warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 What is the scientific method? As far as myself and philosophers of Science, it doesn't exist. Firstly, you observe with the senses. Then, you hypothesise as to why something is so, i.e. why this natural phenomenon occurs. You then set up experiments that will determine whether you hypothesis is refuted or strengthened. If the hypothesis/hypotheses are strengthened by your experimentation, you can designate them as theory. Alongside theory can be scientific law i.e. definate mathematical formulae which explain why something is so (of which there are many). It's used everyday. Why would you say it dosent exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker6 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Your body becomes one with the earth and your spirit ascendes into heaven. However nobody really knows and nobody will ever know. So I really don't know why human kind must debate something that will never have any facts that support their claims. "I saw a ghost", really doesn't cut it with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Firstly, you observe with the senses. Then, you hypothesise as to why something is so, i.e. why this natural phenomenon occurs. You then set up experiments that will determine whether you hypothesis is refuted or strengthened. If the hypothesis/hypotheses are strengthened by your experimentation, you can designate them as theory. Alongside theory can be scientific law i.e. definate mathematical formulae which explain why something is so (of which there are many). It's used everyday. Why would you say it dosent exist? That doesn't take into account things which are derived from theory, nor does it take in account things which cant be experimented on. People might apply some sort of method to their everyday work but you can't say that there is a definitive method of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 No, the word you are thinking of is agnosticism(Having no religion, but doesn't discount any religion because any of them could be possible), thats what I am, Athiesm believes in no other religion and puts everything in scientific and logical terms, thats a common mistake though. We can not prove science and reasoning created all that exists, thus athiesm is as plausible as any other religion. Many Eastern Religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) don't believe in a God, however it doesn't stop them from believing in something. Atheism doesn't stop you from believing in anything else, it just means that you don't believe in a God. Religious Taoism Traditional Chinese religion is determinedly polytheistic. Its deities are arranged into a heavenly civil service that mirrors the bureaucracy of imperial China. Deities may be promoted or demoted. Many are said to have once been virtuous humans. The particular deities worshipped vary somewhat according to geography, and much more according to historical period (though the general pattern of worship is more constant).[29] There is also something of a disconnection between the set of gods which currently receive popular worship, and those which are the focus of elite Taoist texts and rituals. For example, the Jade Emperor is at the head of the popular pantheon, while the Celestial Masters' altar recognizes the deified Laozi (Laojun, "Lord Lao") and the Three Pure Ones in that position.[30][31] Some texts explain that Laozi has sponsored the apotheosis of various other gods. So Athiesm discredits Taoism. Confusionism, is definately not a religion, its sorta a set of beliefs, but these are only philosophical statement and morals, nothing really religious about it. The only real religion that Athiesm doesn't discredit is Buddhism, and thats only barely. I'm sure there are many ways in which Athiesm discredits Buddhism, but I don't have the time to brush up on it at the moment, I just got up and I need to get ready for work. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTear Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Science is based on self-refuting claims though. Science claims that the only way to knowledge is the scientific method, correct? However, the scientific method cannot test itself, leaving the scientific method completely self-refuted. Who exactly makes that claim, and how exactly would you go about aquiring knowledge otherwise? If we haven't yet used those tools to find out how existence came to be, what proof do you have that science and reasoning can prove it? I'd say we don't have any quantifiable proof, beyond what can be infered by logic. By launching satelites, i.e. developing technology, we were able to see the background radiation permeating the universe, and modify our theories accordingly. Einstein's theory of relativity does not refute Newton's work, it expands upon it by dealing with things that - technologically - Newton had no way of knowing of, much less proving. It is not without precedent to say that in the future, as the scientific devices we use to study the universe become more advanced, we'll be able to to use those tools to further our knowledge. Of course, the vaguity of the term religion is the main cause of this disagreement. Both religions and scientific atheism are belief systems based on unprovable assumptions. They are essentially the same, and their followers share a similar devotion. Simple mathematic's require you to accept a few fundamental axioms. I don't really consider the belief of natural numbers religious, even though it's based on axioms. Where do you draw the line between banning discussion of one thought system and allowing another? Why should only "secular" discussions be allowed, when the atheistic point of view is essentially the same as religious points of view? Why should the administration say, "You are only allowed to approach this discussion from this point of view. If you disagree with this belief system, get over it." I don't think that's the reason why religious discussion was banned. I think it had more to do with the fact that if someone walks in and says "I don't believe in the *theory* of evolution" or "we did not evolve from apes!" no one takes offense. Statements along the lines of "there is no God" on the other hand, appears to offend a fair few people. That being said, I don't think the rule is particularly useful. Either it's a gag order for everyone who's opinion on one matter or the other is influenced by religion - an important part in all our respective cultures and everyday lives - or it's a freecard where something said with a religious basis is not open to debate. Neither of which is conductive for a discussion. -This message was deviously brought to you by: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Who exactly makes that claim Scientists indirectly make it all the time when they use the scientific method and call the results knowledge. and how exactly would you go about aquiring knowledge otherwise? That's exactly my point. If there is no other way to acquire knowledge, where did the knowledge that the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andufusthebronze Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 hmm.... maybe something happens and you have to make a choice. 1. go to the second world 2. stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterdez Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 You stop living :-s Founder of Fast Free Double Natures Click here to see my Goals and Achievements! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... of_science "As with all philosophical topics, the search has been neither straightforward nor simple. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science, but each has in turn been criticised." The site makes it look a little more definitive then it really is; like it states there is no definitive account. Accounts range from a traditional view, sociological views and to the view that there is no single account. So Athiesm discredits Taoism. Confusionism, is definately not a religion, its sorta a set of beliefs, but these are only philosophical statement and morals, nothing really religious about it. The only real religion that Athiesm doesn't discredit is Buddhism, and thats only barely. I'm sure there are many ways in which Athiesm discredits Buddhism, but I don't have the time to brush up on it at the moment, I just got up and I need to get ready for work. Keep Reading: Philosophical Taoism While a number of immortals or other mysterious figures appear in the Zhuangzi, and to a lesser extent in the Dao De Jing (e.g., the "mysterious female" in chapter 6), these have generally not become the objects of cultic worship. We must not confuse Dao with the western concept of monotheism. The Dao is not personal, nor is it an unchanging spiritual entity similar to the Hindu Atman. The Chinese word Dao can mean a process or a path, but not an entity. It is only to be followed, not to be worshipped. Dao merely means the natural way of the universe. Being one with the Dao does not indicate an union with an eternal spirit in the Hindu sense, but merely live with the change and accept the way of nature; that of impermanence and flexibility. Early texts describe Tao not as equal to "the One," but as a principle underlying both the One and the Many. One revealing phrase used to describe it is huntun (roughly, "chaotic mixture"). In the wake of Wang Bi, philosophical Taoists have tended to describe it as "nothingness," which is the origin of "being." (Cf. the apophatic tendencies of theism, including negative theology.)" A very common definition of religion is a set of beliefs, it wouldn't necessarily require worship of a god. The point still remains, that atheism isn't intrinsically linked with science. You're just stereotyping what the typical "atheist" would be and then claiming that scientific chat would be somehow religious by association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuBai Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 How would you exist any further. This is a question that calls our anthropological and metaphysical beliefs. If you're a materialist, then of course, we couldn't exist any further. If you're a dualist (material and non-material things exist), then our material body would cease to live, but our non-material, or spiritual, or soul, would continue to exist. Of course, you can be a dualist and believe that humans are purely material beings as well, in which case you would agree with the materialist. Belief is required in all things, we must believe the world exists, we must believe that our sense-data is an accurate representation of of a non-mental object, we must believe that, if we ceased to recieve sense data to the effect, the object neverthless is not dependant in it's being percieved to exist. I use "must" in a highley tentative fashion, because we "must" nothing at all. If we take for granted that we must beleive something (again the word must here is not necesarily true), wether that be that a demon is feeding us images, or that all objects are ideas in the mind of God, or that there is a physical reality, the only thing that is possible to be said then is "there are thoughts" (and even this assumes something to my mind - the existance of logic). So, we take this senario where we "must" believe something. So what seems most prudent to me is that we should believe what our sense data tells us exists. There may be a God, there may very well be an invisble demon made entirley from cheese sitting on your shoulder telling you what to think, but I doubt both because my sense data does not tell me they exist. I do not percieve ghosts, I do not recieve information to the effect of the existance of an afterlife, so I do not beleive it. Of course, I have made several assumptions, in that I seem to be saying that if I cannot see an object, or sense it somehow, I should not believe it exists, which is idiocy to some people, but seems rather sensible to me, if you stretch what you mean by sense data. There are many other assuptions, but every argument to the contrary contains even more flaws to my mind, or simply bigger ones. So I conclude I believe what I sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malo2 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 theories are based on evidence, so the only theory we have now is that nothing happens, and thats what im willing to belive. Lastfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Who exactly makes that claim Scientists indirectly make it all the time when they use the scientific method and call the results knowledge. Can you define what you personally mean by knowledge? People can define it in different ways and it would clear up your argument for me. Most consider it would be justified, true beleif but it differs from person to person and belief to belief, could you provide an example as to what knowledge is to you. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gin_and_Tonic Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 theories are based on evidence, so the only theory we have now is that nothing happens, and thats what im willing to belive. Erm, but when people die, how are they suppose to communicate with the living to tell us that something does happen?... Unless you're suggesting because no-one has done so, then there is no evidence?... How can you place evidence that there is an after life, or infact anything when you die, as you're the only one who experiences it? The best thing we can do is just wait and find out : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuziAngel Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Having lived in a house that has been home to 2 ghosts in my lifetime, I'm pretty confident that death isn't "The End." How do you know for sure they are ghosts? Currently there has been no evidence shown for the existence of ghosts and prizes of over $1 million are being offered to anybody who has the slightest proof. Nobody has been able to yet show any kind of proof. It would be interesting to hear from you so I can understand your view too. :) It's a matter of belief, sadly it can't be proven. There are no ghosts in the house at this time, but if another decides to stay with us, I'll let you know. :D The Poison Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Nobody knows what death will bring! Death is the ultimate adventure. Billions fear it and try to flee. Some live their lives and believe that their existance truly begins after death (like me, for example). Some sad fools embrace death willingly. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuBai Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Some sad fools embrace death willingly. Who are you to say they are fools? Read David Hume "Suicide". It doesn't matter. I might not live untill tomorow. I don't care. I might walk under a bus, and who can tell if I chose to or not? It would be irrelevant. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 2, Line 34. If suicide be supposed a crime, it is only cowardice can impel us to it. If it be no crime, both prudence and courage should engage us to rid ourselves at once of existence when it becomes a burden. It is the only way that we can then be useful to society, by setting an example which, if imitated, would preserve every one his chance for happiness in life, and would effectually free him from all danger or misery. David Hume, "On Suicide" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Some sad fools embrace death willingly. Who are you to say they are fools? Read David Hume "Suicide". It doesn't matter. I might not live untill tomorow. I don't care. I might walk under a bus, and who can tell if I chose to or not? It would be irrelevant. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 2, Line 34. Forgive me. I believe far too much into fate. We all die when we are supposed to die. We jail people for murdering others. By that same logic, I look down on people who take their own. They cheat life, they cheat death. Death is not an escape, it is a beginning. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuBai Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Some sad fools embrace death willingly. Who are you to say they are fools? Read David Hume "Suicide". It doesn't matter. I might not live untill tomorow. I don't care. I might walk under a bus, and who can tell if I chose to or not? It would be irrelevant. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 2, Line 34. Forgive me. I believe far too much into fate. We all die when we are supposed to die. We jail people for murdering others. By that same logic, I look down on people who take their own. They cheat life, they cheat death. Death is not an escape, it is a beginning. Anger flamed in dirty cleansing At the box men, for thinking They knew, when they could Barley think at all. So bound And shackled, their brains in Cages they loved and held Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gin_and_Tonic Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Live by this: The only two things in life which are iminent are death and taxes... No point running from either, as they'll always track you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedofsound Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 why pursue un-atainable knowledge? Life is a funny thing as it is. Explore it's quirks and don't dwell on something that is hopefully far off. Tread softly. You can't ever find a place that's nice and peaceful, because there isn't any. You may think there is, but once you get there, when you're not looking, somebody'll sneak up and write "(bleep) you" right under your nose. Try it sometime. I think, even, if I ever die, and they stick me in a cemetery, and I have a tombstone and all, it'll say "Holden Caulfield" on it, and then what year I was born and what year I died, and then right under that it'll say "(bleep) you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuziAngel Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Live by this: The only two things in life which are iminent are death and taxes... No point running from either, as they'll always track you down. Imminent??? I hope not! The Poison Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abyssalwhip Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Heres a nice thought. When you die your a decomposing body, you s*** yourself, your blood pools(thickens) a lot, you turn green or purple and you eventually rot away while worms crawl through you devouring your entrails! Though i really dont know what to beleive after death Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Heres a nice thought. When you die your a decomposing body, you s*** yourself, your blood pools(thickens) a lot, you turn green or purple and you eventually rot away while worms crawl through you devouring your entrails! Though i really dont know what to beleive after death Actually, you are drained of all fluids, your blood and water is replaced by embalming fluid, and your bladder and intestinal tracts are flushed out. You are placed in a casket which can be air-sealed and then placed inside a concrete berth. Hence, worms will not eat you, you will not defecate yourself, and you will look exactly like you did when you died for approximately 20 years. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Heres a nice thought. When you die your a decomposing body, you s*** yourself, your blood pools(thickens) a lot, you turn green or purple and you eventually rot away while worms crawl through you devouring your entrails! Though i really dont know what to beleive after death Actually, you are drained of all fluids, your blood and water is replaced by embalming fluid, and your bladder and intestinal tracts are flushed out. You are placed in a casket which can be air-sealed and then placed inside a concrete berth. Hence, worms will not eat you, you will not defecate yourself, and you will look exactly like you did when you died for approximately 20 years. I'm pretty sure he was suggesting if you had died and no human intervention insued. you can't say that there is a definitive method of science. Yes I can and it's the scientific method. If you knew about science, you would know this and that the reason why is that it is designed so that your experimental results can be replicated by anyone, thus assuring the method with undeniable integrity. That's exactly my point. If there is no other way to acquire knowledge, where did the knowledge that the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge come from? what do you get when you read a book? - knowlege. Your thinking of it to factually, the human mind can gain knowlege from many places, for example, you can gain the knowlege that the sky is blue by observing it with your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now