I haven't seen a troll this elaborate in quite sometime. Let's break this down bit by bit
Quote: Science is a myth because it does not take us beyond mythology. It was supposed to do so, but in fact it does the exact reverse of
its stated intention.
OK, good start. You state a hypothesis based on your observation that science does not take us beyond mythology. Therefore, science is myth.
Quote: It makes zealots for science who accuse anyone who does not follow their dictates of being lazy and incompetent.
Well in defense of the zealots, a zealot is a zealot is a zealot. It makes no difference whether that person is a science-zealot, or a religious zealot, or even a linux zealot. The existence of zealots is irrelevant to the subject matter in which that person is a zealot. In other words, if science was to magically disappear, the science-zealots would switch to a different subject to be zealous about. This does nothing to prove your hypothesis that science is a myth, in fact, it is quite irrelevant.
Quote: For example, a scientist may make an assertion that "sugar does not create hyperactivity in children." He would point to scientific studies which failed to prove a connection between the two things, therefore there IS no connection.
That is not science. A true scientist makes an observation, then formulates a hypothesis, then attempts to disprove that hypothesis by observing the phenomena. If she cannot disprove the hypothesis, three things happen:
- The hypothesis becomes a theory, and
- She opens her research to the scientific community who are then free to attempt to disprove the theory.
- The most important thing: she attempts to make predictions based on the theory
If the theory is disproven (ie, a prediction fails to come true) by anyone in the whole universe, it is discarded, or modified, and the process begins again.
But most importantly, the scientist does not point to scientific studies as evidence, she observes the phenomena on her own. The scientist in your example sounds more like a marketing rep for the Sugar Company. He is not a scientist.
You may think of it this way: Science does not seek to prove anything, but rather it seeks to disprove.
He would then say that if you wanted to disagree with him you must DIS-prove ( prove the negative, which in this case is a positive ) his assertion.
Yes, exactly, you must disprove her theory, which can be very easy to do. But be careful. Dis-prove does not mean "Prove the negative". For example. If I observe a triangle to be blue, and I come up with a theory that "The triangle is blue", But you are color-blind and see that the triangle is green, then congratulations. You just dis-proved my theory! That does not mean that the negative of blue is green. That is absurd.
Quote: This says that if you cannot disprove the assertion then you are either lazy, incompetent or both. It's a head trip,
plain and simple. It's a mind game called "mental domination."
It says nothing of the kind. If you fail to disprove the theory, then all you have done is failed to disprove the theory. You don't have to take offense about it. Just try again!
Quote: The onus of responsibility for knowing the truth has fallen on you, the disbeliever, and you must use the processes of science to do so.
Well, yes. Of course the onus falls on you. You are the disbeliever. The people who believe in the truth already have no incentive to seek another truth. However, the scientist is always eager to have people attempt to disprove her theory. Do you know why? Its because every failed attempt to disprove the theory makes the theory that much stronger, that much closer to true. But be careful...The theory will never be 100% true. This goes back to what I was saying about how science doesn't seek to prove, but rather to disprove. A theory can be not-disproved 1 million times, but if it is disproved on time number one million one, then the theory is disproved. Until that happens though, we use the theory to make predictions we can rely on. Does this bother you? Unless you live in a cave and farm your own food and live completely off of instinct like an animal, it shouldn't. The reason why is because every single facet of modern daily society and civilization is based on the predictions made by scientific theories. From the theories that allow us to manufacture mass quantities of food to feed ourselves, to the theories that allow the construction of churches. We simply operate as if the theories are true. But...they can be disproven at any time..and that is when progress occurs.
Quote:Anything other than science will be discounted as "inferior" to the truth already asserted by the scientist ( which was a non-truth ).
Not "inferior" but irrelevant. Its like comparing the tastes of apples and oranges. Its sort of like if I say that scientific observation allows me to create a wheel, and you say that Moldak, supreme keeper of light created the wheel acting through me. We will never really know for sure, will we?
Quote: The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. In other words, because there is no evidence of the causal relationship between sugar and hyperactive behavior of children, this does not mean that there IS no causative relationship between the two things.
Absolutely right. But science deals with evidence, not lack of evidence. Your example is flawed because you suggest that science makes assertions based on lack of evidence. The scientific method would be to Observe hyperactive behavior in children, Hypothesize the cause for it, and then Observe and Experiment to rule out all other causes. But since all other causes can never be completely ruled out, once we get down to sugar being the cause, and we can't think of anything else it could be, we stop giving the kids sugar. If they stop being hyperactive...then good. That is the desired result. If someone down the road discovers that it was the keeper of light that made the children hyperactive, well, then we mdofiy our theory and let them have sugar again
Quote: Science is playing in a sandbox which has specific rules of behavior. You may only play with sand.
Yes, this is true, but the 'sandbox' is the entire universe and the sand is everything that exists. And worst of all, we don't know all the rules yet!
Quote: This means that all truth is relative and can be re-formed and re-evaluated and re-interpreted ad infinitum.
That, my dear sir, is the very basis of Science
Quote:There is no absolute truth, says science, only "operational truth." If your sand castle is taller than mine, then that is the thing that matters.
Yes, its kind of elegant in its simplicity. We can use science to "get down to brass tacks" as it were. When comparing who's sandcastle is taller. We only need to consider one dimension, and compare that to an arbitrary starting point. It makes no sense to compare height of sandcastle by comparing dimensions that have not to do with height.
Quote: Science discounts anything outside the box, saying it has no value in the determination of how to relate to our universe.
I would tend to say that the value of anything outside the system is negligable to anything that is inside the system. Now before you get your panties in a knot, remember that science considers 'the system' to be everything that exists. If something is discovered to be outside the system, it will have been discovered to exist, and therefore it was never really not in the system.
Quote:Religion, for example, is outside the purvue of science and therefore irelevant for
purposes of scientific discovery.
Yes...and...your point is...? Let me ask you this: If you and I agree that the triangle is blue, then who cares what color God thinks the triangle is?
Quote:Science says that while subjective evaluation of results is possible, it is irrelevant to judging the quality of the truth that science preaches. By analogy, science says that your sand castle is bigger than mine and that is the only thing which matters.
But if we are using science to compare the heights of our sand castles, why do we need to consider any other variable? We are not comparing the castle as a whole, only select observable details. Science does not tell us whose sand castle is better...
Quote:The subjective truth that mine is more beautiful is irrelevant.
Not only is it irrelevant, but it is impossible to say. We might agree that your castle is more beautiful, but we might ask Sally and she might pick mine.
Quote: We are only evaluating things which can be measured in the sandbox by tools allowed and approved by the sandbox High Priests ( creators of scientific method ).
Correction: We are only using science to evaluate things which can be measured in the sandbox by tools allowed and approved...
For everything else we are using the other tools that the creator gave us. And make no mistake. The scientific method was not made by some 50 year old white man back in the day. We are born with it. Oh yes. If you don't believe me, watch a child sometime..they use it from the beginning.
Quote:Science says that while we don't know what will happen, such as when a sand castle will collapse, we can assert probabilities. These
probabilities do not exist anywhere outside the sandbox as anything other than "conversation" between those in the sandbox. But inside
the sandbox these probabilistic assetions have the weight of truth.
Remember, there is no 'outside of the sandbox'. The assertions made by science are given the weight of truth, yes, but as you said yourself, it is an operational truth. If we didn't have these 'truths' we would not have a society. If we didn't give them the weight of truth, then we wouldn't build buildings because we know that there is a chance, however infinitesimally small that they might fall down one day, but we don't know when that will be exactly. However, we use the 'truths' gleaned from millenia of observation of our environment to predict roughly when that will occur, so just to be on the safe side, we knock old buildings down from time to time and build new ones..
Quote:They become the rules of the religion, so to speak. They are the dogma.
There is NO dogma in science. Anything can be disproven.
Quote:Science asserts that the truth is knowable but it does not look outside the sandbox for such truth. Instead, it asserts that all
truth exists within the sandbox and can be evaluated from within the sandbox, given enough time and dedication to the task of exploring the truth.
Science asserts that truth is knowable. It doesn't look outside the sandbox because there is no outside the sandbox. All truth that exists within the sandbox that can be evaluated from within the sandbox goes along way towards telling us that our buildings are not going to fall down anytime soon, and hence its safe to live in them
Quote: Science assumes that the universe is consistent, that what proved true yesterday will still be true tomorrow. This assumption mandates arrogant disregard for everything outside the box (required ignorance) .
Science assumes none of this. Science does not prove anything. Even in elementary school science they teach you this. THere is no 'outside the box'
Quote: For example, if I throw a baseball outside the box and it lands on your sand
castle, destroying it compeletely, what was the probability of such an occurance?
Before the baseball hit, there was a percentage of probability that the baseball would hit the castle that is equal to 1 divided by the total number of things in the universe that could possibly affect the outcome of the event in a negative way. After the baseball hit, the probability became 1. Its interesting to note that as the baseball drew closer to the sandcastle, the probability increased from and astronomically high number all the way down to 1, because for every moment the baseball was in motion, avariables having to do with the spatial location were eliminated.
Quote:From my perspective it was a certainty, since I was aiming for your castle in the first place and would have thrown another ball if the first one missed!
Your intention to destroy my sandcastle was a certainty. The ball hitting it was not certain. You prove this yourself by saying that you were prepared to throw another one if you missed
Quote: From your perspective, within the sandbox of science, it was an unanticipated event which must now be drawn into the calculations and theories of what is happening in the sandbox.
Yeah..we have to modify the theory of building to account for the fact that sometimes a baseball comes from another part of the universe and knocks everything down. That doesn't stop us from building stuff though.
Quote: Never do you contemplate looking outside the box, much less having a conversation
with me. The rules of the sandbox prohibit such activities.
It doesn't matter. You are stuck in the box with us. Maybe we don't want to talk to you because you keep knocking down our sand castle...did you ever consider that?
Quote: Does prayer produce peace? How would science even begin to evaluate such an assertion?
It would start by making an observation. Then it would formulate a hypothesis. Then it would attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis was not disproven, it would then begin to make predictions based on what was learning in the experiments and try to apply them to the real world. Why, how would faith handle that one?
Quote:Science is concerned with control over nature and peace is concerned with harmony in nature.
What's wrong with controlling nature? Evidently you see nothing wrong with using a computer...Question...how many computers have you used that were not the direct result of controlling nature? Science controlling nature doesn't preclude peace.
Quote: What would be the biochemical switches in the brain which produce peace? Would that produce peace in the world or only the individual? Does prayer throw these switches? You see the difficulty of such an endeavor.
No. I don't see any difficulty. Neither do you apparently. You have already done the first part of the scientific method without even realizing it.
- Observation: There is not enough peace
- Hypothesis: is there evidence to support biochemical switches in the brain which produce peace?
All you have to do now is design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Be careful though...I might just decide to try to disprove your hypothesis..then you would be forced to modify your theory...
Quote:Prayer is an expression of faith rather than one of fact. You don't need to prove your prayers work, you know it without proof. That's what makes them work.
Thanks for sharing. This is quite different than science, which relies on observable phenomena. Good thing there is room in the world for mor ethan one world view...
Quote:Science retreats into the "it's too complex to know" escape mechanism. "But some day we may be able to figure it out" is the hope science proffers in its own ineptitude and arrogant disregard for other paradigms.
So how is this 'ineptitude'? So we can't figure it out now. We may never. Should that stop us from trying? Also, it is not science that disregards other paradigms. It is religion that disregards other paradigms. You don't believe me? then why is a scientist responding to a religionists scathing article on why science sucks, and not the reverse?
Quote:It doesn't know where the ball came from and refuses to look up.
Science attempts to find out the reason why hte ball came, so we can avoid being hit by baseballs in the future. And anyway, how about this: Religion *knows* where the ball came from and still refuses to look up.
Quote:Science subsumes all other paradigms by saying it is "spiritually superior" to things like religion and belief.
No it doesn't. Science seeks to explain. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:Science teaches the primacy of science. It teaches that we can make bombs which will go exactly where we want them to go and disregard the effects these bombs have on the peace of humanity.
Religion teaches the primacy of religion. It teaches that we can incite people to crusade against unbelievers and make them go exactly where we want them to go and disregard the effects these people have on those who do not believe in what they believe in
Quote:Science is only interested in probablistic accuracy of its truth, the "inner conversation of the sandbox."
And that is all we really need to make all sorts of wonderful things like cars and buildings and computers, even to leave the house in the morning to go to church without fear that there is a chance, however small, that one may be hit by a bus
Quote:Science is the abdication of responsibility and a love affair with
victimhood. Science makes us all the victims of the universe. The universe works the way it does, science says, and there is nothing
you can do about it.
Well, nothing that is except attempt to understand and control it. Have you forgotten that just a little while ago you said that science attempts to control nature. How can we control nature AND be its victim?
Quote:Prayer to God won't change the way it works, working together with others won't change the way it works, and surrender to the guidance of the Holy Spirit won't change the way it works.
We don't know if that stuff will work, but we are not ready to rule it out just yet. I am still trying to disprove the hypothesis that prayer to gos won't change things, but i have not yet disproven it.
Quote:You are a victim of the universe and your only hope is to understand how it works so you can learn to control events in your life in harmony with these universal laws. Your job is to know the laws, not to make them or break them or bend them. You are the victim of these laws,
not the one responsbible for creating them in the first place. This is the message of science: you are the victim of the universe and you had better stay in your place. Your only hope is to know the rules.
Funny, that sounds just like the bible.
Quote:In order to know the rules, you must trust science to tell you the rules.
No, we OBSERVE how things work, and FIGURE OUT the rules. Its like reverse engineering reality..
Quote:It negates responsbility for creation. It says that you cannot create or re-create the way the universe works but only adapt to it based on certain knowledge.
So how is this not the way it is? Or can you create a universe?
Quote:Science will provide such knowledge and it is all that you need to know in this life.
Oh really. I didn't know that any knowledge of the universe what-so-ever was required for living on this planet. Nobody told me any of that stuff..I had to figure it out for myself..through observation..(or indirect observation as it were)
Quote:Science continually adapts itself,
correcting errors of past "knowledge" so that is it constantly the "best thing going" in the Truth department.
Yes..Elegant isn't it? I remind you that it is these 'truths' that science gives us that gets us through the day-to-day
Quote:That's the assertion and anyone making another assertion is branded an "infidel." That's the mind game of science, the one which produces mental domination and surrender to victimhood. Science preaches "you are the victim" and "there is no hope."
That is not science you are describing, its religion. Here is a question for you: If Religion is something that you have to believe in, have faith in if you will, that why does anybody try to convert anyone else to another religion? If they succeed, doesn't that automatically make the person who was converted into a hypocrite? How can you believe one thing, and than switch beliefs? When you believe something, you know it is the truth. So how can something that you know to be the truth all of a sudden become not-truth?
Quote:Science is a myth. The first myth of science is that it is NOT a myth. Ofcourse it is.
You have yet to offer any support whatsoever for that assertion
Quote:It asserts that the sandbox is all of reality, that what happens in the sand box is representative of what happens everywhere.
And what is honestly wrong with that? All science is doing is setting an arbitrary boundary. The sandbox could be as large or as small as we want it to be, and yet the scientific method still works just as well.
Quote: It asserts that the truth is knowable and that there is an "ideal method" of knowing it.
It asserts that we can know alot, but not everything. And nobody ever said that the scientific method is the only way to do that, but it works for most people. Really, its your choice though.
Quote:It asserts that the truth is consistent, that what happens once will happen exactly the same way in a future time and place.
Not exactly, but similarly enough given a set of circumstances that are roughly the same. Similarly enough to build buildings and automobiles and computers that work
Quote:It asserts that events in our lives can be controlled once we have "sufficient knowledge" to reliably predict outcomes.
controlled as much as possible. everybody knows that nothing is 100% predictable or controllable. Especially scientists
Quote:All of these assertions are unprovable by their very nature therefore they are the substance of the myth of science.
How is this for a mindbender: You yourself are asserting something to be true which you cannot prove. The moral of the story: nothing can be proven.
Quote:Science dodges responsibility for its creations. Do scientists run for public office? Do they preach the gospel of individual and social responsibility for our actions? Do they acknowledge that their "truths" are "best guesses" and not certainties? Do they assert that relative "operational truth" is more important than "absolute truth?" Do they discount faith in reality outside the sandbox of science?
Most of the good ones do...all except running for public office that is. What you are doing is damning an entire group of individuals for the actions of a few. The ones who use science irresponsibly, that are in it for the money, that accept no respoonsibility..they are not scientistss any more than the priests who have sex with little boys or the inquisitors of the spanish inquisition are representative of the word of God. Think about that.
Quote:Science preaches victimhood and practices mental domination by asserting
that anyone who disagrees with science must use the processes of science to make their case.
And anyone who disagrees with the properties of the orange, must use the properties of the orange, and not the apple, to make his case.
Quote:This is prejudicial by it's very nature. It is akin to telling an Atheist that he must convince a Christian of Atheism using the Bible as his only resource. Of course he will fail; the task is an absurd endeavor from the outset.
Ooh... I have a better one..Its like a telling a religionist that he must convince a scientist that God exists by using the bible as his only resource...
Quote:Science should look at itself honestly, and keep a public accounting of
all of its errors, making these errors the "showcase of scientific superiority." This will serve to humble science,
it does. its called peer review and replicability. Any scientist can publich the results of his experiments and any other scientist is free to try to replicate them. if they can't, they are usually exposed as wrong, and modify their theory. sometimes, if it is an obvious hoax, it can be quite humorous and widespread. go to crank.net for some examples of this sort of thing.
Quote:because ultimately it is the spirit of life itself which drives the hubris we can call "the ignorance of certainty" and produces zealots in many flavors.
Amen to that brother.
Quote:Life is a mystery and it shall remain one, despite the mind games played
by scientific zealots, religious zealots, or any other kind of dogmatic assertions made by man. If you think you know the truth, think again.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Wonder itself is the gift of genius. I wonder ...
But i hope you agree that there is no reason for every single aspect of the universe to remail a mystery. that is why we have science AND religion..to make the world a better place
Quote:It's a big playground. Come out of the sandbox and play with me.
There is no 'out of the sandbox' ;)
"But then, why should you listen to me? For I know nothing..."
[ Parent ]