT, that again is your choice. I dont condemn anyone for their choice, I just dont understand.

Stitches
07-01-2007, 09:00 PM
What I have a hard time understanding is, how so many people can throw out even the possibility of GOD being real, when they havent given HIM the chance. They havent even tried to read the BIBLE. That is hard to comprehend.
Alot of Christians have gone through a period of doubt or hardship, myself included. But by reading the BIBLE, and seeing how Jesus's deciples, almost every one of them, were put to death for believing in Jesus and GOD. Why would ANYONE go to their death, especially when they were about to have their heads cut off, Or being stoned, or being boiled alive in oil, and not admit they were making something up before the they were killed. The only REAL answer I can come to is, because they KNOW THEY SAW AND TALKED TO THE RISEN LORD after he had been crusified and dead for 3 days. If I had been given the choice of death by loosing my head, or admitting I was making it all up, when I really WAS making it up, I am admitting it..If I was making it up, what would I have to gain by letting them kill me. It makes no sense. These guys SAW the real thing. That is the only REAL logical answer. How can you throw the possibility out without checking it out first. There is to much on the line. BUT, that again is your choice. I dont condemn anyone for their choice, I just dont understand.

I was actually raised christian, and attended bible study every week when I was younger, until I was given the opportunity to make that decision on my own as to how I wanted to spend my wed. nights and sunday mornings.

But again, you are making another assumption.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 09:02 PM
What I have a hard time understanding is, how so many people can throw out even the possibility of GOD being real, when they havent given HIM the chance. They havent even tried to read the BIBLE. That is hard to comprehend.
Alot of Christians have gone through a period of doubt or hardship, myself included. But by reading the BIBLE, and seeing how Jesus's deciples, almost every one of them, were put to death for believing in Jesus and GOD. Why would ANYONE go to their death, especially when they were about to have their heads cut off, Or being stoned, or being boiled alive in oil, and not admit they were making something up before the they were killed. The only REAL answer I can come to is, because they KNOW THEY SAW AND TALKED TO THE RISEN LORD after he had been crusified and dead for 3 days. If I had been given the choice of death by loosing my head, or admitting I was making it all up, when I really WAS making it up, I am admitting it..If I was making it up, what would I have to gain by letting them kill me. It makes no sense. These guys SAW the real thing. That is the only REAL logical answer. How can you throw the possibility out without checking it out first. There is to much on the line. BUT, that again is your choice. I dont condemn anyone for their choice, I just dont understand.


I speak for myself and probably for most agnostics, but we don't discount the possibility of God existing. However, in real life you can already see how dangerous it is to accept something is true without evidence for it. Do you think (almost) any of the medical or military technology we have would exist if we didn't accept something to be true or not based on evidence?

For example, what if someone asked you to accept on faith that a certain drug works as advertised? That's just stupid and dangerous. What if someone said "forget about testing this, just accept this on faith" for say the heat shields the shuttle uses? That's stupid and dangerous.

Similarly, if you want me to accept God exists, then you will need to actually demonstrate its existence. That means show a logical deduction from some data gathered that a theory assuming no God exists has a lower probability of predicting that data than a theory assuming God exists.

No one has done that. Hence the total disregard I have for the idea, especially if people suggest we should accept it on faith alone!!

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 09:05 PM
Your concept of "show" is misplaced here. If by "show" you mean "humans can observe it", then how does one show gamma rays exist for example?

There's a HUGE difference between theories of physics that predict a Big Bang versus any argument for or against the existence of Hell: the theories in physics that predict a Big Bang make LOTS of other predictions we can test right now. None of the religious texts that claim Hell exists allows you to test that claim, but you can test whether a Big Bang occurred or not.

I think they probably teach in elementary school by now that a computer will only calculate the data that is fed into it. GIGO. If you put garbage in, garbage will be spit out. Science is only the best GUESS for today. In one of your other posts, you even said that they have come up with a NEW THEORY that was better than the old one. Well, they used to think the old one was right, now someone has come up with a BETTER GUESS. Appariently, it will never end, until it does. Like someone else pointed out in another thread, 30 years ago, they were crying about a global cooling trend. It seems to be a popularity contest to me. If you are in the IN crowd, your theory will be accepted. If not................we will wait till the next best guess comes out.

I mean no disrespect to you. I just have no use for that type of science.

I am sure you will respond to this, but I am off to bed.

Later.

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 09:12 PM
I was actually raised christian, and attended bible study every week when I was younger, until I was given the opportunity to make that decision on my own as to how I wanted to spend my wed. nights and sunday mornings.

But again, you are making another assumption.

Well actually, this wasnt pointed to anyone in particular. It was meant to focus on the general mentality I was talking about. you werent a target. Therefore, not an assumption. I was speaking to the many that have posted the apparent fact that they have never read or know anything about the BIBLE.

I am not here to attack anyone and I wont do that. That doest solve anything. Just here to offer a different view.

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 09:18 PM
This might not mean anything to you but, I work with a guy that said he was 'saved' when he was alot younger, but doesnt believe anymore because he has never SEEN anyone raised from the dead. I asked him if he had ever SEEN a single cell amiba (?) crawl out of the ocean and turn into a monkey. He said yes. That was the end of the discussion. It wasnt true. You can only test something based on the data you put into the computer. If the data is wrong, the results will be just as wrong. since none of us were here millions of years ago. what happened back then, is only a GUESS. That isnt even debateable. IT IS ONLY A GUESS.

OUT

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 09:19 PM
I think they probably teach in elementary school by now that a computer will only calculate the data that is fed into it. GIGO. If you put garbage in, garbage will be spit out. Science is only the best GUESS for today. In one of your other posts, you even said that they have come up with a NEW THEORY that was better than the old one. Well, they used to think the old one was right, now someone has come up with a BETTER GUESS. Appariently, it will never end, until it does. Like someone else pointed out in another thread, 30 years ago, they were crying about a global cooling trend. It seems to be a popularity contest to me. If you are in the IN crowd, your theory will be accepted. If not................we will wait till the next best guess comes out.

I mean no disrespect to you. I just have no use for that type of science.

I am sure you will respond to this, but I am off to bed.

Later.


In general, what you said is correct, but the emphasis is on the wrong word in "best guess". Science gives us the BEST guess. That means that if you are an optimal decision-maker (this means given the information available, what is the best you could ever do in deciding what the probabilities for different events are), you will choose the claims made in the most accurate scientific theory.

So, even if you know with a high level of certainty that today's best guess is likely to be overturned in the future, that still doesn't change that fact that you and I can only make decisions on the information we currently have. So, the best strategy is simply to go with that best guess, and until that best guess includes the assumption Hell exists, I won't assume Hell exists.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 09:27 PM
This might not mean anything to you but, I work with a guy that said he was 'saved' when he was alot younger, but doesnt believe anymore because he has never SEEN anyone raised from the dead. I asked him if he had ever SEEN a single cell amiba (?) crawl out of the ocean and turn into a monkey. He said yes. That was the end of the discussion. It wasnt true. You can only test something based on the data you put into the computer. If the data is wrong, the results will be just as wrong. since none of us were here millions of years ago. what happened back then, is only a GUESS. That isnt even debateable. IT IS ONLY A GUESS.

OUT

OK, the "guess" part I responded to in my previous post, so you can respond to that there.

As far as the ameoba turning into a monkey argument, your friend probably just couldn't think of a way to be honest AND rebut your argument.

I'd answer as follows: if theory X claims it takes at least Y amount of time for Z to occur, then saying "have you observed Z in LESS than Y amount of time" is a completely irrelevant argument.

That's what you did. No theory of evolution would predict we could see that kind of change on a human time scale. Millions of years maybe, but not in thousands. So, you did nothing to "test" the theory of evolution.

The tests for that theory must be things the theory predicts we can observe today, and the evidence is simply overwhelming in that regard.

Contrast that with the assumption Hell exists for which NO empirical evidence exists. The choice is clear for a scientific mind.

NewEra8
07-01-2007, 10:24 PM
Personally, I feel the bible is just a book of morals that people should live by. I don't know enough about religion to voice whether I think it's real or not, but it shouldn't really matter. try to live each day so that people around you are affected in a positive manner and you should be straight. If god is this all-knowing forgiving thing that he is, you should be alright haha It's always interesting to think about the past and future but life's too short to thing about anything more than the present... get the most ya can out of it now.

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 12:43 AM
Personally, I feel the bible is just a book of morals that people should live by. I don't know enough about religion to voice whether I think it's real or not, but it shouldn't really matter. try to live each day so that people around you are affected in a positive manner and you should be straight. If god is this all-knowing forgiving thing that he is, you should be alright haha It's always interesting to think about the past and future but life's too short to thing about anything more than the present... get the most ya can out of it now.


Sadly, your view is EXACTLY the one Satan wants you to have. Jesus is real and died for your sins. People can't get to heaven by their good works...only by accepting Jesus' his death, burial and resurection and forgiveness of sins and accepting him as their saivor.

DonShula84
07-02-2007, 02:09 AM
Sadly, your view is EXACTLY the one Satan wants you to have. Jesus is real and died for your sins. People can't get to heaven by their good works...only by accepting Jesus' his death, burial and resurection and forgiveness of sins and accepting him as their saivor.

James 2:14-17What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? . . . Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Revelation 22:12Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

The idea that the type of person you are doesnt matter sums up everything that is wrong with Christians and organized religion. If there is a God, hopefully the above quotes are more in line with his thinking than yours.

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 03:07 AM
James 2:14-17What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? . . . Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Revelation 22:12Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

The idea that the type of person you are doesnt matter sums up everything that is wrong with Christians and organized religion. If there is a God, hopefully the above quotes are more in line with his thinking than yours.

This is true, however you don't understand. The required action is faith followed in acceptng Jesus .

DonShula84
07-02-2007, 04:21 AM
This is true, however you don't understand. The required action is faith followed in acceptng Jesus .


Again you leave deeds off the list of important things.

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 04:46 AM
Again you leave deeds off the list of important things.

Because deeds are worthless without faith in, and acceptance of Jesus. It's that simple.

DonShula84
07-02-2007, 04:54 AM
Because deeds are worthless without faith in, and acceptance of Jesus. It's that simple.

And those versus I provided say that faith is worthless w/ out deeds, and yet you still dont mention deeds. Just being a Christian appears to be enough for you and that just seems ridiculous.

When it says I will give to all according to what you have done...sounds to me like deeds count for something.

Den54
07-02-2007, 06:57 AM
Make no mistake, heaven and God is real, as is hell and Satan.

I personally choose to spend eternity in heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ, who is my personal savior. Jesus died that all who believe in him would have everlasting life.

Satan is the great deceiver and as you can read, many will spend eternity with him in hell if they do not repent and accept Jesus.

John 3:16 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Religion is the great deceiver.

Den54
07-02-2007, 06:59 AM
can you show me that the big bang was real? No. All you can do is hope the latest guess/ theory is right. You have a right to CHOOSE what you want to believe. Can you show me that hell IS NOT real. NO. If I am right and you are wrong, you will be in a world of hurt. If you are right am I am wrong, so what. The only thing about that last sentence is......I am sure I am right. You refuse to give it a real chance. But then again, that is your choice.


Classic.:lol:

ATLFINFAN
07-02-2007, 09:57 PM
This deeds thing is a, what I call, the circle effect. First off, you cant take ANY ONE VERSE and make a point. It has to be taken as a whole. Faith without works is dead, that is in there alright. But to try and make it real simple, you dont do works to get to heaven. You get there by believing, repenting, and living. You dont do works to get there, you do works because when you are a changed person, you act differently. You do those works because...that is what you live like. YOu are changed, so you act like you are changed. Romans explains how Abraham showed his FAITH, by the works of believing and putting his only son on the alter and raising the knife to kill him. That would have been 'faith without works' if he hadnt obeyed and trusted GOD to do what HE said HE would do. People get the wrong message when they take one scripture and try to prove a point. It doesnt work that way, although it is a common practice.

Scrap
07-03-2007, 06:37 AM
There have been people who have come back to life after being either totally pronounced dead, or after flat lining at some point, and have spoken about their experience with what they perceived as either Heaven or Hell. I read a book recently about a man who'd been pronounced dead (after an auto accident), and claims to have seen Heaven. He said that when he came back to life he fought with depression for some time due to being paralyzed in the wreck. Interesting book. I passed it on to a guy that comes into my work. If I can remember the name of it, I'll post it.

Scrap
07-03-2007, 06:44 AM
This is where I do differ from many religious people. I believe we can go to Heaven based on how we lived our life. Hard for me to explain this early in the AM.

Scrap
07-03-2007, 06:53 AM
As for science, I believe that there are some things that the human mind can't understand, and will never be intelligent enough to even begin to prove. (Heaven and Hell's existence is a great example.) I'm sure many will disagree with this thought, because as humans we are arrogant. We think that everything else on this planet is stupid, and that we are the perfect species. We have arrogant tendencies. Even amongst each other.

Pagan
07-03-2007, 07:20 AM
Sadly, your view is EXACTLY the one Satan wants you to have. Jesus is real and died for your sins. People can't get to heaven by their good works...only by accepting Jesus' his death, burial and resurection and forgiveness of sins and accepting him as their saivor.
So let me get this straight, Ghandi's going to hell cause he never accepted Jesus, but David Berkowitz - the Son of Sam who killed all those young women in my neighborhood in the 70's with a .44 revolver - IS going to heaven cause he's accepted Jesus while in prison? Sad...

If that's how your god works, you can keep him. "Just and loving" my ***.


can you show me that the big bang was real? No. All you can do is hope the latest guess/ theory is right.
And there is the difference. Science calls what it does theories until they are proven correct. Christians call their beliefs FACT and refuse to waver from it.


You have a right to CHOOSE what you want to believe. Can you show me that hell IS NOT real. NO.
Ah...the old "you can't prove it isn't there so it must be true" argument. I used to tell this to D7, I'll say it to you. I believe the Care Bears created the universe. Can you prove they didn't? No, you can't! Therefore, the Care Bears are the one true gods. Worship them or you'll burn for all eternity in the heated cotton candy machine.


If I am right and you are wrong, you will be in a world of hurt. If you are right am I am wrong, so what. The only thing about that last sentence is......I am sure I am right. You refuse to give it a real chance. But then again, that is your choice.
No, if you are wrong you'll feel like an idiot for wasting your entire life following strict, unrealistic rules made by a religion that wasn't real, so yea...there's some consequence on your part if you're wrong.


Classic.:lol:
I actually laughed out loud bro. Are we sure that's not D7 with a new screen name? :lol:


As for science, I believe that there are some things that the human mind can't understand, and will never be intelligent enough to even begin to prove. (Heaven and Hell's existence is a great example.) I'm sure many will disagree with this thought, because as humans we are arrogant. We think that everything else on this planet is stupid, and that we are the perfect species. We have arrogant tendencies. Even amongst each other.
Your own comment can be used against you in this argument, and this isn't directed at you personally, but at Christians in general.

Arrogance is claiming your beliefs are fact with absolutely not one shred of evidence to prove it, forcing those beliefs upon others, and telling them that they're doomed for all eternity if they don't follow the same path.

That is the absolute epitome of arrogance.

George Beauchem
07-03-2007, 07:41 AM
something happens after death, I prefer to beleive in Heaven and Hell never the less, the human body is controlled by electric impulses and science tells us that energy doesnt simply end to exist, it may change of transform but when we die something definitly happens, its up to each of us to draw our own conclusion.

Den54
07-03-2007, 07:49 AM
Imo organized religion is the waterwings for close minded people who are afraid to swim in the deep end of the mental pool. It feels so much safer at the shallow end. Just tell me what to do, how to live my life and of coarse the great reward at the end.

Everyone loves rewards for thier obediance.
I know my dog does:lol:. J/K.

Den54
07-03-2007, 07:52 AM
something happens after death, I prefer to beleive in Heaven and Hell never the less, the human body is controlled by electric impulses and science tells us that energy doesnt simply end to exist, it may change of transform but when we die something definitly happens, its up to each of us to draw our own conclusion.

Well yeah. But no one has a definitive answer.

Dolphin39
07-03-2007, 08:47 AM
So let me get this straight, Ghandi's going to hell cause he never accepted Jesus, but David Berkowitz - the Son of Sam who killed all those young women in my neighborhood in the 70's with a .44 revolver - IS going to heaven cause he's accepted Jesus while in prison? Sad...

If that's how your god works, you can keep him. "Just and loving" my ***.

Pagan, that is EXACTLY what I mean.

"Just"...yes! Because, he gave his sinless son Jesus to die on a cross for ALL our sins.

Pagan
07-03-2007, 09:06 AM
Pagan, that is EXACTLY what I mean.

"Just"...yes! Because, he gave his sinless son Jesus to die on a cross for ALL our sins.
Then I really do pity you and your kind. :shakeno:

ckb2001
07-03-2007, 02:15 PM
something happens after death, I prefer to beleive in Heaven and Hell never the less, the human body is controlled by electric impulses and science tells us that energy doesnt simply end to exist, it may change of transform but when we die something definitly happens, its up to each of us to draw our own conclusion.

There's a bit more science can say about what is likely to happen after death.

First of all, it's irrelevant that energy is conserved. What's important is what happens to information. When you take a person's brain and lesion one portion of it, you can see a predictable loss of information processing ability. Not only that, this person is not aware of that information anymore. Thus, while we can't measure consciousness, we can in some cases tell (based on subject responses) when a person is NOT conscious of something.

So, regardless of what consciousness actually is, what you are capable of being conscious of seems to depend on neural correlates, specifically the information processing ability of neural circuits.

Thus, losing all such capacity to process information (when your brain ceases to function) almost certainly implies no further consciousness. Of course, if information about the neural circuits that process information is lost, well then it doesn't matter whether energy is conserved or not - what constitutes "you" is lost and can't be reconstructed.

So, it's likely in the future that science will basically take away much of this guesswork on what the precise neural correlates of sensations are and thus whether the ability to have sensations persists after death. Of course, anyone outside of science can still believe what they want, but that's beside the point.

DonShula84
07-03-2007, 05:45 PM
Then I really do pity you and your kind. :shakeno:

:yes:

Serial Killer>Ghandi...only to Christians.

ih8brady
07-03-2007, 06:43 PM
As for science, I believe that there are some things that the human mind can't understand, and will never be intelligent enough to even begin to prove. (Heaven and Hell's existence is a great example.) I'm sure many will disagree with this thought, because as humans we are arrogant. We think that everything else on this planet is stupid, and that we are the perfect species. We have arrogant tendencies. Even amongst each other.

Yet, it is Christian dogma that states only human beings have "souls." That the Christian afterlife only exists for **** sapiens.

ATLFINFAN
07-03-2007, 08:14 PM
There's a bit more science can say about what is likely to happen after death.

First of all, it's irrelevant that energy is conserved. What's important is what happens to information. When you take a person's brain and lesion one portion of it, you can see a predictable loss of information processing ability. Not only that, this person is not aware of that information anymore. Thus, while we can't measure consciousness, we can in some cases tell (based on subject responses) when a person is NOT conscious of something.

So, regardless of what consciousness actually is, what you are capable of being conscious of seems to depend on neural correlates, specifically the information processing ability of neural circuits.

Thus, losing all such capacity to process information (when your brain ceases to function) almost certainly implies no further consciousness. Of course, if information about the neural circuits that process information is lost, well then it doesn't matter whether energy is conserved or not - what constitutes "you" is lost and can't be reconstructed.

So, it's likely in the future that science will basically take away much of this guesswork on what the precise neural correlates of sensations are and thus whether the ability to have sensations persists after death. Of course, anyone outside of science can still believe what they want, but that's beside the point.

YOUR HONOR...............THE DEFENSE RESTS.

Science is nothing more than the latest, most popular, GUESS.:D

ckb2001
07-03-2007, 09:32 PM
YOUR HONOR...............THE DEFENSE RESTS.

Science is nothing more than the latest, most popular, GUESS.:D

Replace the word "popular" with "accurate" and what you say is accurate. Of course, with the word "popular" instead of "accurate" the sentence is likely more popular among non-scientists :wink:

adamprez2003
07-03-2007, 10:00 PM
Imo organized religion is the waterwings for close minded people who are afraid to swim in the deep end of the mental pool. It feels so much safer at the shallow end. Just tell me what to do, how to live my life and of coarse the great reward at the end.

Everyone loves rewards for thier obediance.
I know my dog does:lol:. J/K.

If you were to take the 100 greatest thinkers of human history I would be surprised if less than 95 believed in some kind of God.

ih8brady
07-03-2007, 10:30 PM
If you were to take the 100 greatest thinkers of human history I would be surprised if less than 95 believed in some kind of God.

Most of them probably believed that the universe revolved around Earth, doesn't prove that to be true. Truth relies on reality, evidence.

ckb2001
07-03-2007, 10:38 PM
If you were to take the 100 greatest thinkers of human history I would be surprised if less than 95 believed in some kind of God.

There's no way of objectively deciding who those "100 greatest" are, so that claim isn't useful.

However, if you go by one measurement of ranking scientists today, look at who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. That's probably the best way a non-scientist could determine whether a researcher is a leader in his field. Now, keep in mind there are many scientists that deserve to be in that academy that aren't, but everyone that is a member is a leading researcher in his/her field. So, it's not all-inclusive, but it is representative.

Here's something from 1998:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%."
----------------------


You'll find that first of all, the average scientist is more likely than the average person to be agnostic or atheist than a believer of a religion, second of all that leading researchers are even more likely than average scientists to be areligious, and finally that the trend has been going towards greater agnosticism/atheism as opposed to more religiosity.

Finally, as far as great scientific minds of the past, keep in mind that many didn't know what we know today. I mean biology as a science really emerged in the mid-19th century and only became truly rigorous in the mid-20th. Thus, even a scientist in the early 19th century can be forgiven for thinking life was something distinct from non-life. It certainly made it look more likely there are many things science can't study than we would think today.

It seems no different than how a scientist today would talk about consciousness, free will, how the universe came into existence, etc.. All things we know some things about but not really that much. And it's very likely some of those things will be well-studied and understood a century from now if history is a good predictor.

adamprez2003
07-03-2007, 11:31 PM
Most of them probably believed that the universe revolved around Earth, doesn't prove that to be true. Truth relies on reality, evidence.

Most of them didn't really care and just listened to their scientists current theories much like we do today. Most people today couldnt care less about dark matter or string theory. They may read about it once or twice and don't really question any of it. If 1000 years from now we find out that quantam theory and general relativity were wrong will you consider everyone who lived in the 20th/21st centuries to be morons?

ATLFINFAN
07-03-2007, 11:50 PM
Replace the word "popular" with "accurate" and what you say is accurate. Of course, with the word "popular" instead of "accurate" the sentence is likely more popular among non-scientists :wink:

Accurate = guess

military = intelligence :D


enjoyed the banter, :argue:


I have just left the building.:escape:

Megatron
07-03-2007, 11:51 PM
Accurate = guess

military = intelligence :D


enjoyed the banter, :argue:


I have just left the building.:escape:Not really because you are still online waiting for a response.

ckb2001
07-04-2007, 12:01 AM
Accurate = guess

military = intelligence :D


enjoyed the banter, :argue:


I have just left the building.:escape:

I know you'd love it that way, but that's just not accurate :wink:

Accurate refers to how close to the actual measured value the predicted value is. That's something science can't live without, unlike religion.

Megatron
07-04-2007, 12:10 AM
I know you'd love it that way, but that's just not accurate :wink:

Accurate refers to how close to the actual measured value the predicted value is. That's something science can't live without, unlike religion. Zing.

Sponge
07-04-2007, 10:21 AM
Without discounting the possibility of a God or Gods existing, any God who would punish one of its creations with eternal suffering (hell) for any reason doesn't seem too godly. I guess my point is, why would God need to use a reward/punishment system like heaven and hell? Sounds more like a parenting tool than religion.

Den54
07-04-2007, 10:30 AM
Without discounting the possibility of a God or Gods existing, any God who would punish one of its creations with eternal suffering (hell) for any reason doesn't seem too godly. I guess my point is, why would God need to use a reward/punishment system like heaven and hell? Sounds more like a parenting tool than religion.

The reward/punishment system has man's fingerprints all over it imo.

Sponge
07-04-2007, 10:37 AM
The reward/punishment system has man's fingerprints all over it imo.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I discount the Bible as God's literal word. Love thy neighbor sounds pretty good, but "homosexuals are abominations" and "it's ok to have slaves" don't exactly sound like the same being.

Similar to our media today, I think the more violent passages of the Bible (and probably other religious texts as well) were inserted to keep the populace nice and afraid so that they would be easier to control.

Den54
07-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I discount the Bible as God's literal word. Love thy neighbor sounds pretty good, but "homosexuals are abominations" and "it's ok to have slaves" don't exactly sound like the same being.

Similar to our media today, I think the more violent passages of the Bible (and probably other religious texts as well) were inserted to keep the populace nice and afraid so that they would be easier to control.


It's always about control.
Yes you have free will as long as you understand that it's still my way or the highway to :fire:.

ih8brady
07-04-2007, 12:24 PM
Most of them didn't really care and just listened to their scientists current theories much like we do today. Most people today couldnt care less about dark matter or string theory. They may read about it once or twice and don't really question any of it. If 1000 years from now we find out that quantam theory and general relativity were wrong will you consider everyone who lived in the 20th/21st centuries to be morons?


Nice strawman, you should take up sculpting sometime. My point was that truth does not rely on the concerns, feelings or opinions of people, even intelligent ones. For example, if every person on Earth today came together and denied the existence of the moon, that belief would not disprove the truth of the matter simply because of a consensus. Saying that God exists because great thinkers claim to believe in it is farcical.

adamprez2003
07-04-2007, 02:09 PM
Nice strawman, you should take up sculpting sometime. My point was that truth does not rely on the concerns, feelings or opinions of people, even intelligent ones. For example, if every person on Earth today came together and denied the existence of the moon, that belief would not disprove the truth of the matter simply because of a consensus. Saying that God exists because great thinkers claim to believe in it is farcical.

What's truth? There is no consensus on what truth is. In fact many would say that truth does rely on the concerns, feelings and opinions of people.

From Wikipedia
There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree. Various theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories) of truth, commonly involving different definitions of "truth", continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Constructivist theory would say you're wrong. Perhaps you meant to say the you believe in the Correspondance theory of truth

ckb2001
07-04-2007, 02:35 PM
What's truth? There is no consensus on what truth is. In fact many would say that truth does rely on the concerns, feelings and opinions of people.

From Wikipedia
There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree. Various theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories) of truth, commonly involving different definitions of "truth", continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Constructivist theory would say you're wrong. Perhaps you meant to say the you believe in the Correspondance theory of truth


I know it's nice to pull up a wiki link on something, but seriously the stuff written there is mostly a result of asking philosophers (who aren't up to date on mathematical logic) to comment on the subject.

The easiest counter-argument to almost all of the arguments they give is that none of those "theories of what truth is" propose precise definitions of the word. And as long as they aren't willing to do that, they are really contributing or doing nothing (except wasting time).


Really, the question they are asking is the wrong one. It's useless to ask "what is truth" (as you can see). What's important is to determine whether two statements X and Y are consistent with each other. So, if we assume X to be true, then is Y also true?

THAT is VERY useful and gives rise to all the science we know today. Asking what IS true independent of any other assumption is completely useless.

Having said that, there are statements that are true once one assumes the validity of logic (so the only assumption made is the laws of logic are valid).

Specifically, it goes back to Godel's incompleteness theorem which basically proved that no system that allows for logical deductions to prove statements is both consistent and complete.

For example, if you take a mathematical representation of the statement "This statement can be proven false" (in some system), then proving it to be true implies it's false!! And proving it to be false implies it's true!! That's an example of a statement whose validity can't be determined WITHIN the system, meaning you need additional external axioms to do so. That of course means the system isn't complete IF it's consistent. Of course, if you are not going to add external axioms, then the system is inconsistent.

It's one of the biggest discoveries in the history of logic, and notions of what is true have completely changed as a result.

So, there are situations where we can't ever show a statement to be false (meaning it's undecidable).

Point is, the stuff in the wiki link is mostly irrelevant banter. The important question is "assuming X is true, is Y also true in system S?" THAT leads to science and technology. Asking whether something is true independent of assumptions is just wasting time.

adamprez2003
07-04-2007, 04:00 PM
I know it's nice to pull up a wiki link on something, but seriously the stuff written there is mostly a result of asking philosophers (who aren't up to date on mathematical logic) to comment on the subject.

The easiest counter-argument to almost all of the arguments they give is that none of those "theories of what truth is" propose precise definitions of the word. And as long as they aren't willing to do that, they are really contributing or doing nothing (except wasting time).


Really, the question they are asking is the wrong one. It's useless to ask "what is truth" (as you can see). What's important is to determine whether two statements X and Y are consistent with each other. So, if we assume X to be true, then is Y also true?

THAT is VERY useful and gives rise to all the science we know today. Asking what IS true independent of any other assumption is completely useless.

Having said that, there are statements that are true once one assumes the validity of logic (so the only assumption made is the laws of logic are valid).

Specifically, it goes back to Godel's incompleteness theorem which basically proved that no system that allows for logical deductions to prove statements is both consistent and complete.

For example, if you take a mathematical representation of the statement "This statement can be proven false" (in some system), then proving it to be true implies it's false!! And proving it to be false implies it's true!! That's an example of a statement whose validity can't be determined WITHIN the system, meaning you need additional external axioms to do so. That of course means the system isn't complete IF it's consistent. Of course, if you are not going to add external axioms, then the system is inconsistent.

It's one of the biggest discoveries in the history of logic, and notions of what is true have completely changed as a result.

So, there are situations where we can't ever show a statement to be false (meaning it's undecidable).

Point is, the stuff in the wiki link is mostly irrelevant banter. The important question is "assuming X is true, is Y also true in system S?" THAT leads to science and technology. Asking whether something is true independent of assumptions is just wasting time.

So you believe in the correspondance theory of truth. Rather than default to the rather long explanation why didn't you just say so. That theory was around for 1000 years minimum. Plus it seems that Philosophy is another area of human endeavor you seem to dismiss rather smugly. So let's see Philosophy and Religion now should be dismissed, what's next music, sports, literature? You keep saying the science we know today. It's the same science we knew 1000 years ago and it will be the same science we will know in another 1000 years. All that changes is the instruments we can use and the amount of previous work that we can build on. But science at its core is simply observation and that's a very limiting way to view the human experience. There is far more depth to reality than simply being able to observe, even if it is "a waste of time"

ckb2001
07-04-2007, 04:25 PM
So you believe in the correspondance theory of truth. Rather than default to the rather long explanation why didn't you just say so. That theory was around for 1000 years minimum. Plus it seems that Philosophy is another area of human endeavor you seem to dismiss rather smugly. So let's see Philosophy and Religion now should be dismissed, what's next music, sports, literature? You keep saying the science we know today. It's the same science we knew 1000 years ago and it will be the same science we will know in another 1000 years. All that changes is the instruments we can use and the amount of previous work that we can build on. But science at its core is simply observation and that's a very limiting way to view the human experience. There is far more depth to reality than simply being able to observe, even if it is "a waste of time"

No, you missed the subtlety of what I said. The correspondence theory of truth actually tries to talk about what is objective "reality". What I said completely circumvents the need to worry about that, and lets scientific theories that are developed increase our understanding of what is "reality" in a data-driven way (so the assumptions that are necessary to predict the measurements we make as accurately as possible are the assumptions used).

See, when you focus on consistency instead of "truth", you can simply say that while you have no idea what a measurement we make "means" with respect to some underlying "reality" (assuming such a thing exists in the first place), you can still select theories based on how consistent they are with the measured values.

I think it's going to take several posts before you'll get the jist of what I'm saying, but it's worth going through. For now, I'll let you respond to that.



However, the stuff you said about the science we know today being the same as the science we knew 1000 years ago is obviously false. Not only is it false in terms of the actual theories we think are most accurate and what we know, but it's false in terms of methodology too.

Just in mathematics alone, you can see how accepted methodology changes. Many of the kinds of "proofs" given in Newton's time when calculus was invented would no longer be acceptable today. There was a lot of "handwaving" in the sense that though no proper concept of an infinitesimal was known, the concept was used since it aided calculations, and that was similar with the concept of limit.

By the 19th century with Gauss, the rigor was much greater and what we today call formal proofs became the norm. And with the first proof of the 4 color theorem in the 70's the problem of how to deal with computer-assisted proofs came into existence.

You'll find similar changes in other fields. Biology since the mid-20th century is fundamentally different in its methodology than much of what went on before it. You have reductionist principles applied and become the norm. And the degree to which many experimental biologists and psychologists attempt to control for even the tiniest of possible confouding factors differs greatly from how experiments in those fields used to be conducted.

Really, the level of rigor in general increases over time, though there are bumps along the way. But, science today is not what it was even a few centuries ago.


Finally, as far as what I think of religion, philosophy, etc.. it's very simple. I advocate using the best known method of solving any problem. The kind of discussion in that link harks back to the use of a method that rarely ends of solving problems. As you can see, asking what "is" true independent of other assumptions leads to having to look into what those other assumptions are. It's a kind of mental exercise that hasn't produced any real "solutions" at all!!

adamprez2003
07-04-2007, 06:08 PM
No, you missed the subtlety of what I said. The correspondence theory of truth actually tries to talk about what is objective "reality". What I said completely circumvents the need to worry about that, and lets scientific theories that are developed increase our understanding of what is "reality" in a data-driven way (so the assumptions that are necessary to predict the measurements we make as accurately as possible are the assumptions used).

See, when you focus on consistency instead of "truth", you can simply say that while you have no idea what a measurement we make "means" with respect to some underlying "reality" (assuming such a thing exists in the first place), you can still select theories based on how consistent they are with the measured values.

I think it's going to take several posts before you'll get the jist of what I'm saying, but it's worth going through. For now, I'll let you respond to that.



However, the stuff you said about the science we know today being the same as the science we knew 1000 years ago is obviously false. Not only is it false in terms of the actual theories we think are most accurate and what we know, but it's false in terms of methodology too.

Just in mathematics alone, you can see how accepted methodology changes. Many of the kinds of "proofs" given in Newton's time when calculus was invented would no longer be acceptable today. There was a lot of "handwaving" in the sense that though no proper concept of an infinitesimal was known, the concept was used since it aided calculations, and that was similar with the concept of limit.

By the 19th century with Gauss, the rigor was much greater and what we today call formal proofs became the norm. And with the first proof of the 4 color theorem in the 70's the problem of how to deal with computer-assisted proofs came into existence.

You'll find similar changes in other fields. Biology since the mid-20th century is fundamentally different in its methodology than much of what went on before it. You have reductionist principles applied and become the norm. And the degree to which many experimental biologists and psychologists attempt to control for even the tiniest of possible confouding factors differs greatly from how experiments in those fields used to be conducted.

Really, the level of rigor in general increases over time, though there are bumps along the way. But, science today is not what it was even a few centuries ago.


Finally, as far as what I think of religion, philosophy, etc.. it's very simple. I advocate using the best known method of solving any problem. The kind of discussion in that link harks back to the use of a method that rarely ends of solving problems. As you can see, asking what "is" true independent of other assumptions leads to having to look into what those other assumptions are. It's a kind of mental exercise that hasn't produced any real "solutions" at all!!

As to your first point, scientists should definitely think in the terms you describe. So long as it is kept to science and scientific pursuits that's fine. It's only when that type of thinking starts moving into differnt areas of the human experience that that type of thinking becomes questionable due to its limitations. Man is a thinking being able to conceive of abstract ideas and non linear thinking and should continue to do so. So long as science stays within the boundaries of science there is no argument but once science strays into the realm of philosophy or religion it's flaws come out. Science is not a philosophy, it is a tool, a procedure. It lacks the language to speak on such stuff. It lacks the breadth to be able to attempt it.

As for your 2nd point, you missed my point. No theory today could be possible without the science undertaken hundreds and thousands of years before. You dont have calculous without first inventing math, you dont have black hole theory without math. The theories may change but they are all based on a mindset which is the same now as it was then as it will be in a thousand years

Just because the Catholic Church has been revising its belief system for 2000 years doesnt mean it has changed fundamentally from that original time

ckb2001
07-04-2007, 08:30 PM
As to your first point, scientists should definitely think in the terms you describe. So long as it is kept to science and scientific pursuits that's fine. It's only when that type of thinking starts moving into differnt areas of the human experience that that type of thinking becomes questionable due to its limitations. Man is a thinking being able to conceive of abstract ideas and non linear thinking and should continue to do so. So long as science stays within the boundaries of science there is no argument but once science strays into the realm of philosophy or religion it's flaws come out. Science is not a philosophy, it is a tool, a procedure. It lacks the language to speak on such stuff. It lacks the breadth to be able to attempt it.


The entire history of science is a history of expanding the boundaries of what can be demonstrated to be amenable to scientific methodology. Science does NOT have fixed boundaries, so there's no way you can ask it to stay within its boundaries!

Just 3 centuries ago, science was composed of only math and the physics of motion and almost nothing else. By the mid-20th century, it had encompassed practically all physical and biological phenomena and replaced religion and philosophy as the best known methods of studying them.

Just look around you. Where is what used to be natural philosophy? It's basically dead!!

And you're in the midst of science expanding its boundaries to the study of social phenomena. Maybe we're like 1/4 through that revolution. But, already, large portions of psychology, economics and archeology use scientific methods and publish with the kinds of rigor expected in science. Wait another century or two and the last major bastion of philosophy - social philosophy - will also be replaced with social science.

And the only reason I responded as I did to the study of "truth" and what is "real" is because while there are philosophers that still love to think about such things, science has really already taken over those areas of study. Discoveries in mathematical logic are where we have expanded our understanding of the nature of "true" statements, and physics has allowed us to test theories with different assumptions about the nature of "reality" (for example, quantum mechanics and ideas forced by it such as an inherent probability of existence, particles coming into existence from nothingness, or particles only existing once observed - all ideas no philosopher could figure out how to TEST).

adamprez2003
07-04-2007, 11:15 PM
The entire history of science is a history of expanding the boundaries of what can be demonstrated to be amenable to scientific methodology. Science does NOT have fixed boundaries, so there's no way you can ask it to stay within its boundaries!

Just 3 centuries ago, science was composed of only math and the physics of motion and almost nothing else. By the mid-20th century, it had encompassed practically all physical and biological phenomena and replaced religion and philosophy as the best known methods of studying them.

Just look around you. Where is what used to be natural philosophy? It's basically dead!!

And you're in the midst of science expanding its boundaries to the study of social phenomena. Maybe we're like 1/4 through that revolution. But, already, large portions of psychology, economics and archeology use scientific methods and publish with the kinds of rigor expected in science. Wait another century or two and the last major bastion of philosophy - social philosophy - will also be replaced with social science.

And the only reason I responded as I did to the study of "truth" and what is "real" is because while there are philosophers that still love to think about such things, science has really already taken over those areas of study. Discoveries in mathematical logic are where we have expanded our understanding of the nature of "true" statements, and physics has allowed us to test theories with different assumptions about the nature of "reality" (for example, quantum mechanics and ideas forced by it such as an inherent probability of existence, particles coming into existence from nothingness, or particles only existing once observed - all ideas no philosopher could figure out how to TEST).

You continue to stress that science started in the 16th or 17th century but that is demonstrably false. Most people in the scientific community would laugh at the notion that science is only 300 years old. It's been around for thousands of years. People have been studying biology for thousands of years. Most of philosophy is taking thinking and applying formulas to the logic used and the outcomes derived from it. I have no idea what "natural philosophy" is. Noone uses that term anymore. Isaac Newton maybe but that was a while ago

The concept that science has replaced religion and philosophy in the 20th century is bordering on lunacy. If you get some free time you need to read some history, religion, and philosophy books on the 20th century. Not to turn you away from your beliefs but just so you learn something else other than numbers and formulas. Expand your mind.

Economics and archeology was always based on science. Psychology I would imagine has too but I dont know enough about the history of the field and am not interested enough in it

"Social" Philosophy is another term that is in little use if any use at all. You seem to imply that science is straying into areas for the first time but all the areas you're saying they are enetering they have been in for thousands if not hundreds of years. You seem convinced that you will "win". Never going to happen. The limitations of mathematics are too profound to overcome. To describe a human being and his actions you need words not numbers. Granted in a very vague and general sense you can use numbers to sell him something or to predict that something has the potetnial of happening but it will be on the level of a retards knowledge. To have true insight you need to expand your mind outside of mathematical formulas

Please dont wikipedia natural philosophy or social philosophy. I know what they are but they dont describe the type of discipline entailed. Philosophy is about what logical rigors you use to prove or disprove statements

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 12:13 AM
Before I respond, noting what you said about connection trouble and having to edit your posts, you might try writing everything in a Word document first and then just pasting. That might save you some time in the future :wink:

OK, now on to what you said...


You continue to stress that science started in the 16th or 17th century but that is demonstrably false. Most people in the scientific community would laugh at the notion that science is only 300 years old. It's been around for thousands of years. People have been studying biology for thousands of years.

You should read carefully before making accusations. I didn't stress or imply in my previous post that science began in the 16th or 17th century. I merely told you what science was mostly composed of 3 centuries ago.

However, keep in mind that most historians of science date the scientific revolution to begin at around the mid-16th century. Isolated examples of science before that aren't the same thing as a methodical application of the scientific method towards problem solving in general.



Most of philosophy is taking thinking and applying formulas to the logic used and the outcomes derived from it. I have no idea what "natural philosophy" is. Noone uses that term anymore. Isaac Newton maybe but that was a while ago

The concept that science has replaced religion and philosophy in the 20th century is bordering on lunacy. If you get some free time you need to read some history, religion, and philosophy books on the 20th century. Not to turn you away from your beliefs but just so you learn something else other than numbers and formulas. Expand your mind.

Economics and archeology was always based on science. Psychology I would imagine has too but I dont know enough about the history of the field and am not interested enough in it

"Social" Philosophy is another term that is in little use if any use at all. You seem to imply that science is straying into areas for the first time but all the areas you're saying they are enetering they have been in for thousands if not hundreds of years. You seem convinced that you will "win". Never going to happen. The limitations of mathematics are too profound to overcome. To describe a human being and his actions you need words not numbers. Granted in a very vague and general sense you can use numbers to sell him something or to predict that something has the potetnial of happening but it will be on the level of a retards knowledge. To have true insight you need to expand your mind outside of mathematical formulas

Please dont wikipedia natural philosophy or social philosophy. I know what they are but they dont describe the type of discipline entailed. Philosophy is about what logical rigors you use to prove or disprove statements

Now, most of this is ignorance on your part.

First of all, "natural philosophy" is a term used, and it is used to describe the philosophy that preceded what is today natural science.

And that natural philosophy WAS replaced. I'm not the one that needs to read history in this case. No, you need to.

Before the science of physics, the study of the kinds of phenomena physicists studied looked very similar to what ancient Greek philosophers said about such things. There is a CLEAR difference. Philosophers did NOT prove or do experiments to TEST ideas. Nope, they just postulated and argued with their wits.

For example, Aristotle claimed force caused motion and that as soon as the force lost its ability to cause that motion, the motion would cease. Well, this kind of thinking predicts the trajectory of a ball thrown at an angle in the air will be triangular, not elliptic. But, did he ever care about doing an experiment to test that idea FIRST before insisting on it? No.

Similarly, he and Democritus argued about whether matter is indivisible or not with NO evidence for either side. He also said the Earth is the center of the universe. Why? No evidence, just for "mystical" reasons.

That's philosophy. Conjecture after conjecture with no need for testing the ideas to see whether the predictions are accurate or not.

Science is vastly different. When Newton claimed force, mass and acceleration are related as F = ma, that's testable, and the ONLY reason it was accepted is because of its tremendous accuracy (though a more accurate formula has replaced it).

And it is CLEAR science has been replacing philosophy. I mean certainly at universities this is the case. Does a physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, genetics, neurology course include much philosophy? Mostly, it's been expunged. Why? Because it provides no solutions to the problems of interest, meaning it's useless.

That's just how things are. Pick up a textbook in any of those fields and see how much philosophy (as opposed to science) they teach. Nearly nothing if at all anything (mostly if some stuff is included, it's for purposes of explaining what was replaced!!)

And what is this stuff about psychology or economics or archeology being based on science from the outset? That's just so patently false it falls into the bin of other false statements you've made (a lot) about science. Look at psychology when it began with Descartes.

Yeah, Descartes just makes conjecture after conjecture irrespective of whether any empirical evidence exists to support it. For example, he claims the center of the brain is where consciousness lies. NO evidence, but no problem. In fact, that's totally wrong, since that's where the pituitary gland lies and it has nothing to do with the information processing that creates your thoughts/consciousness (that kind of stuff is mostly done at the neocortex - the uppermost 1-2mm layers of your brain). Now, Descartes got some things right of course, such as human behavior ultimately being the result of a mechanical process, but that's just by pure luck he got it right, not because he showed evidence for it!!

Fast forward to today where you have electrodes stuck into one single neuron to determine exactly what that responds to, where that single neuron is frozen and sliced up to determine at which points it synapses with other neurons, where mathematical models of neural circuits are built, simulated, tested in psychophysical experiments, etc..

Half of psychology today is a science that replaced the philosophy that came before it. To suggest otherwise is just ignorance. And if you want to see examples of philosophy that hasn't been replaced in psychology, see Freud. Almost everything he said about the nature of dreams has no evidence supporting it. The problem is science isn't far enough to erase that bull from textbooks. Once it is though, it will be replaced, just like other stuff.

And economics? It's only since the 20th century that emphasis on precision really exists and where quantifying the effects of changes in models of economic systems has become the norm. Look at Marx and even Keynes. Most of their arguments are still qualitative, though some were evidence-based. Economics at the very least has the proper emphasis on precision. The next step is to make sure the assumptions they make in those models are sufficiently accurate (they often sacrifice accuracy for precision), and fields like behavioral economics are springing up to do just that. That's more scientific, and results obtained through such methods gradually replace what came before.

So, it's CLEAR science has over its history been replacing philosophy!! I don't even see how you can argue otherwise.

And NO, it's not true that science had strayed into most of these areas they end up replacing. Please, show me scientific results in psychology from the time of the ancient Greeks!! Show me theories of 1000 years ago on diseases that could be deemed scientific! How about theories on how life emerged, how the brain works or how new materials can be made from that time that are scientific!!

No, YOU need to read up on the history of this stuff. Almost everything you see in science today (at least 99% of what is science today) was done in the last 3 centuries. Finding isolated examples of science before that doesn't change the fact that science was NOT represented in anywhere near the breadth of fields it is in today, and it also doesn't change the fact that it has continually replaced the philosophy that came before it.

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 01:18 AM
Before I respond, noting what you said about connection trouble and having to edit your posts, you might try writing everything in a Word document first and then just pasting. That might save you some time in the future :wink:

OK, now on to what you said...



You should read carefully before making accusations. I didn't stress or imply in my previous post that science began in the 16th or 17th century. I merely told you what science was mostly composed of 3 centuries ago.

However, keep in mind that most historians of science date the scientific revolution to begin at around the mid-16th century. Isolated examples of science before that aren't the same thing as a methodical application of the scientific method towards problem solving in general.



Now, most of this is ignorance on your part.

First of all, "natural philosophy" is a term used, and it is used to describe the philosophy that preceded what is today natural science.

And that natural philosophy WAS replaced. I'm not the one that needs to read history in this case. No, you need to.

Before the science of physics, the study of the kinds of phenomena physicists studied looked very similar to what ancient Greek philosophers said about such things. There is a CLEAR difference. Philosophers did NOT prove or do experiments to TEST ideas. Nope, they just postulated and argued with their wits.

For example, Aristotle claimed force caused motion and that as soon as the force lost its ability to cause that motion, the motion would cease. Well, this kind of thinking predicts the trajectory of a ball thrown at an angle in the air will be triangular, not elliptic. But, did he ever care about doing an experiment to test that idea FIRST before insisting on it? No.

Similarly, he and Democritus argued about whether matter is indivisible or not with NO evidence for either side. He also said the Earth is the center of the universe. Why? No evidence, just for "mystical" reasons.

That's philosophy. Conjecture after conjecture with no need for testing the ideas to see whether the predictions are accurate or not.

Science is vastly different. When Newton claimed force, mass and acceleration are related as F = ma, that's testable, and the ONLY reason it was accepted is because of its tremendous accuracy (though a more accurate formula has replaced it).

And it is CLEAR science has been replacing philosophy. I mean certainly at universities this is the case. Does a physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, genetics, neurology course include much philosophy? Mostly, it's been expunged. Why? Because it provides no solutions to the problems of interest, meaning it's useless.

That's just how things are. Pick up a textbook in any of those fields and see how much philosophy (as opposed to science) they teach. Nearly nothing if at all anything (mostly if some stuff is included, it's for purposes of explaining what was replaced!!)

And what is this stuff about psychology or economics or archeology being based on science from the outset? That's just so patently false it falls into the bin of other false statements you've made (a lot) about science. Look at psychology when it began with Descartes.

Yeah, Descartes just makes conjecture after conjecture irrespective of whether any empirical evidence exists to support it. For example, he claims the center of the brain is where consciousness lies. NO evidence, but no problem. In fact, that's totally wrong, since that's where the pituitary gland lies and it has nothing to do with the information processing that creates your thoughts/consciousness (that kind of stuff is mostly done at the neocortex - the uppermost 1-2mm layers of your brain). Now, Descartes got some things right of course, such as human behavior ultimately being the result of a mechanical process, but that's just by pure luck he got it right, not because he showed evidence for it!!

Fast forward to today where you have electrodes stuck into one single neuron to determine exactly what that responds to, where that single neuron is frozen and sliced up to determine at which points it synapses with other neurons, where mathematical models of neural circuits are built, simulated, tested in psychophysical experiments, etc..

Half of psychology today is a science that replaced the philosophy that came before it. To suggest otherwise is just ignorance. And if you want to see examples of philosophy that hasn't been replaced in psychology, see Freud. Almost everything he said about the nature of dreams has no evidence supporting it. The problem is science isn't far enough to erase that bull from textbooks. Once it is though, it will be replaced, just like other stuff.

And economics? It's only since the 20th century that emphasis on precision really exists and where quantifying the effects of changes in models of economic systems has become the norm. Look at Marx and even Keynes. Most of their arguments are still qualitative, though some were evidence-based. Economics at the very least has the proper emphasis on precision. The next step is to make sure the assumptions they make in those models are sufficiently accurate (they often sacrifice accuracy for precision), and fields like behavioral economics are springing up to do just that. That's more scientific, and results obtained through such methods gradually replace what came before.

So, it's CLEAR science has over its history been replacing philosophy!! I don't even see how you can argue otherwise.

And NO, it's not true that science had strayed into most of these areas they end up replacing. Please, show me scientific results in psychology from the time of the ancient Greeks!! Show me theories of 1000 years ago on diseases that could be deemed scientific! How about theories on how life emerged, how the brain works or how new materials can be made from that time that are scientific!!

No, YOU need to read up on the history of this stuff. Almost everything you see in science today (at least 99% of what is science today) was done in the last 3 centuries. Finding isolated examples of science before that doesn't change the fact that science was NOT represented in anywhere near the breadth of fields it is in today, and it also doesn't change the fact that it has continually replaced the philosophy that came before it.

First some examples of ancient science
One of those names is Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, born in what is now Uzbekistan around A.D. 780. Never heard of him? He's well known in mathematical circles for a work in which he preserved and expanded on the work of Diophantus, a Greek. The work was titled "ilm al-jabr wal muqabalah," "the science of transposition and cancellation." The Arabic "al-jabr" became the Latin "algebra," the name given to the branch of mathematics Diophantus had founded. Al-Khwarizmi's own name got twisted into "algorism," meaning "the art of calculating," what we now call arithmetic.
Even more important, Al-Khwarizmi drew on the work of Hindu as well as Greek mathematicians, picking up the Hindu numerals, including the zero, which was unknown to users of Roman numerals. His work was translated into Latin, and the numerals--called Arabic numerals, despite their Hindu origin--went with it. The numerals were passed to Europe through the Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci. It took a while, but the Arabic numerals turned mathematical calculations upside down. Today, no one can envision doing long division or any number of other manipulations without them.
The Persian scientist Rhazes, also called by the Arabic name Abu-Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Ar-Razi, was born near what is now Tehran about A.D. 845. He studied medicine and became the chief physician of Baghdad's biggest hospital. He is credited with being the first to distinguish clearly between smallpox and measles and described his experiments so well that modern scientists can reproduce them. Rhazes also concocted what is now called plaster of Paris and described how it could be made into casts to keep broken bones in place.
The most prominent physicist of the Middle Ages was Alhazen (Arabic name: Abu-'Ali Al-Hasan ibn Al-Haytham), born in Basra (Iraq) about A.D. 965. Fascinated by optics, he corrected an old notion that people see by rays of light emanating from the eyes and reflecting from objects. Alhazen realized that the sun or some other source emits light before it's reflected off objects and into the eye. He also explained that lenses magnify objects because of the curvature of their surface, not because of any intrinsic property of the material the lens is made from. He did much work on reflection and refraction of light, including studies of the rainbow and the focusing of light through lenses. He made a pinhole camera and parabolic mirrors, the type now used in telescopes. The world had to wait nearly six centuries--until the days of German astronomer Johannes Kepler, who was heavily influenced by a Latin translation of Alhazen's work--to see further progress in optics.

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Columns/SciFri/SciFri_3.18.05_Light_in_the_Dark_Agesancient_Arab_and_Persian_scholars.html

Muslim scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) than had the Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks). This led to the modern scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) being developed in the Muslim world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world), where significant progress in methodology was made. In particular, the empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham) (Alhazen) on optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics) from circa 1000 is seen as the beginning of the modern scientific method.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-Agar) The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) orientation, which began among Muslim scientists.
Rosanna Gorini writes:

"According to the majority of the historians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian) al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable."[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-Gorini)
Ibn al-Haytham, who is now known as the "father of optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something)",[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-15) used the scientific method to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics). In particular, he combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to show that his modern intromission theory of vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception), where rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_%28optics%29) of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light) are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, is scientifically correct, and that the ancient emission theory of vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_%28vision%29) supported by Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) and Euclid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid) (where the eyes emit rays of light), and the ancient intromission theory supported by Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) (where objects emit physical particles to the eyes), were both wrong.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-16) It is known that Roger Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon) (who is sometimes erroneously given credit for the scientific method) was familiar with Ibn al-Haytham's work.
The development of the scientific method is considered to be so fundamental to modern science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) that some — especially philosophers of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) and practicing scientists — consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific. Some have described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist)" for this reason.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-17) Robert Briffault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Briffault) wrote in The Making of Humanity:[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-18)

"What we call science arose as a result of new methods of experiment, observation, and measurement, which were introduced into Europe by the Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab). [...] Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world) to the modern world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times), but its fruits were slow in ripening. Not until long after Moorish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors) culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant to which it had given birth, rise in his might. It was not science only which brought Europe back to life. Other and manifold influences from the civilization of Islam communicated its first glow to European life."

"The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories; science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence....The ancient world was, as we saw, pre-scientific. The astronomy and mathematics of Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture. The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized, but the patient ways of investigations, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation and experimental inquiry were altogether alien to the Greek temperament. [...] What we call science arose in Europe as a result of new spirit of enquiry, of new methods of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics, in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs."
George Sarton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sarton), the "father of the history of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science)", wrote:

"The main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages was the creation of the experimental spirit and this was primarily due to the Muslims down to the 12th century."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#_note-Salam)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

I think the above two examples demenstrate science of the type you seem to believe magically appeared in the 16th century existed previously. The era you speak of is often referred to as "modern science" not the beginning of science. You should use the correct term. You wouldn't want your fellow colleagues to get upset.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 01:30 AM
First some examples of ancient science
One of those names is Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, born in what is now Uzbekistan around A.D. 780. Never heard of him? He's well known in mathematical circles for a work in which he preserved and expanded on the work of Diophantus, a Greek. The work was titled "ilm al-jabr wal muqabalah," "the science of transposition and cancellation." The Arabic "al-jabr" became the Latin "algebra," the name given to the branch of mathematics Diophantus had founded. Al-Khwarizmi's own name got twisted into "algorism," meaning "the art of calculating," what we now call arithmetic.
Even more important, Al-Khwarizmi drew on the work of Hindu as well as Greek mathematicians, picking up the Hindu numerals, including the zero, which was unknown to users of Roman numerals. His work was translated into Latin, and the numerals--called Arabic numerals, despite their Hindu origin--went with it. The numerals were passed to Europe through the Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci. It took a while, but the Arabic numerals turned mathematical calculations upside down. Today, no one can envision doing long division or any number of other manipulations without them.
The Persian scientist Rhazes, also called by the Arabic name Abu-Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Ar-Razi, was born near what is now Tehran about A.D. 845. He studied medicine and became the chief physician of Baghdad's biggest hospital. He is credited with being the first to distinguish clearly between smallpox and measles and described his experiments so well that modern scientists can reproduce them. Rhazes also concocted what is now called plaster of Paris and described how it could be made into casts to keep broken bones in place.
The most prominent physicist of the Middle Ages was Alhazen (Arabic name: Abu-'Ali Al-Hasan ibn Al-Haytham), born in Basra (Iraq) about A.D. 965. Fascinated by optics, he corrected an old notion that people see by rays of light emanating from the eyes and reflecting from objects. Alhazen realized that the sun or some other source emits light before it's reflected off objects and into the eye. He also explained that lenses magnify objects because of the curvature of their surface, not because of any intrinsic property of the material the lens is made from. He did much work on reflection and refraction of light, including studies of the rainbow and the focusing of light through lenses. He made a pinhole camera and parabolic mirrors, the type now used in telescopes. The world had to wait nearly six centuries--until the days of German astronomer Johannes Kepler, who was heavily influenced by a Latin translation of Alhazen's work--to see further progress in optics.

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Columns/SciFri/SciFri_3.18.05_Light_in_the_Dark_Agesancient_Arab_and_Persian_scholars.html


Yeah, I could write pages worth of that kind of stuff just from memory (especially in math). That's still "isolated" in comparison to what happened after Galileo. Seriously, about 99% of what science knows today was done after the mid-16th century.

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 01:39 AM
Before I respond, noting what you said about connection trouble and having to edit your posts, you might try writing everything in a Word document first and then just pasting. That might save you some time in the future :wink:

OK, now on to what you said...



You should read carefully before making accusations. I didn't stress or imply in my previous post that science began in the 16th or 17th century. I merely told you what science was mostly composed of 3 centuries ago.

However, keep in mind that most historians of science date the scientific revolution to begin at around the mid-16th century. Isolated examples of science before that aren't the same thing as a methodical application of the scientific method towards problem solving in general.



Now, most of this is ignorance on your part.

First of all, "natural philosophy" is a term used, and it is used to describe the philosophy that preceded what is today natural science.

And that natural philosophy WAS replaced. I'm not the one that needs to read history in this case. No, you need to.

Before the science of physics, the study of the kinds of phenomena physicists studied looked very similar to what ancient Greek philosophers said about such things. There is a CLEAR difference. Philosophers did NOT prove or do experiments to TEST ideas. Nope, they just postulated and argued with their wits.

For example, Aristotle claimed force caused motion and that as soon as the force lost its ability to cause that motion, the motion would cease. Well, this kind of thinking predicts the trajectory of a ball thrown at an angle in the air will be triangular, not elliptic. But, did he ever care about doing an experiment to test that idea FIRST before insisting on it? No.

Similarly, he and Democritus argued about whether matter is indivisible or not with NO evidence for either side. He also said the Earth is the center of the universe. Why? No evidence, just for "mystical" reasons.

That's philosophy. Conjecture after conjecture with no need for testing the ideas to see whether the predictions are accurate or not.

Science is vastly different. When Newton claimed force, mass and acceleration are related as F = ma, that's testable, and the ONLY reason it was accepted is because of its tremendous accuracy (though a more accurate formula has replaced it).

And it is CLEAR science has been replacing philosophy. I mean certainly at universities this is the case. Does a physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, genetics, neurology course include much philosophy? Mostly, it's been expunged. Why? Because it provides no solutions to the problems of interest, meaning it's useless.

That's just how things are. Pick up a textbook in any of those fields and see how much philosophy (as opposed to science) they teach. Nearly nothing if at all anything (mostly if some stuff is included, it's for purposes of explaining what was replaced!!)

And what is this stuff about psychology or economics or archeology being based on science from the outset? That's just so patently false it falls into the bin of other false statements you've made (a lot) about science. Look at psychology when it began with Descartes.

Yeah, Descartes just makes conjecture after conjecture irrespective of whether any empirical evidence exists to support it. For example, he claims the center of the brain is where consciousness lies. NO evidence, but no problem. In fact, that's totally wrong, since that's where the pituitary gland lies and it has nothing to do with the information processing that creates your thoughts/consciousness (that kind of stuff is mostly done at the neocortex - the uppermost 1-2mm layers of your brain). Now, Descartes got some things right of course, such as human behavior ultimately being the result of a mechanical process, but that's just by pure luck he got it right, not because he showed evidence for it!!

Fast forward to today where you have electrodes stuck into one single neuron to determine exactly what that responds to, where that single neuron is frozen and sliced up to determine at which points it synapses with other neurons, where mathematical models of neural circuits are built, simulated, tested in psychophysical experiments, etc..

Half of psychology today is a science that replaced the philosophy that came before it. To suggest otherwise is just ignorance. And if you want to see examples of philosophy that hasn't been replaced in psychology, see Freud. Almost everything he said about the nature of dreams has no evidence supporting it. The problem is science isn't far enough to erase that bull from textbooks. Once it is though, it will be replaced, just like other stuff.

And economics? It's only since the 20th century that emphasis on precision really exists and where quantifying the effects of changes in models of economic systems has become the norm. Look at Marx and even Keynes. Most of their arguments are still qualitative, though some were evidence-based. Economics at the very least has the proper emphasis on precision. The next step is to make sure the assumptions they make in those models are sufficiently accurate (they often sacrifice accuracy for precision), and fields like behavioral economics are springing up to do just that. That's more scientific, and results obtained through such methods gradually replace what came before.

So, it's CLEAR science has over its history been replacing philosophy!! I don't even see how you can argue otherwise.

And NO, it's not true that science had strayed into most of these areas they end up replacing. Please, show me scientific results in psychology from the time of the ancient Greeks!! Show me theories of 1000 years ago on diseases that could be deemed scientific! How about theories on how life emerged, how the brain works or how new materials can be made from that time that are scientific!!

No, YOU need to read up on the history of this stuff. Almost everything you see in science today (at least 99% of what is science today) was done in the last 3 centuries. Finding isolated examples of science before that doesn't change the fact that science was NOT represented in anywhere near the breadth of fields it is in today, and it also doesn't change the fact that it has continually replaced the philosophy that came before it.

You ridicule Aristotle for coming up with an incorrect theory for something and attribute it to mystical reasons. I guess Stephen Hawkings messing up his black hole theory was overcome by mysticism too. Or is it when scientists are wrong its acceptable but when philosophers are wrong its because they're simply flawed. As to the rigors that philosophy demands, you seem to completely bypass that. Yopu make it sound like they just sit back, light up a joint and contemplate life. Sorry boss. Try reading some books by these guys. They go on and on with process, logic and formulas, the same stuff you seem to be fascinated by. The reason philosphy isnt taught during a geology class is twofold. One it's a geology class and two there's no money in it

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 01:40 AM
Yeah, I could write pages worth of that kind of stuff just from memory (especially in math). That's still "isolated" in comparison to what happened after Galileo. Seriously, about 99% of what science knows today was done after the mid-16th century.

You asked for example, you got them. If you dont want them don't ask for them

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 01:45 AM
You asked for example, you got them. If you dont want them don't ask for them

Again, read carefully. I asked for scientific results in psychology, or how the brain works or how new materials can be created or for disease. Show me examples there from 1000 or more years ago. The stuff you wrote is mostly in mathematics/astronomy stuff, and I even gave many examples of science in those disciplines before.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 01:53 AM
You ridicule Aristotle for coming up with an incorrect theory for something and attribute it to mystical reasons. I guess Stephen Hawkings messing up his black hole theory was overcome by mysticism too. Or is it when scientists are wrong its acceptable but when philosophers are wrong its because they're simply flawed. As to the rigors that philosophy demands, you seem to completely bypass that. Yopu make it sound like they just sit back, light up a joint and contemplate life. Sorry boss. Try reading some books by these guys. They go on and on with process, logic and formulas, the same stuff you seem to be fascinated by. The reason philosphy isnt taught during a geology class is twofold. One it's a geology class and two there's no money in it

No, I didn't label what Aristotle did as mystical. Those were the kinds of reasons Greek philosophers themselves gave for some of their assertions!!

And again, the difference between a philosopher being wrong and a scientist is that the philosopher didn't FIRST test his ideas through carefully controlled experiments!! It remains conjecture and nothing more.

Finally, there is little rigor to speak of in what Aristotle wrote on how objects move or what Descartes wrote on the nature of the mind. The words used have ambiguous meanings to the point you can't test them!

The only area where philosophy has that rigor is with symbolic logic, but that's considered an abstract science, even if there are many universities where such logicians are in a philosophy building or department (similar to many neurologists being in a psychology department nowdays - it's a sign of scientific thinking replacing what went on before).

Really, if you want, just post quotes from Aristotle or Descartes on the relevant topics of motion of bodies and the nature of the mind (not Aristotle with logic - that was more scientific - or Descartes with analytical geometry - also more scientific) and I'll show you the ambiguities and thus the lack of rigor.

And remember, it's philosophy, not philosophers, that is being attacked here. There are people that did good science, philosophy, theology, etc... all in one person.

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 02:00 AM
Again, read carefully. I asked for scientific results in psychology, or how the brain works or how new materials can be created or for disease. Show me examples there from 1000 or more years ago. The stuff you wrote is mostly in mathematics/astronomy stuff, and I even gave many examples of science in those disciplines before.

I stated I dont know anything about psychology in my previous post. Didn;t psychology start with that cokehead Freud. I dont consider psychology a science really. Just seems like mumbo jumbo to me for the most part. It seems it's science trying to takeover the role of the priest's confessional

As for coming up with some examples these will have to do

The concept is enough to make anyone wince: The remains of skulls discovered by archeologists in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa prove that Stone Age people practiced brain surgery.
When the skulls were first discovered, it was thought that the small openings in the skull had been carved after the person's death. But research revealed that healing and bone regeneration had taken place after the incisions, indicating that at least some of the patients survived the procedure.
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gifThe practice, called trepanation, appears to have been used to relieve pressure from brain tumors and to repair injuries. In Peru, more than 10,000 trepanned skulls were discovered. Out of 400 skulls examined by one researcher, 250 indicated recovery.
Still, researchers wondered how brain surgery could have been conducted successfully with crude stone or metal tools, without antiseptics, antibiotics and anesthesia. In 1962, a Peruvian brain surgeon performed a latter-day trepanning operation on a head-trauma patient, using the surgical instruments of ancient Peru. The patient made it through the surgery and, happily, survived.
http://tms.ecol.net/health/cctrepan.htm


The first Roman Medical Corps was formed by Emperor Augustus, and as he gave land grants, dignified titles, and special retirement gifts to the doctors, the profession lost its shoddy aspect and became respectable. It helped too that Medical professionals hereafter were required to train at the new Army Medical School and could not practise unless they passed. This increased the success rates in treatments.
Ancient Roman medicine was, surprisingly, incredibly similar to that of the late nineteenth century. Like the modern medical practice, Ancient Roman medicine was split among different specialties, such as internists, ophthalmologists, and urologists. All surgical tasks were only preformed by appropriate specialists. Surgeons used practically the same tools as American doctors did only one hundred years ago. An Ancient Roman doctor¹s tool kit (shown in the four pictures to the right) would include forceps, scalpels, catheters, and even arrow-extractors.
Similarly, Ancient Roman surgeons had a wide range of painkillers and sedatives to help in surgery, including extracts of opium poppies (morphine) and of henbane seeds (scopolamine). There is little doubt that the many folk remedies used throughout the Roman Empire were tested in battle by Roman physicians on wounded and ailing soldiers, who sifted through and found the treatments and methods with the most useful effects. Further, the bureaucracy of Rome ensured that the treatments were recorded and taught in the medical school.
The Romans did not yet really understand how germs related to disease, but they did use many of the techniques that killed germs, techniques that were not reinvented until much later. For example, they boiled their tools before use and would not reuse the same tool on a patient before reboiling. Wounds were washed with acetum, which is actually a better antiseptic than Joseph Lister's carbolic acid (Joseph Lister rediscovered antiseptics in the 1860's, based on Louis Pasteur¹s brand-new germ theory of disease).
In Ancient Rome, it was common knowledge that arteries and veins carried blood. All surgeons knew how to use tourniquets, arterial clamps, and ligatures to stem blood flow. They also used amputation to prevent deadly gangrene.Over the years, Roman war doctors also learned how to prevent many battlefield epidemics. They accomplished this by placing forts away from insect infested swamps. They also installed drains and sewers to transport sewage away from the men. Similarly, they invented sophisticated permanent hospitals, with specialized rooms for different tasks, and with isolation of some patients from others to reduce the spread of disease. Central heating and good ventilation also helped patients.
http://www.crystalinks.com/romemedicine.html

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 02:12 AM
I stated I dont know anything about psychology in my previous post. Didn;t psychology start with that cokehead Freud. I dont consider psychology a science really. Just seems like mumbo jumbo to me for the most part. It seems it's science trying to takeover the role of the priest's confessional

As for coming up with some examples these will have to do

The concept is enough to make anyone wince: The remains of skulls discovered by archeologists in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa prove that Stone Age people practiced brain surgery.
When the skulls were first discovered, it was thought that the small openings in the skull had been carved after the person's death. But research revealed that healing and bone regeneration had taken place after the incisions, indicating that at least some of the patients survived the procedure.
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gifThe practice, called trepanation, appears to have been used to relieve pressure from brain tumors and to repair injuries. In Peru, more than 10,000 trepanned skulls were discovered. Out of 400 skulls examined by one researcher, 250 indicated recovery.
Still, researchers wondered how brain surgery could have been conducted successfully with crude stone or metal tools, without antiseptics, antibiotics and anesthesia. In 1962, a Peruvian brain surgeon performed a latter-day trepanning operation on a head-trauma patient, using the surgical instruments of ancient Peru. The patient made it through the surgery and, happily, survived.
http://tms.ecol.net/health/cctrepan.htm


The first Roman Medical Corps was formed by Emperor Augustus, and as he gave land grants, dignified titles, and special retirement gifts to the doctors, the profession lost its shoddy aspect and became respectable. It helped too that Medical professionals hereafter were required to train at the new Army Medical School and could not practise unless they passed. This increased the success rates in treatments.
Ancient Roman medicine was, surprisingly, incredibly similar to that of the late nineteenth century. Like the modern medical practice, Ancient Roman medicine was split among different specialties, such as internists, ophthalmologists, and urologists. All surgical tasks were only preformed by appropriate specialists. Surgeons used practically the same tools as American doctors did only one hundred years ago. An Ancient Roman doctor¹s tool kit (shown in the four pictures to the right) would include forceps, scalpels, catheters, and even arrow-extractors.
Similarly, Ancient Roman surgeons had a wide range of painkillers and sedatives to help in surgery, including extracts of opium poppies (morphine) and of henbane seeds (scopolamine). There is little doubt that the many folk remedies used throughout the Roman Empire were tested in battle by Roman physicians on wounded and ailing soldiers, who sifted through and found the treatments and methods with the most useful effects. Further, the bureaucracy of Rome ensured that the treatments were recorded and taught in the medical school.
The Romans did not yet really understand how germs related to disease, but they did use many of the techniques that killed germs, techniques that were not reinvented until much later. For example, they boiled their tools before use and would not reuse the same tool on a patient before reboiling. Wounds were washed with acetum, which is actually a better antiseptic than Joseph Lister's carbolic acid (Joseph Lister rediscovered antiseptics in the 1860's, based on Louis Pasteur¹s brand-new germ theory of disease).
In Ancient Rome, it was common knowledge that arteries and veins carried blood. All surgeons knew how to use tourniquets, arterial clamps, and ligatures to stem blood flow. They also used amputation to prevent deadly gangrene.Over the years, Roman war doctors also learned how to prevent many battlefield epidemics. They accomplished this by placing forts away from insect infested swamps. They also installed drains and sewers to transport sewage away from the men. Similarly, they invented sophisticated permanent hospitals, with specialized rooms for different tasks, and with isolation of some patients from others to reduce the spread of disease. Central heating and good ventilation also helped patients.
http://www.crystalinks.com/romemedicine.html



I gotta commend you for that. You did some good research.

However, I also chose the topics carefully where I wanted examples of science for. Those are areas where it's VERY difficult to find any science before the modern world.

So, let me go through the ones you found. The first one is about brain surgery, NOT how the brain works. That's a big difference. And the second one also explicitly states:

QUOTE:
"The Romans did not yet really understand how germs related to disease, but they did use many of the techniques that killed germs"
-------------------

Remember how I explained how most ancient mathematics (except for Greeks) was "do this for step 1, then this for step 2, etc.. and in our experience we will get this result"?

Remember when I said that was similar for ancient astronomy and medcine etc..?

Well, you dug up a good example of that. It wasn't a systematic testing of theories what they were doing. It was the accumulated experience over centuries that allowed the Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, etc.. to have such practical techniques.

That's why I said it was something inbetween philosophy and science. I forget which post and which thread I explained all this, but hopefully you remember that argument.

So, while all that info is good and nice (and certainly worth knowing), it doesn't give us an example of ancient science in psychology, understanding how the brain works, how diseases work or how new materials can be created.

There's a big difference between having a table of data versus a method of inference for predicting phenomena.

Oh, and to answer your question about psychology, modern psychology is said to have begun with Descartes. Yes, he got a lot of things wrong, but one thing he did do was ask the right questions. Somehow (I don't know much of this part), he got others interested in such subjects too, helping to form the foundations of the philosophy of the mind that would eventually turn into and be replaced by a science of psychology.