Science

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 03:33 pm
@awoelt,
awoelt;139137 wrote:
Could science itself be a religon? The basic principles being gravity, energy, and electricity. The prophets we have faith in being any scientist. I mean, why trust all the scientists to tell us how the world is? Aside from science created medicine and technology, why do we beleive them? Could grass just be grass and not forms of carbon and water? Or can sky be sky and not a large formation of varied gases?
Imo sience act like a sythetic religion.

- they both seek to explain our every day life
- our purpose
- our existance
- our beginning
- our end
- both based on institutions, influenced by goverment, money, private enterprices ..etc.
- we wanna be saved
- endless scribtures are made
- endless branching of the orthodox belives
- there are prestige in both
- heroes, idols and famous persons
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 05:18 pm
@HexHammer,
Most of the comparisons between science and religion miss the point I think. Both involve people, so there is inherently a ton of stuff in common. But you could make lots of comparisons between religion and politics and sports and education and chess clubs. For the same reason: they all have people, and people are fairly consistent in their features, wants, and needs.

The relevant comparison is between the defining differences.

I don't think the description of science as "the modern religion" is apt either. There have always been two ways of trying to understand the world (which is only one thing that religion does). Some of the ancient greeks theorized about atoms and how there had to be a smallest unit of matter. Very logical, philosophical, scientific. Others went for more religious explanations of the world.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 11:11 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;141348 wrote:
Most of the comparisons between science and religion miss the point I think. Both involve people, so there is inherently a ton of stuff in common. But you could make lots of comparisons between religion and politics and sports and education and chess clubs. For the same reason: they all have people, and people are fairly consistent in their features, wants, and needs.

The relevant comparison is between the defining differences.

I don't think the description of science as "the modern religion" is apt either. There have always been two ways of trying to understand the world (which is only one thing that religion does). Some of the ancient greeks theorized about atoms and how there had to be a smallest unit of matter. Very logical, philosophical, scientific. Others went for more religious explanations of the world.


So many things have been called "a religion", Communism, atheism, and even cooking, that it is not enlightening to call science "a religion" unless you say just what you mean by that. Most people just seem to mean that some are as fervent about science as others are about religion. That's fair enough, I suppose. But, as I said, its not particularly enlightening.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 12:37 am
@awoelt,
Science is treated as religion when it is used to justify or explain our outlooks, ethics, and attributes, as it frequently is by social darwinists, evolutionary psychology, etc. This account of human attributes, insofar as it is understood as a rationale and sufficient explanation for human nature, serves some of the same roles as religious mythologies did in earlier times. This is also evidenced by the fact that to question the scientific view is to be viewed as being a creationist, even if one has no affiliation with such views.


There are many popular antireligious writers who turn out books which claim to explain spiritual and religious phenomena in scientific terms and argue that any kind of religious attitude has been outmoded by science. Such writers include Victor Stengl, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Jacques Monod, and many others.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 01:18 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;141348 wrote:
Some of the ancient greeks theorized about atoms and how there had to be a smallest unit of matter. Very logical, philosophical, scientific.
Forgive me for nitpicking.
Ancient greeks thought the atom would be the smallest unit, naming the unit atomos "undivideable"
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:21 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;141441 wrote:
Forgive me for nitpicking.
Ancient greeks thought the atom would be the smallest unit, naming the unit atomos "undivideable"


Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:29 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;141546 wrote:
Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.


Yes. "atomos" is ancient Greek for "indivisible".
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:30 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;141546 wrote:
Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.
So in philosophy the world can still be flat, because it once was philosophized so?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:32 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;141552 wrote:
So in philosophy the world can still be flat, because it once was philosophized so?


Why would you think that?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:33 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141553 wrote:
Why would you think that?
Because of Jebediah's anology?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:36 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;141552 wrote:
So in philosophy the world can still be flat, because it once was philosophized so?


No, it's more like the earth once being philosophized as round, with the ancient word for round being "flat". And now we find that the world is indeed round, and not flat.

:whistling:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:38 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;141556 wrote:
Because of Jebediah's anology?


i still don't get it. Can you explain?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:47 am
@kennethamy,
Jebediah;141546 wrote:
Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.


kennethamy;141562 wrote:
i still don't get it. Can you explain?
No, sorry ..I think my imaginary friend wants a meeting with me in Australia ..or something, cya!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:50 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;141565 wrote:
No, sorry ..I think my imaginary friend wants a meeting with me in Australia ..or something, cya!


Unless you can explain what you mean, you ought to be skeptical as to whether you know what you mean.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 10:04 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;141546 wrote:
Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.


Yes, you have that exactly right. When modern people discovered what we now call "atoms", they thought that they had found the smallest constituents of matter, so that is why they were called "atoms". It turns out that the modern people got that wrong, which is not the fault of the ancients. By "atoms", the ancients meant the smallest constituents of matter. So they were not talking about the same things as moderns are with the term "atoms".
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 03:46 pm
@awoelt,
actually 'atom' is derived from 'uncuttable'. The history of the idea is very interesting in its own right. In Ancient Greece Democritus was the original exponent of the idea, which was immortalized in a classic piece of verse philosophy, De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, which is studied at university level to this day. There were atomist schools in early India as well. However there were always critics who opposed atomism on logical grounds. The main argument was along the lines of: if an atom is a point, then how can it come into contact with another, as it has no sides? Of course, we now know the importance of electro-magnetic fields, which were entirely unknown to the ancients, and which does provide an answer to this question (namely, that they do not have make physical contact in order to be related.) But it is interesting to contemplate these early arguments about the nature of matter.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 03:51 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;141697 wrote:
actually 'atom' is derived from 'uncuttable'. The history of the idea is very interesting in its own right. In Ancient Greece Democritus was the original exponent of the idea, which was immortalized in a classic piece of verse philosophy, De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, which is studied at university level to this day. There were atomist schools in early India as well. However there were always critics who opposed atomism on logical grounds. The main argument was along the lines of: if an atom is a point, then how can it come into contact with another, as it has no sides? Of course, we now know the importance of electro-magnetic fields, which were entirely unknown to the ancients, and which does provide an answer to this question (namely, that they do not have make physical contact in order to be related.) But it is interesting to contemplate these early arguments about the nature of matter.


"Atomos", ancient Greek for, "indivisible" (or "uncuttable" I guess, if there were such a word).
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:37 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;141697 wrote:
actually 'atom' is derived from 'uncuttable'. The history of the idea is very interesting in its own right. In Ancient Greece Democritus was the original exponent of the idea, which was immortalized in a classic piece of verse philosophy, De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, which is studied at university level to this day. There were atomist schools in early India as well. However there were always critics who opposed atomism on logical grounds. The main argument was along the lines of: if an atom is a point, then how can it come into contact with another, as it has no sides? Of course, we now know the importance of electro-magnetic fields, which were entirely unknown to the ancients, and which does provide an answer to this question (namely, that they do not have make physical contact in order to be related.) But it is interesting to contemplate these early arguments about the nature of matter.


Yes, the word "atom" etymologically is "uncuttable" or "indivisible", but according to the ancient Greek atomic theory, atoms are the smallest constituents of matter. The larger constituents of matter could be "cut" or divided into smaller parts. Once matter is divided into the smallest possible parts, it can no longer be divided or "cut".

But it was not Democritus who originated atomism in Greece: It was Leucippus. Democritus was a student of Leucippus, who further developed the theory, and altered it somewhat.


Anyone interested in atomism can read more about it at:

Atomism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 04:15 am
@Doubt doubt,
:shifty:Can some-one tell me the degrees 4 boiling water...

100%Celsius

Fahrenheit en Kelvin, Mercury >
Onno van Kamerlingh
Leyden, now Zuid-Holland

I think science (modern) is difficult to under-stand

Yours, Pepijn Sweep s.t.
zelfstandig""Laughing
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 08:32 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;141560 wrote:
No, it's more like the earth once being philosophized as round, with the ancient word for round being "flat". And now we find that the world is indeed round, and not flat.

:whistling:

The earth is both round and flat...The angle of the circumference to the radius is smal, and even the mountains seem as pimples on a starlets face, big only from a certain perspective; and this is true also of roundness, that we are round from a perspective none of us will know, but can only imagine, while we live on the flat as we know, without resort to imagination...

---------- Post added 03-21-2010 at 10:34 AM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;141837 wrote:
:shifty:Can some-one tell me the degrees 4 boiling water...

100%Celsius

Fahrenheit en Kelvin, Mercury >
Onno van Kamerlingh
Leyden, now Zuid-Holland

I think science (modern) is difficult to under-stand

Yours, Pepijn Sweep s.t.
zelfstandig""Laughing

Pure water, or drinking water??? distilled water boils at a lower temperature, but water so pure is never found in nature...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 02:12:00