What seperates religion and science?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
It is? Strange, I had no idea the scientific method had motives and ethics.
you mean free as in free to never eat pork / never work on a saturday / never work on a sunday / never show your face in public / only have sex with prescribed partners etc etc otherwise you face enternal punishment kind of freedom - or was there some other kind of freedom your freedom loving OGBSD had in mind for you?
Really? thank goodness you arent a proper scientist then - I dread to think what would happen if you were let loose in a lab, or ever attempted to publish or review a peice of work
Yea, imagine.
Luckily I'm familiar with the astika schools of thought. You nastikas keep fumbling along.
Yea, imagine.
Luckily I'm familiar with the astika schools of thought. You nastikas keep fumbling along.
Seems like religion is better for some than it is for others. Wonder why?
Old Grey Bearded Sky Daddy
No - I merely cobbled together a short list of examples of the silly and arbitrary rules that our various collected gods impose upon us ( which suspiciously enough they never do directly but always through a self-appointed intermediary) - which are clear proof if his non-existence.
After all what self respecting supreme being - having pulled off a masterstroke with the creation of life the universe and everything - would concern himeslf with such pointless minutiae such as what kind of individuals another individual may insert his penis into.
Unless of course he wasn't in fact all that supreme and was instead just some shit we made up and added all of our silly human predjudices to.
"How much fraud is there in science?
The picture of scientists politely discussing theories, proposing new ones in view of new data, etc. appears to be completely devoid of any emotions. In fact this is far from the truth, the discussions are very human, even though the bulk of the scientific community will eventually accept a single theory based on it explaining the data and making a series of verified predictions. But before this is achieved, does it happen that researchers fake results or experiments for prestige and/or money? How frequent is this kind of scientific fraud?
In its simplest form this question is unanswerable, since undetected fraud is by definition unmeasurable. Of course there are many known cases of fraud in science. Some use this to argue that all scientific findings (especially those they dislike) are worthless.
This ignores the replication of results which is routinely undertaken by scientists. Any important result will be replicated many times by many different people. So an assertion that (for instance) scientists are lying about carbon-14 dating requires that a great many scientists are engaging in a conspiracy. In fact the existence of known and documented fraud is a good illustration of the self-correcting nature of science. It does not matter (for the progress of science) if a proportion of scientists are fraudsters because any important work they do will not be taken seriously without independent verification.
Also, most scientists are idealists. They perceive beauty in scientific truth and see its discovery as their vocation. Without this most would have gone into something more lucrative. These arguments suggest that undetected fraud in science is both rare and unimportant.
The above arguments are weaker in medical research, where companies frequently suppress or distort data in order to support their own products. Tobacco companies regularly produce reports ``proving'' that smoking is harmless, and drug companies have both faked and suppressed data related to the safety or effectiveness or major products. This type of fraud does not, of course, reflect on the validity of the scientific method."
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node11.html#SECTION02126000000000000000
I guess some people never got that memo.:shrug: If you were inclined to believe in creation then i would say that god created everyone. I cannot see why any of this would matter.
I got the memo - fortunately it came just at the right moment - I'd just run out of TP
i was agreeing with you.:bugeye:
What I find most humorous is the apparent fear of the scientifically minded about saying "I don't know". It's ok. Why is blue is a purely religious/philosophical question. I don't ask a latin textbook to do calculus, perhaps asking this lot to consider that there may be a window in their world of doors was too much. I suspect that SAM can tell you, far better than I, exactly how science goes about answering how and fails at answering why.
Don't take the dribblings of internet forum loons (myself included) as being necessarily representative of scientists, their views, and their behaviour in general.
Places like this are notorious for rogue egos gone wild - look at the behaviour of posters like Oilismastery for example and you'll get the idea, and probably laugh yourself silly in the process (in a slowing-down-to-rubberneck-at-a-messy-freeway-accident kind of way
- that guy is a mental breakdown or a spree killer in the making ) .You'll find that most people who are genuinely involved in working in scientific fields are only too willing to admit the shortcomings of both their own knowledge, and the limits of understanding within their field.