Thread: Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

One thing that frustrates the heck out of me, (and many others no doubt) is the circular nature of arguments put forward for science based on their scientific texts.

If you can come up with a decent argument as to why anyone should follow your particular god/religion called science without reference to that particular gods/religions scientific texts, I'd like to hear it.

I think it will be interesting to see who can do so, and who can't.

Science is not about texts, it is about observation and experimentation.

You can take two similar sized but dissimilar weighted balls to the top of the nearest tall building and drop them and see which one hits the ground first.

You can take a prism and shine white light through it and see an rainbow, then take a single color and put it through a prism and see that it doesn't split into any more colors.

You can dig a deep hole into the Earth and look at the different layers and find the fossilized remains of animals that no longer exist. You can then compare those fossils to modern animals and think of reasons why those animals died and why they look so similar to modern animals but yet still different.

And all this can be done without even knowing how to read.

Originally Posted by DarkDaimon

Science is not about texts, it is about observation and experimentation.

You can take two similar sized but dissimilar weighted balls to the top of the nearest tall building and drop them and see which one hits the ground first.

You can take a prism and shine white light through it and see an rainbow, then take a single color and put it through a prism and see that it doesn't split into any more colors.

You can dig a deep hole into the Earth and look at the different layers and find the fossilized remains of animals that no longer exist. You can then compare those fossils to modern animals and think of reasons why those animals died and why they look so similar to modern animals but yet still different.

And all this can be done without even knowing how to read.

Good response DD.. Now let me ask you this: how many of those things that you spoke about above have you actually performed yourself, without the ability to read? Considering that you do know how to read, then your conclusion (final statement has no merit). You speak of those things only because you have read about them, therefore, you have leaned on the texts written by others pertaining to the 'sciences'. You failed.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Good response DD.. Now let me ask you this: how many of those things that you spoke about above have you actually performed yourself, without the ability to read? Considering that you do know how to read, then your conclusion (final statement has no merit). You speak of those things only because you have read about them, therefore, you have leaned on the texts written by others pertaining to the 'sciences'. You failed.

I don't get the point of this argument. The only way things are taught is either through presentations, through reading other peoples' works, or through self-taught experiments which is just simply an ineffective way to learn things. However, all experiments can be recreated if you know what you're doing and have the right equipment. This is the reason we rely on the peer-review process, to allow other people to test out hypotheses and publish their results as well. Obviously everybody in the world can't be a specialist in every field of science so this is the only logical method.

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

I don't get the point of this argument. The only way things are taught is either through presentations, through reading other peoples' works, or through self-taught experiments which is just simply an ineffective way to learn things. However, all experiments can be recreated if you know what you're doing and have the right equipment. This is the reason we rely on the peer-review process, to allow other people to test out hypotheses and publish their results as well. Obviously everybody in the world can't be a specialist in every field of science so this is the only logical method.

Then what you are saying is that you cannot offer any arguments without the use of those scientific texts that are so readily available. Even your above use of "logic" (a tool of the scientific community) has texts written about it and is studied by the scientific community.

You refer to the non-use of scientific texts as being an ineffective way to learn things. OK. Then you prove one of the points, which is "you take those written things on faith" without having firsthand knowledge that they are true.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Good response DD.. Now let me ask you this: how many of those things that you spoke about above have you actually performed yourself, without the ability to read? Considering that you do know how to read, then your conclusion (final statement has no merit). You speak of those things only because you have read about them, therefore, you have leaned on the texts written by others pertaining to the 'sciences'. You failed.

You miss the point. Sure current knowledge is built on previous knowledge, but that is just a short cut. Issac Newton didn't get the experiment from a book, he thought it up on his own. In fact a very curious and industrious caveman (or woman) could have noticed that when light passed through very clear quartz rocks, it made a rainbow, then, if he or she wasn't too busy being chased by sabertooth tigers or hunting mammoth, he or she could experiment with the rocks in the exactly the same way that Issac Newton did. Maybe someone did back in the stone age but we'll never know since the person could not have written it down since writing wasn't invented yet.

Experimentation is how we learn before we can read. Don't know if something is going to taste good? Put it in your mouth and taste it. Don't know what a button does? Push it and find out. This is science.

However, if you see something that you have never tasted before but refuse to because someone told you that if you did hair would grow on your chest, or that if you push the button then you won't get any gifts from Santa, then that is superstition.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

One thing that frustrates the heck out of me, (and many others no doubt) is the circular nature of arguments put forward for science based on their scientific texts.

If you can come up with a decent argument as to why anyone should follow your particular god/religion called science without reference to that particular gods/religions scientific texts, I'd like to hear it.

I think it will be interesting to see who can do so, and who can't.

Response: Alas. I thought I was the only one who recognized the hypocrisy in scientific arguments. The claim that religion is based on belief and science is not. Yet every person here who tries to claim something on science is true uses belief themselves. For they make a claim that something is peer-reviewed. But when asked of what proof do they have that it is peer-reviewed, the result is the same answer as many who are religious, and that is "because a book says so."

Originally Posted by Fatihah

Response: Alas. I thought I was the only one who recognized the hypocrisy in scientific arguments. The claim that religion is based on belief and science is not. Yet every person here who tries to claim something on science is true uses belief themselves. For they make a claim that something is peer-reviewed. But when asked of what proof do they have that it is peer-reviewed, the result is the same answer as many who are religious, and that is "because a book says so."

I can produce proof to the Newton's Second Law of Motion by having you drop two balls that are the same size but different weights from a high building. Newton's Second Law of Motion says that the two balls hit at the same and what do you know, they do.

This is the whole point of science. Every experiment can be duplicated. In fact if an experiment cannot be duplicated then it is considered a failure (like Cold Fusion). Any statement that science makes HAS to be able to be verified through either experimentation or observation or it is not science.

This is the real difference between science and religion. Science has to have proof, religion has to have faith.

Originally Posted by DarkDaimon

I can produce proof to the Newton's Second Law of Motion by having you drop two balls that are the same size but different weights from a high building. Newton's Second Law of Motion says that the two balls hit at the same and what do you know, they do.

This is the whole point of science. Every experiment can be duplicated. In fact if an experiment cannot be duplicated then it is considered a failure (like Cold Fusion). Any statement that science HAS to be able to be verified through either experimentation or observation or it is not science.

This is the real difference between science and religion. Science has to have proof, religion has to have faith.

Response: To the contrary, religion does not have faith. At least, islam does not. For the same way that you provided a hands-on eyewitness account to prove Newton's second law of motion, islam provides a challenge that proves that it is the true word from Allah. The proof is in the following:

In the Qur'an we read:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy" (4:82).

Here we have test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur'an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur'an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur'an is without error, indecency, and immorality. Yet the question remains as to who is the author? The asnswer is in the following:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful'.(surah 2: 23 of the qur'an.)

Here we have a test that proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the qur'an. For by trying to produce a chapter like the qur'an, you'll learn first hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the thread is filled with the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the qur'an, let me further elaborate. The qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, it's intent is to inspire people to follow it's teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something which is as inspirational as the qur'an, for it's the inspiration of the qur'an which is miraculous. And what is that miracle you ask? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to use speech or literature that goes against the wants of a mass of people, that is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is impossible to use any speech or literature invented by a person/s that goes against the likes of the people, to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. You disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Go and get or create a speech or literature invented by any person/s that goes against the likes of people. After this, try using that same speech/literature to inspire enough followers amongst the people to conquer a nation and see what happens. I'll even simplify the challenge by asking you to just conquer the street you live on and see what happens. You will fail and fail miserably. You won't come close to achieving the challenge. You'll learn first hand that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when you'll learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? Because Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature invented by a person/s, that goes against the likes of masses, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation yet Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, then what does that mean? That means that the qur'an in which Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah (swt). You disagree? Take the challenge and prove differently.

Originally Posted by Fatihah

Response: Alas. I thought I was the only one who recognized the hypocrisy in scientific arguments. The claim that religion is based on belief and science is not. Yet every person here who tries to claim something on science is true uses belief themselves. For they make a claim that something is peer-reviewed. But when asked of what proof do they have that it is peer-reviewed, the result is the same answer as many who are religious, and that is "because a book says so."

Some people (even the religious people) are oft times finding themselves stuck in a box that has a predefined system of thinking. Until a person (religious or otherwise) realizes that there are other options with regard to manner of thinking and undergoes the necessary process of renewing the mind.... they will remain in that box.