agree, positivism is stupid, however, science is extremely efficient at getting us information about the outside world. science doesn't really try to address more philosophical questions, which is where the positivists went wrong. don't just dismiss science based on a few arseholes though, its really quite brilliant at what it does

_________________
Isn't it pretty to think so?

Science is wonderful, but does face its problems:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... act_lehrer

using the scientific method to disprove the scientific method? lol...

maybe the original studies were flawed, but appealing to new evidence as if that disproves the scientific method is ridiculous- evidence only has meaning within the confines of the scientific method. new findings replace old findings all the time.... that is science. science is self-correcting, not infallible.

_________________
Isn't it pretty to think so?

Yeah I chuckled at that too. Nonetheless...



of course the original studies were flawed, that was an inherent point in the article. The article isn't about disproving the scientific method, it is a cautionary tale. What it highlights is the fact that science ultimately includes people, i.e. the observer. Science doesn't write its own reports, scientists do. Science is only as good as the person using it, and even the best scientists are flawed. Yet, you can't have science without the person. Tough, no?

This reminds me of a guy I used to work with, a Christian. He was trying to explain to me how God's plan is constantly unfolding, constantly being revealed, which is why Christian's views on their religion can change over time. I cant' remember exactly the terms he used to describe it, but the above quote reminds me of his intention. He was a liberal Christian, though, which I suspect is an important distinction.

Oh, no, I'm not saying you are wrong. I agree, science is an evolving dialogue, constantly revealing deeper and deeper levels of the base upon which life is supported. But I can't help but chuckle at how similar the ideals are. Intentions are the same, but approaches different.

So true. Having worked as a scientist and heard the dirty on how some papers get published, I am skeptical of what can be reported as infallible truth. There is so much fudgery in science, and non-replicable results, but such things seem to be skipped over once the 'science' label is applied. It's almost like faith gets inserted into science, and that's against the very nature of science.

The idea that "science is only as good as the person using it, and even the best scientists are flawed" is equally true of religion.

Totally. There is only one solution. We must eliminate all people! Then we will have peace. (That's called wisdom... )

Hmmm... I realized I used the salacious smilie. I'm becoming self-conscious about my smilie usage.

Your powers of logic are astonishing! *bows before your salacious smilie* (wear the salaciousness with pride!)

except religion is an inherently flawed way of gaining knowledge >.>

jus sayin....

i know science is far from perfect because scientists are fallible.. but its not even an error when religious leaders make absurd pronouncements... their doctrine is (often) straight up absurd, and considered infallible. granted there are more liberal strains of religion, but i have trouble understanding them as anything but nonsense. "i'll just take what i like from this religion and consider it true; the rest i will ignore because it makes me uncomfortable" etc. it doesn't work that way. theres no consistency. at least with science you can say "i will accept those results that were achieved without fudging or tomfoolery and reject the rest"- its a fairly objective standard.

_________________
Isn't it pretty to think so?

I agree. I don't think people adhere to a religion to gain knowledge though--I don't think many religions have made the claim that they will increase your knowledge, aside from fuzzy concepts like self-knowledge, the knowledge of a good way to live, or knowledge of the particular deity. Those are more faith matters than knowledge matters, but I guess that's the way my brain classifies them.

Are you thinking of things like creationism when it comes to 'infallible' doctrine being touted as facts/knowledge?

_________________
What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins

Of gaining knowledge of the physical world? Sure. But then, much like sciski said, religion's main focus has always supposed to have been the spiritual rather than the physical (though it hasn't always worked out that way, of course).



Says who? If we take Christianity as an example, it can be argued (and often is) that the Bible as we know it today was compiled by fallible human people who were quite likely motivated more by politics than spirituality, and also that the various gospels etc. are simply individual interpretations of the events in question that were often written many decades after those events happened. If that's actually the case, then why shouldn't people cherry-pick the bits they think best reflect what they feel is/are the core message(s) of Christianity, and discount the rest? What makes any one person, or group of people, the ultimate arbiters of what "is" or "is not" Christianity?

_________________
What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins

oooh i get a thread! also sorry, i didn't notice the OP had requested no debates.



even then, how can you verify whats "true" of the spiritual world except by appealing to intuition or emotion? its fine if people choose to believe that those things are reliable, but when they start basis their lifechoices on their beliefs, it can start to negatively effect everyone else. and furthermore, theres pretty much no way to distinguish between actual insight and someone just making things up... so whats the point?



i agree... but if thats true, then those same christians can't hold that its inspired by god or has any greater meaning than that of a book written by people for people that they believe contains some wisdom. by putting fallible humans into the equation it totally negates any godliness it may have had. since, as above, theres literally no way to tell the difference between the eternal wisdom of god and someone just making stuff up.

_________________
Isn't it pretty to think so?

Everyone bases their life-choices on their beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are religious or not. It's a rare (and possibly quite disturbed) individual who doesn't have beliefs that are at least partially informed by subjective feelings, especially regarding complex issues like morality. So basically, how are, for example, you and I as self-styled agnostic atheists any different from religious people in this particular regard?



Isn't that where faith comes into it though? Faith is essentially an act of trust or hope that something is true, in this case that at least some of the Bible is more than just something some guys made up - that it's genuinely reflective of the will/plan of some greater force (ie. God).

_________________
What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins

while i admit that no beliefs are 100% justified, insofar as we are not omnicient, the fact remains that some beliefs are more justified than others. beliefs about reality can be more or less justified, by evidence, logic, etc. atheism is far more justified in this regard than any religion i've come across. thats the difference.



yes, it is, but most theists don't like to admit it. they believe that the bible it true not that they hope its true, and they expect nonchristians to accept their assertions are rational. faith is simply not rational, and if others want to base their lives on faith i have no problem with it- but they shouldn't claim that their faith is rational. most do.

getting back to the original topic, nor should that faith be held as comparable to science in any way- they're complete opposites! technically speaking its impossible for a scientist to prove anything is *true*. all he can prove is that its the best explanation given our current knowledge. whereas a theist already knows the truth. any justification they have for their beliefs is at best a-rational... which again is fine, but shouldn't be used in an argument, which is a form of rational discourse.

_________________
Isn't it pretty to think so?

I've been meditating on this (and by "been meditating" I mean "Thought about it for a little while, and then promptly forgot all about it till earlier today"), and maybe it's purely a result of my upbringing, or perhaps it's something to do with the nature of religious practise in the UK*, but I find it difficult to relate to the 'most theists' aspect of what you wrote.

To me it seems that most theists - at least in the 'developed' world - are generally pretty easy-going sorts, well aware that their belief is an act of trust/hope in the unknown (and therefore not based on some unquestionable certitude). Or to put it another way; I posit (based on personal experience) that the majority of theists - at least in the 'developed' world - are actually agnostic theists (even if they don't define themselves by those particular terms).

_________________
What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins

Science vs. religion is a false dichotomy. There's also history. Saying "I know the Declaration Of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776" isn't really scientific knowledge or religious knowledge. But it's still knowledge.

_________________
"It is a melancholy fact that massive works of the intellect do not spring from the abstract workings of the brain and the imagination; they are deeply rooted in the personality." -Paul Johnson

INFP, 4w5 sx/sp

The following comment does not relate to this thread and so I will put it in a spoiler box so as not to derail the discussion.



As you were

I see it too!