Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarheeler
re·li·gion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
(Merriam-Webster)
As in my post, I compared it to fanatical religion. Both are extreme. When you to look to science to provide all the answers, you have taken a leap of faith. Priests and symbols are not required.
|
Science is not a "system of beliefs". It is a system whereby reliable knowledge about out world is obtained.
Quote:
|
In order to simply explain more that the previous one, the previous one would have to still be valid.
|
No. In was only "valid" in the sense that it explained certain things or observations made in our world. It was a model which explained and predicted things to within a certain degree of accuracy.
Quote:
|
In the example of the earth, the geocentric model and the Ptolemaic model were completely scraped for the Copernican model.
|
Those models accorded with observations fairly well. Just not as well as the Copernican model. This model explained more and was simpler to boot.
Quote:
|
At one time, the scientific community believed extinction didn't happen and the sound barrier could not be broken. I'd call that disproved.
|
Which scientific theory predicted that extinctions didn't occur? Could you enlighten me? As to the sound barrier, my understanding is that theory current at the time broke down at the point of something moving faster than sound.
Quote:
|
Yes, the ancient Greeks did; and yet the scientists of the world in the 6th century still thought it was flat. Some held on to it until the middle ages. Science was invented much earlier, as you said yourself, the ancient Greeks used it. Only they called it natural philosophy.
|
There were no scientists in the 6th century.
The ancient Greeks did much to further our knowledge, not least in the area of mathematics. The problem, seen from hindsight, is that they never did much experimentation to test theories regarding the physical world. They unfortunately had a principle saying that truths about the world could be achieved just through the application of logic. If only they had gone that one step further and incorporated "testing of theories" as part of their endevours, we might be having this discussion on a planet in the Alpha Centauri system.
Quote:
|
How many theories have been presented, widely accepted and then replaced with, sometimes radically, different ideas?
|
Many. Such is the nature of science and of knowledge, It is an incremental process. The more you know, the more can know.
You cannot expect a caveman to ponder on and experiment with the quantum nature of stuff.
Quote:
|
I understand it quite well.
|
I fail to see how you could given your replies here.
Quote:
|
And some people find that religion makes it easier to deal with.
|
I think we are here at the core. Some people wish to be cuddled and others want to know the truth.
Quote:
Look, I'm not debunking science. But new technologies provides tremendous advances in science, and because of this what we know is constantly changing. People finding this unsettling is nothing new. "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) came from Descartes internal battle with this same issue.
Some people find an unchanging God much more comfortable.
|
Some people find a teddy bear comfortable. That doesn't make the universe a "teddy bear" kind of universe.
04-15-2008, 02:16 PM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
