Many people experience a haunting . I don't envy them .
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Many people experience a haunting . I don't envy them .
Nor do I. Poor deluded souls.
Their conclusion that spirits exist, based on those experiences. They don't have sufficient evidence.
Last edited:
Would that include you? Have you seen and experienced this form of energy?
I am unaware of any knowledge gleaned from those, please explain and provide examples of knowledge gained from art, music, literature, philosophy, spirituality?
Part of one's knowledge base are the skills one develops in pursuing art, music, etc. Are you saying that a music composer has no knowledge if he isn't interested in pursuing science?
That doesn't answer the question. Art and Music are forms of expression, they are not seen as processes for gaining knowledge in the same way science gains knowledge.
A music composer can pursue science if they want, but that doesn't mean their compositions have produced knowledge.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
perspective?
It seems that the "old gods" were very much nature gods
if you knew the stories about the gods, then you had a way of knowing what to expect from certain natural events in advance of encountering the event
then'
the old religions were very much like science in that they were a way of studying nature and transmitting that knowledge to other people(think metaphor)
but: (that may be no more than my perspective of the old religions)
and, (even if correct)
That was then, this is now?
It seems that the "old gods" were very much nature gods
if you knew the stories about the gods, then you had a way of knowing what to expect from certain natural events in advance of encountering the event
then'
the old religions were very much like science in that they were a way of studying nature and transmitting that knowledge to other people(think metaphor)
but: (that may be no more than my perspective of the old religions)
and, (even if correct)
That was then, this is now?
I didn't say there would be no knowledge at all. What I said was that science is a process for gaining knowledge and you said there were other ways of gaining knowledge but have yet to produce one.
Remembering the details of an event is knowledge. Acquiring the skills to play an instrument can be part of gaining knowledge. Science is one process for gaining knowledge. Perception, education, and experience are what leads to knowledge of different subjects, or facts.
I’m not following why you feel science is the only process to gaining knowledge?
Wait, what does all this have to do with my OP? Hmm.
If one remembers something, then it's something thet knew already, which means it was already knowledge before they remembered it. Acquiring skills means one is gaining knowledge that was already knowledge. Perception is simply the ability to become aware of something and not the process of gaining knowledge. Education is educating oneself with knowledge already known. Experience can lead to knowledge, but experience can also be experimentation, which is already part of the process of science
It's because I've yet to see another process to gaining knowledge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2013/05/14/the-fear-that-drives-our-alien-belief/
We all should sit down and contemplate where we would be without science.
Still living in caves, most likely.
No problem, you're not the first to make such claims and fail to deliver the goods.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Learning to play a musical instrument or how to ride a bicycle. Children first learning to talk and adults learning a foreign language. Ethical knowledge of right and wrong. Knowledge of the principles of logic and mathematics. Knowledge of what the Mona Lisa looks like. Knowledge of events in the past or what a particular book says. Taking a university class. Knowledge of whether another person's reasoning in a particular instance makes sense or is well justified...
Examples could be multiplied without end. These kind of things are what Sciforums spends most of its time arguing about.
Science seems to be hugely dependent on the existence of a suitable conceptual vocabulary ('experiment', 'matter', 'energy', 'nature', 'reality', 'life', 'substance', 'property', 'cause', 'form'...) generally derived from the prior history of the subject, and on possession of principles of reasoning (induction, deduction, ideas of probability, mathematics, some concept of how 'evidence' supports conclusions, how 'confirmation' works and what it means to 'explain' something) that allow scientific thinkers to interpret their own and other scientists' experience.
Most of that isn't itself the product of scientific research in the stereotyped hypothesis-testing manner. It is prior to hypothesis testing and forms the intellectual framework in which the hypotheses are constructed and the testing conducted.
Last edited: