The limits of science

Sort:
MayCaesar
Sqod wrote:
MayCaesar wrote:

It is not clear to me why you assume that science cannot explore the spiritual world. What prevents it from doing it? If spiritual world exists and can be interacted with, then scientific method will work for it just as well as it works for the material world. We study, for example, force fields, even though they aren't exactly material. 

 

Science can and does, although often secretly conducted. Ever see "The Men Who Stare at Goats" (2009)? That is based on historical fact of American government programs. The problem is politics. See (my) Post #90.

 

The problem with all these programs is that they never produced any trustworthy results. Of course, one can claim that the government received some results and hid them from the public, but... That's a conspiracy theory, and those cannot be proven and disproven, hence discussing them philosophically makes little sense.

MayCaesar
M4xP0wer wrote:

Unfortunately the length of time I would need to 'convince' many of those folks posting on this thread that G*d does exist - is not available to me.  It would take many hours of explanation and teaching, and sources etc - and I just dont have the time.  A few quick points however that may help clarify

  • Judaism records that approximately 2 million people witnessed G*d directly - and were killed and resurrected by the experience due to the sheer power of proximity.  If you think about it from a logical perspective for a moment -to suggest to the inhabitants of a country that they must now follow 613 complicated laws that restrict their lives in almost every aspect because of an event that no one remembers happening 40, 200, 500 or 3000 years ago is not tenable. Just to start having people follow such laws requires that they have some direct experience, otherwise, it wont work
  • There were multiple instances of both direct experience of G*d throughout the time that Jews lived in Israel - and some were recorded by external sources - such as Romans.  In the 2nd Temple era - sadly corruption was rampant. On one day a year - the Kohen Gadol was to go into the 'Holy of Holies' where literally G*d resided - and present incense.  Roman soldiers recorded that during this time - Jews started tying ropes around the Kohen Gadol because he would often die in the Holy of Holies.  Instant death.  In addition there are numerous recorded instances in which for one Tzadik birds would burst into flame if he were to study Torah while walking - and they crossed his path.  In another example (and there are thousands) G*d's voice echoed through the land to attempt to settle a dispute regarding halacha with respect to oven construction.
  • Recently a Torah scroll was discovered that is over 2000 years old.  They could not open it otherwise it would disintegrate - so they imaged it (MRI).  It's exactly the same as a Torah from today.
  • The Talmud cites that the moon came from the earth - that was how G*d created it - and that has largely been agreed to be accurate
  • Recently both NASA and Germany (not sure which group) undertook to determine the exact number of days in a month.  The calculation was the same as the Jewish Calculation thousands of years ago to 6 decimal places.
  • Every prophecy given by the Torah has now been fullfilled -everything from Jews being expelled from the Holy Land, to the horrors that would befall them if they did not follow the Torah.  I wont go into details because most here would not be able to understand

I could go on and on.  Be assured however that G*d does actually exist.  He retracted himself such that its difficult for us to find him - in order that we make our choices, and choose what we want in this world - either we want good, or we want 'bad'.

 

'Bad' isnt what you think however- bad is selfishness.  Last lesson for you - G*d gives of himself constantly to sustain the Universe - giving of his life force, giving of his focus, giving to us to sustain the reality in which he makes.  Every blade of grass he concentrates on, every breeze, every person and every animal and insect to will them into existance - CONSTANTLY.  He wishes for us to learn this - so that we may sustain our own planets at a later time.

 

I lied -one last lesson - G*d isnt some dude with a beard and sandals - if you have to think of something - think of the most pure form of energy - but infinitely more complex.

And again and again and again, all these things can be explained easily without introducing the entity called "God". What you cited is a bunch of facts that can be interpreted in any way, but directly do not point at any creator being. You can, of course, imagine a field of energy that interacts with our Universe, moving the energy back and forth - but why would you want to do it? Occam's Razor doesn't like this way of thinking, and for a good reason: our theories would be much more bloated, if we included a lot of unfounded assumptions in them for pure flavor or artistic beauty.

 

I think it's time to agree that religion and science have different domains: religion tries to guide people morally through using fictional stories as an illustration for how a person should act to be happy, and science tries to give them an effective interpretation of how the Universe functions. I don't understand the point of looking at religious texts and trying to infer some kind of a truth about the Universe from them: it would be like reading Lord of the Rings to try to understand what happens in the middle of a black hole. Different domains, different goals, different fields of relevance and irrelevance.

Sqod
MayCaesar wrote:

The problem with all these programs is that they never produced any trustworthy results.

 

You're telling us that secret programs never produced any trustworthy results, even though obviously you would never have heard of them because they're often secret, black budget programs, whose results are often *never* disclosed? Surely you have better logic skills than that.

()
Top 5 Shocking Black Budget Programs | Think Tank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BSy8gcWO1M&t=3s 

()
GOATS DECLASSIFIED: The True Story Behind The Men Who Stare At Goats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbbtiCbPPts

Note: The only reason the public knows about this is that it was declassified.

()
U.S. Classified Black Budget Aircraft / Secret Space Program Michael Schratt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcDnEIBV3nw

Note the quote by Thomas Amile @14:47 about the reasons for black budgets.

 

MayCaesar

My logic skills tell me that if the result isn't disclosed, then neither you nor me know anything about it, and as such any claim on what it is is bogus. As far as the non-material world goes, we have no information of anyone who has succeeded in delivering a convincing argument that it exists. Even religions talk about spiritual world as something tangible, something one can understand with their this-worldly thinking.

tkhoffman
MayCaesar wrote:

My logic skills tell me that if the result isn't disclosed, then neither you nor me know anything about it, and as such any claim on what it is is bogus. As far as the non-material world goes, we have no information of anyone who has succeeded in delivering a convincing argument that it exists. Even religions talk about spiritual world as something tangible, something one can understand with their this-worldly thinking.

 

Well, that is debatable unless you have a materialistic worldview which biases you against anything other than the physical world measured and explored with the tools of Science.  A materialist's metaphysics is limited to what a limited tool (Science) can detect.  He is saying that the only way of knowing something is through Science and reason.  I am not a Materialist, so believe I can know things not only through Science and reason but also through propositional statements and reason.  Religions of the world make propositional statements about their respective "truths" which can be accepted or rejected.  I reject many such claims myself.  Others I have personally accepted, specifically, claims made by a historical figure who lived about 2000 years ago and claims made by his contemporaries.  I have no scientific basis for my beliefs, but that does not mean my beliefs are unreasonable.  The interesting thing I find with materialists is that by confining themselves to Science as a way of knowing, their theories begin to sound more and more unreasonable, especially as they pertain to origens.  For example:

 

"the theory that there are countless possible forms of life, some not even necessarily carbon-based, and they all can occur naturally in a multitude of scenarios. If that is true, then our Universe could have very strange and alien species, for example a silicon-based diffused organic intelligent species, with nerves reaching across a whole planet, or even a star system. It would be interesting then to learn one day how life actually appears, so we could make experiments with very exciting results.

 

The scenario in which abiogenesis happens only in extremely rare cases, within a very narrow parameter range, and then is spread by comets and other interstellar carriers - seems a bit more depressing, as it makes all life in the Universe essentially a result of winning a lottery with negligibly small success chances, and not a logical outcome of the initial physical setup following the Big Bang. But it is very much possible as well."

 

This is speculation which may have some foundation if all that exists is material.  It, however, has no superiority over speculation based on propositional statements and reason that there exist things other than the purely physical.

varelse1

Well, it is official!!!!

The epic debate of Science versus fantasy, is finally going to have it's day in court.

The Science Guy is suing Disney.Tongue Out

http://gizmodo.com/bill-nye-alleges-disney-ripped-him-fellow-science-guys-1798462102

varelse1
tkhoffman wrote:
 

This is speculation which may have some foundation if all that exists is material.  It, however, has no superiority over speculation based on propositional statements and reason that there exist things other than the purely physical.

Actually, there is a little superiority. Owing to material things have been documented in the past.

MayCaesar

@tkhoffman: I still don't quite understand what you mean by the non-material world undetectable by science. Can you give an example of any entity that science can't detect, but human perception can access? To my understanding, since human mind is also a scientific detector, anything that human mind can grasp/perceive is accessible to science. And things it cannot grasp/perceive can be considered non-existent, according to the Occam's Razor principle.

 

There is just one world, the one we live in (other worlds are irrelevant and their existence is a purely philosophical matter). This world may be more complex than what we know about it, it may have more dimensions, more hidden spaces, etc. - but it is still the world, and whether you look at it from materialistic or some other perspective shouldn't affect the predictions you are able to make, so long as you follow the same logical learning algorithm.

 

Fifthelement
tkhoffman wrote:
MayCaesar wrote:

My logic skills tell me that if the result isn't disclosed, then neither you nor me know anything about it, and as such any claim on what it is is bogus. As far as the non-material world goes, we have no information of anyone who has succeeded in delivering a convincing argument that it exists. Even religions talk about spiritual world as something tangible, something one can understand with their this-worldly thinking.

 

Well, that is debatable unless you have a materialistic worldview which biases you against anything other than the physical world measured and explored with the tools of Science.  A materialist's metaphysics is limited to what a limited tool (Science) can detect.  He is saying that the only way of knowing something is through Science and reason.  I am not a Materialist, so believe I can know things not only through Science and reason but also through propositional statements and reason.  Religions of the world make propositional statements about their respective "truths" which can be accepted or rejected.  I reject many such claims myself.  Others I have personally accepted, specifically, claims made by a historical figure who lived about 2000 years ago and claims made by his contemporaries.  I have no scientific basis for my beliefs, but that does not mean my beliefs are unreasonable.  The interesting thing I find with materialists is that by confining themselves to Science as a way of knowing, their theories begin to sound more and more unreasonable, especially as they pertain to origens.  For example:

 

"the theory that there are countless possible forms of life, some not even necessarily carbon-based, and they all can occur naturally in a multitude of scenarios. If that is true, then our Universe could have very strange and alien species, for example a silicon-based diffused organic intelligent species, with nerves reaching across a whole planet, or even a star system. It would be interesting then to learn one day how life actually appears, so we could make experiments with very exciting results.

 

The scenario in which abiogenesis happens only in extremely rare cases, within a very narrow parameter range, and then is spread by comets and other interstellar carriers - seems a bit more depressing, as it makes all life in the Universe essentially a result of winning a lottery with negligibly small success chances, and not a logical outcome of the initial physical setup following the Big Bang. But it is very much possible as well."

 

This is speculation which may have some foundation if all that exists is material.  It, however, has no superiority over speculation based on propositional statements and reason that there exist things other than the purely physical.

Philosophy have limitations in regard to actual physical world as shown by Aristotles fallacy in predicting free fall objects under gravity.As we know that the nature is quite miraculous then we will realize that such non organic living forms could be possible in existence.

For example is ghost existence.It was said to be created from fire substance.Thus it was non organic living forms.It must have a consciousness.Supposing non carbon based living forms is quite acceptable.

Sqod
MayCaesar wrote:

My logic skills tell me that if the result isn't disclosed, then neither you nor me know anything about it, and as such any claim on what it is is bogus. As far as the non-material world goes, we have no information of anyone who has succeeded in delivering a convincing argument that it exists. Even religions talk about spiritual world as something tangible, something one can understand with their this-worldly thinking.

 

That logic fails for at least two major reasons: (1) Everyday people see things all the time that science and government claim can't (or don't) exist. Prime examples are UFOs and ghosts, but there are other phenomena that are less common. Somehow the people who control this world can actually convince such witnesses they were just imagining things, which seems incredible to me. (2) There exist numerous whistleblowers who report inside information all the time. Prime examples are Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. Unfortunately, *again* the majority of the population either doesn't care, or is convinced by the Powers That Be that such whistleblowers with their incredible claims are merely crazy. That's another problem: secret, elite science has progressed *so* far that it truly *is* almost unbelievable what is possible now, but is kept in secret. In other words, many of the common people *do* often know about it but cannot convince others.

Again, I urge everyone to *pay attention to anomalies*! If several insiders from government and military are telling you incredible things that conflict with the official story, and yet those whistleblower claims are mostly consistent, then there's a very good chance that there is really something to them. If you and your friends witness a ghost and scientists tell you that ghosts don't exist, then question how the scientists are so sure that ghosts don't exist, then have a scientist spend the night in the haunted house where the sightings occurred. If your fellow German citizens sometimes disclose forbidden stories to you of atrocities supposedly being done by Nazis against Jews, don't write off those stories because there's a good chance they're really going on. In the latter case, we know the stories *were* true, yet people wouldn't listen. Why should things be any different now?

 

P.S.--See pages 81-82:

http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=saberandscroll

 

 

MayCaesar

The problem with global conspiracy theories is that they lack any evidence, so they aren't really worth discussing. wink.png Your best argument is, "They *might* be hiding something, and this *might* be it!" Science deals with evidence, not random assumptions, hence it doesn't take these claims seriously. There is no global conspiracy, just basic logic.

 

Maybe there are vampires in my city that suck my blood at nights when I sleep, and the evil government and science are hiding it! I swear, I even found a few bite marks on my body. It somehow doesn't feel though like this assumption is good for anything more than a fiction book. 

 

 

 

 

Sqod
MayCaesar wrote:

The problem with global conspiracy theories is that they lack any evidence, so they aren't really worth discussing. 

 

I have the same answer: There is a *lot* of evidence, as I just pointed out. Occam's Razor applies beautifully here because when you take all those very strange anomalies together, the chance of them being random or coincidental becomes very small, but a single simple explanation that makes them all fit in a single stroke is very likely, especially given the horrific character of human nature. Anyway, I don't know why you're focusing on "global conspiracy theories" since my comments apply to *any* coverup of the truth, and to *any* witnessed phenomenon that is not accepted by science.

MayCaesar

Verbal testaments and blurry camera videos are not evidence. And no, there is nothing random or coincidental, it is the usual self-serving effect. Local legend goes about the house which is haunted; someone goes to check if it is true, hears a strange noise - and that is proof enough for him, even if that noise in reality was just the wood cracking on the wind. 

 

There is a reason science only deals with hard facts and not with random testaments and fairy tales. We have electronic computers, and not voodoo idols and shamanic rituals, because there are those of us who, instead of blindly following some made-up idea, put everything to a hard test. Some people research quantum teleportation in top-notch laboratories, others spend nights in abandoned "haunted" houses with a garlic belt to repeal monsters - I'll let you decide which ones contribute to our understanding of the Universe, and which ones just watched Hollywood movies one too many times. 

 

tkhoffman
MayCaesar wrote:

@tkhoffman: I still don't quite understand what you mean by the non-material world undetectable by science. Can you give an example of any entity that science can't detect, but human perception can access? To my understanding, since human mind is also a scientific detector, anything that human mind can grasp/perceive is accessible to science. And things it cannot grasp/perceive can be considered non-existent, according to the Occam's Razor principle.

 

There is just one world, the one we live in (other worlds are irrelevant and their existence is a purely philosophical matter). This world may be more complex than what we know about it, it may have more dimensions, more hidden spaces, etc. - but it is still the world, and whether you look at it from materialistic or some other perspective shouldn't affect the predictions you are able to make, so long as you follow the same logical learning algorithm.

 

 

I guess it really depends on what you mean by human perception.  If you are a Materialist and believe mind is the result of chance evolutionary development then I can offer no example.  The mind then, is meaningless along with everything else we consider human, like love and personality.

As a "non-Materialist" who believes that the mind is more than just matter and is somehow linked with a non-material soul, the example I would give is God.  The human mind cannot perceive God through Science but can perhaps understand something of him if he has spoken into our world.  I am not a Pantheist believing that God is an intrinsic part of the world.  He is separate from the world but can still work and act in the world.

Science is a very effective tool for exploring the natural world.  It is effective because we believe in the "uniformity of natural causes".  If you believe in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system then you are left with Science as your only tool for understanding the world.  If you believe in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system this leaves Science intact yet leaves room for God to act and speak into the world.  If God is separate from the uniformity of natural causes, he is inaccessible to Science.  That does not mean he is inaccessible to the human mind.

 

I am not concerned about Occam's razor here.  It is a purely heuristic tool.  It's application has nothing to do with truth, scientific or otherwise.

 

 

Fifthelement

People usually believe in secret phenomenon.It is because the impact of these phenomenon are not crucial in their everyday life so they aren't much interested in it.Even if the phenomenon are being exposed in a formal manner,it would turn out to be ordinary phenomena sooner or later.

Endapuppy
Science is limited by funding
MayCaesar
tkhoffman wrote:

I guess it really depends on what you mean by human perception.  If you are a Materialist and believe mind is the result of chance evolutionary development then I can offer no example.  The mind then, is meaningless along with everything else we consider human, like love and personality.

As a "non-Materialist" who believes that the mind is more than just matter and is somehow linked with a non-material soul, the example I would give is God.  The human mind cannot perceive God through Science but can perhaps understand something of him if he has spoken into our world.  I am not a Pantheist believing that God is an intrinsic part of the world.  He is separate from the world but can still work and act in the world.

Science is a very effective tool for exploring the natural world.  It is effective because we believe in the "uniformity of natural causes".  If you believe in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system then you are left with Science as your only tool for understanding the world.  If you believe in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system this leaves Science intact yet leaves room for God to act and speak into the world.  If God is separate from the uniformity of natural causes, he is inaccessible to Science.  That does not mean he is inaccessible to the human mind.

 

I am not concerned about Occam's razor here.  It is a purely heuristic tool.  It's application has nothing to do with truth, scientific or otherwise.

 

 

But uniformity of natural causes depends on what is known to us currently. If God is a separate entity in a separate world, but it can interact with ours, then the results of those interactions can be studied, cross-referencing between them can be made, and as a result, God as a phenomenon - as well as the world it exists in - can be studied. The problem, again, is finding the evidence, but that evidence exists as much as human mind is affected by those interactions. Science can absolutely study everything non-material, as long as there are patterns everything follows.

 

If something doesn't follow any pattern whatsoever, and even the lack of pattern is not a pattern - then, indeed, science is hopeless here. But our minds will also be hopeless. We can't make sense of anything that lacks any pattern, our thinking is inherently patternal. Even if the mind the science is aware of is not the entirety of it, if you think about it, everything you experience is analyzed through comparing it to something you experienced before. Even if someone experiences communication with the God, they can only try to make sense of this God by envisioning it as something they can understand from their experiences: intelligent being, mysterious sphere of light, something completely wild - our thinking is tied to our ability to communicate with ourselves, and that communication is limited by what we've learned to the moment.

Sqod
MayCaesar wrote:

Verbal testaments and blurry camera videos are not evidence. 

 

I think I'm tired of dealing with you, and with anybody else who refuses to look at new evidence. There is no productive conversation possible with somebody who is sure they know it all and will not consider new evidence: it just becomes a case of one person spouting their existing beliefs, which is pointless for both parties, especially when a person don't even provide references. We're discussing science here, and science means references and being open to new hypotheses. I'm not seeing any of that from you. You are not engaging in a two-way conversation: it's just a tape recording of your existing beliefs, and without sufficient background, no less. Obviously you have not researched any of these topics in depth. I have. For the past 1 1/2 years I've been studying paranormal topics, along with anything even remotely related to them so that I understand the peripheral fields well enough to detect falsehoods. If you really want to have a meaningful two-way conversation then how about starting a thread on some specific topic: ghosts, 9/11, Kennedy assassination, mafias, reverse quantum eraser experiment, UFOs, aliens, medical miracles, telekinesis, teleportation, artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons, the pineal gland theories, whatever. I already started a thread on theories about humans inhabiting Mars so you could continue that discussion if you want to get into some heavy topics. Since you have obviously not done sufficient research on any of these topics, however, I will assume you aren't interested enough to do any such research, in which case I don't see the point of you even writing in such threads. I'll probably give up on this thread the same as I did with my Mars thread, and just get back into talking about chess since at least most people here have done some research on that topic. I guess it's partly my fault for expecting chess players to be intelligent, well-informed people  who are sufficiently interested in meaningful things other than chess.

tkhoffman
MayCaesar wrote:
tkhoffman wrote:

I guess it really depends on what you mean by human perception.  If you are a Materialist and believe mind is the result of chance evolutionary development then I can offer no example.  The mind then, is meaningless along with everything else we consider human, like love and personality.

As a "non-Materialist" who believes that the mind is more than just matter and is somehow linked with a non-material soul, the example I would give is God.  The human mind cannot perceive God through Science but can perhaps understand something of him if he has spoken into our world.  I am not a Pantheist believing that God is an intrinsic part of the world.  He is separate from the world but can still work and act in the world.

Science is a very effective tool for exploring the natural world.  It is effective because we believe in the "uniformity of natural causes".  If you believe in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system then you are left with Science as your only tool for understanding the world.  If you believe in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system this leaves Science intact yet leaves room for God to act and speak into the world.  If God is separate from the uniformity of natural causes, he is inaccessible to Science.  That does not mean he is inaccessible to the human mind.

 

I am not concerned about Occam's razor here.  It is a purely heuristic tool.  It's application has nothing to do with truth, scientific or otherwise.

 

 

But uniformity of natural causes depends on what is known to us currently. If God is a separate entity in a separate world, but it can interact with ours, then the results of those interactions can be studied, cross-referencing between them can be made, and as a result, God as a phenomenon - as well as the world it exists in - can be studied. The problem, again, is finding the evidence, but that evidence exists as much as human mind is affected by those interactions. Science can absolutely study everything non-material, as long as there are patterns everything follows.

 

If something doesn't follow any pattern whatsoever, and even the lack of pattern is not a pattern - then, indeed, science is hopeless here. But our minds will also be hopeless. We can't make sense of anything that lacks any pattern, our thinking is inherently patternal. Even if the mind the science is aware of is not the entirety of it, if you think about it, everything you experience is analyzed through comparing it to something you experienced before. Even if someone experiences communication with the God, they can only try to make sense of this God by envisioning it as something they can understand from their experiences: intelligent being, mysterious sphere of light, something completely wild - our thinking is tied to our ability to communicate with ourselves, and that communication is limited by what we've learned to the moment.

 

Now, as I mentioned before, my personal belief is in an historical figure who lived about 2000 years ago.  The claims he made, if true, meant that God had taken on human form.  I suppose at that time you might even have said that his existence was scientifically verifiable. What you could not verify scientifically was whether the claims he made were true.  If true that would mean that God actually entered into our world and into a pattern that our minds could understand.  Of course now, we are left only with eyewitness accounts which we can either believe or not.

If my epistemology only allows me to obtain knowledge based on scientific evidence I will never accept his claims.  If, however, my theory of knowledge allows for knowledge other than that based solely on scientific verification then I am free to believe and that belief can be based in reason.

Niether of these epistemologies are scientific.  That a theory of knowledge relies soley on Scientific evidence does not make that theory or philosophy scientific.  Both the Materialist and Non-materialist are bound by their presuppositions.  It is up to each of us to decide which presuppositions are more reasonable.

MayCaesar
tkhoffman wrote:

Now, as I mentioned before, my personal belief is in an historical figure who lived about 2000 years ago.  The claims he made, if true, meant that God had taken on human form.  I suppose at that time you might even have said that his existence was scientifically verifiable. What you could not verify scientifically was whether the claims he made were true.  If true that would mean that God actually entered into our world and into a pattern that our minds could understand.  Of course now, we are left only with eyewitness accounts which we can either believe or not.

If my epistemology only allows me to obtain knowledge based on scientific evidence I will never accept his claims.  If, however, my theory of knowledge allows for knowledge other than that based solely on scientific verification then I am free to believe and that belief can be based in reason.

Niether of these epistemologies are scientific.  That a theory of knowledge relies soley on Scientific evidence does not make that theory or philosophy scientific.  Both the Materialist and Non-materialist are bound by their presuppositions.  It is up to each of us to decide which presuppositions are more reasonable.

The problem with the non-materialist view (if I understand correctly what you mean by it) is that it opens a can of worms, each of which is an unverifiable hypothesis. Dealing with such translucent knowledge doesn't seem possible: when anything can be true and anything can be false, there is very little that can be inferred from the available facts, and presuppositions, superstitions and personal beliefs become dominant. It is pretty clear that such a system cannot produce much knowledge useful by humanity as a whole.

 

Hence, I believe, some kind of universal logical method of gaining knowledge and establishing facts has to exist. It may be scientific method. It may be some other method. But it has to have a clear core assumption in mind (for example, in science it is the fact that the world is not inherently chaotic, but orderly, with the cause-effect framework defining the order), otherwise no collective knowledge can be assembled. 

 

 

But, of course, no matter what method is employed, it is followed by humans, very flawed and biased creatures. Belief has to be a part of our world view, and it is even a part of the scientific method (a scientist has to assume that a lot of evidence he/she is dealing with is genuine and not made up, for example, otherwise he/she will never get anywhere and be stuck on verification of millions experiments of the past).

 

My system of beliefs makes me see things like religion, rituals, traditions in a very skeptical, even humored, light. But I am an individualist by nature, it is hard for me to accept a product of collective consensus not on the grounds of practicality, but on the grounds of communal unity. Understanding this inherent bias is important, it makes me have full respect for people who believe in things I might not take seriously personally: I never think less of people just because I strongly disagree with them on something. Ultimately, each of us has only their mind as a reference: exclusively material or not, none of us has a monopoly on what is reasonable and what is not.

 

On this basis, scientific method, even if more developed and practically useful than many other knowledge-gaining systems, still leaves a lot to be desired, and it is very possible that it will be replaced by a more flexible, or even completely different, system in the future.

 

 

This forum topic has been locked