Science is close-minded

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Mike C

YES !

Science can be hijacked like government are with INFLUENCE dollars.

Mike C

I believe your confusing science and scientists, Mike.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Cathryn

I totally agree NJ.

Science is close-minded when those 'self-respecting' scientists (this forum puts forward as qualification) don't acknowledge that there are a shit-load of personal-gain-respecting scientists in their midst.

Sort of like a Muslim denying jihad is Islamic.

Religion is totally close minded to any world view that challenges it's dogma. The difference is that science can not only be persuaded to change the existence of science depends on challenge of it's ideas, religion only exists because it cannot allow challenge or allow it's self to change.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Religion is totally close minded to any world view that challenges it's dogma. The difference is that science can not only be persuaded to change the existence of science depends on challenge of it's ideas, religion only exists because it cannot allow challenge or allow it's self to change.

That's the definition of fundamentalism,

true religion is not dogmatic, its a personal experience. One should seek to understand our own intrinsic nature, since this entails introspection it should be understood as such. Once we understand our nature we can then attempt to live with what we know.
It is easy to have a momentary knowing when we seek it from a group of individuals , but then to hold on to it as if were the living world , and not see it as what it actually is, just a agreed upon doctrin to be bought and sold negates our own personal evolution by killing the experience of being alive. What we should do is to seek insight’s though experiances constantly to make life a living reality.

I Don't Know
The emperor, who was a devout Buddhist, invited a great Zen master to the Palace in order to ask him questions about Buddhism.
"What is the highest truth of the holy Buddhist doctrine?" the emperor inquired.
"Vast emptiness... and not a trace of holiness," the master replied.
"If there is no holiness," the emperor said, "then who or what are you?"
"I do not know," the master replied.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

That's the definition of fundamentalism,

true religion is not dogmatic, its a personal experience. One should seek to understand our own intrinsic nature, since this entails introspection it should be understood as such. Once we understand our nature we can then attempt to live with what we know.
It is easy to have a momentary knowing when we seek it from a group of individuals , but then to hold on to it as if were the living world , and not see it as what it actually is, just a agreed upon doctrin to be bought and sold negates our own personal evolution by killing the experience of being alive. What we should do is to seek insight’s though experiances constantly to make life a living reality.

While I don't disagree that all religions in your context are not close minded I don't think the poster I was answering would agree that Buddhism is religion in this context, obviously one mans religion is another mans blasphemy but I would say that Buddhism is no better, for all it's inclusiveness it still doesn't explain or provide any thing but a black hole for money and effort. Science is not only not close minded it provides a positive force in society that doesn't exclude any one who is willing to pursue or see the truth.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

While I don't disagree that all religions in your context are not close minded I don't think the poster I was answering would agree that Buddhism is religion in this context, obviously one mans religion is another mans blasphemy but I would say that Buddhism is no better, for all it's inclusiveness it still doesn't explain or provide any thing but a black hole for money and effort. Science is not only not close minded it provides a positive force in society that doesn't exclude any one who is willing to pursue or see the truth.

It has never cost me a dime. I think we are not reffering to the same thing.

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by REASON

I'll bite, because I want to see where you're going with this.

I think, from a scientific standpoint, that electric charge in terms of defining a positive and negative charge is a fact. I think it is accepted that some subatomic particles exhibit these characteristics, such that electrons are negatively charged and protons positively charged. The interaction of these charged particles can generate electromagnetic fields.

Through our knowledge of these facts, we are able to predict the behavior of electromagnetic energy, harness it, and utilize it in our daily lives.

If you acknowledge that a charge exists in certain particles, but really want to know if the cause of the charge associated with those particles is factual, I don't know the answer to that.

Thank you Reason. I will attempt to answer in one giant-step instead of inching toward it. The reason (with a small r ) I raised this question in this thread is because of the comment that God does not belong in a discussion about whether or not science is close-minded. I limit my meaning of the name 'God' to representing the name of the original and continuing cause for the operation of this universe that gave birth to life and intelligence. Now I do not know what is this cause; however, more to the point, no one knows what is cause. The fundamental forces of theoretical physics are merely names that tell us nothing about the cause itself. All that we know is contained in our study of effects.

I see physics as being divided into to two main parts. There is empirical physics which is the study of effects. Then, there is theoretical physics which is used to substitute for our lack of knowledge about what are causes. It is a philosophy or a system of belief, but it is not representative of scientific fact. It is not even scientific knowledge. It is actually representative of lack of scientific knowledge. We do not know what are causes so we invent theory. It helps us to keep our thoughts orderly, but it is mythical.

When we study effects, we sometimes find that the many patterns appear to fall into groups. There are at least four groups of patterns that we are unable to see as being caused by a single cause, so it is concluded that they are due to different fundamental causes. We do not know this to be true. We only know that our level of knowledge makes this appear to be true. The result of this act is to introduce disunity into our analysis of the operation of the universe. The penalty we pay is that the fundamentals of physics theory are not based upon unity, but rather upon disunity. Higher level theory is no more correct than are the fundamentals upon which it is built. If we mess up the fundamentals, then we have gone astray right from the start.

Theoretical physics, in my opinion, is a facade. It is representative of a choice by many to interpret the operation of the universe in a materialistic manner. There is no scientific justification for this conclusion. We do not know what is cause. Any name for cause is equal. Naming cause as "intelligence" or "God" or "electric charge" or "mass", etc. does not do harm to scientific knowledge. What does harm is to insist that some must be ruled out as being unscientific while others are arbitrarily ruled to be scientific.

No one knows what causes changes of velocity. No one knows what causes differences in changes of velocity. All that we know is that there are patterns of changes of velocity that can be repeated and relied upon. It is our knowledge of the patterns and how to make use of them that has yielded technological advances.

The kind of advance that we have not been able to make is to begin to understand the cause of intelligent life. Any declaration that an unintelligent, lifeless universe can and did lead to intelligent life definitely deserves to be challenged. If it is declared by scientifically minded persons that such challenges are inherently invalid, then the answer to the question that is the purpose of this thread is that: Science is close-minded.

James

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Thank you Reason. I will attempt to answer in one giant-step instead of inching toward it. The reason (with a small r ) I raised this question in this thread is because of the comment that God does not belong in a discussion about whether or not science is close-minded. I limit my meaning of the name 'God' to representing the name of the original and continuing cause for the operation of this universe that gave birth to life and intelligence. Now I do not know what is this cause; however, more to the point, no one knows what is cause. The fundamental forces of theoretical physics are merely names that tell us nothing about the cause itself. All that we know is contained in our study of effects.

I see physics as being divided into to two main parts. There is empirical physics which is the study of effects. Then, there is theoretical physics which is used to substitute for our lack of knowledge about what are causes. It is a philosophy or a system of belief, but it is not representative of scientific fact. It is not even scientific knowledge. It is actually representative of lack of scientific knowledge. We do not know what are causes so we invent theory. It helps us to keep our thoughts orderly, but it is mythical.

When we study effects, we sometimes find that the many patterns appear to fall into groups. There are at least four groups of patterns that we are unable to see as being caused by a single cause, so it is concluded that they are due to different fundamental causes. We do not know this to be true. We only know that our level of knowledge makes this appear to be true. The result of this act is to introduce disunity into our analysis of the operation of the universe. The penalty we pay is that the fundamentals of physics theory are not based upon unity, but rather upon disunity. Higher level theory is no more correct than are the fundamentals upon which it is built. If we mess up the fundamentals, then we have gone astray right from the start.

Theoretical physics, in my opinion, is a facade. It is representative of a choice by many to interpret the operation of the universe in a materialistic manner. There is no scientific justification for this conclusion. We do not know what is cause. Any name for cause is equal. Naming cause as "intelligence" or "God" or "electric charge" or "mass", etc. does not do harm to scientific knowledge. What does harm is to insist that some must be ruled out as being unscientific while others are arbitrarily ruled to be scientific.

No one knows what causes changes of velocity. No one knows what causes differences in changes of velocity. All that we know is that there are patterns of changes of velocity that can be repeated and relied upon. It is our knowledge of the patterns and how to make use of them that has yielded technological advances.

The kind of advance that we have not been able to make is to begin to understand the cause of intelligent life. Any declaration that an unintelligent, lifeless universe can and did lead to intelligent life definitely deserves to be challenged. If it is declared by scientifically minded persons that such challenges are inherently invalid, then the answer to the question that is the purpose of this thread is that: Science is close-minded.

James

I totally disagree, naming anything as god causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject from being found. This one thing is more than enough to make labeling any thing as god a bad idea. If we had stuck to that the universe would still be seen a crystal shells with lights attached. And the Earth would still at the center of the solar system with the sun and the moon as well as the other planets revolving around it. Not to mention none of the other planets would be known to exist. If you want to believe god is responsible for everything go for it, but if that had been the mind set of everyone for the last thousand years we wouldn't have electricity, refrigeration, steam engines, or anything else other than mud buildings, disease, filth, corrupt kings and popes, and squalor. I like the idea of science being able to question reality. god should stick to souls and leave the real world alone.

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I totally disagree, naming anything as god causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject from being found. This one thing is more than enough to make labeling any thing as god a bad idea.

And, naming anything as electric charge or mass or spacetime causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject being found. We cannot move forward and learn the true natural properties of the universe so long as the materialistic belief system maintains a stranglehold on what is permitted to be declared as being scientific.

If we had stuck to that the universe would still be seen a crystal shells with lights attached. And the Earth would still at the center of the solar system with the sun and the moon as well as the other planets revolving around it. Not to mention none of the other planets would be known to exist. If you want to believe god is responsible for everything go for it, but if that had been the mind set of everyone for the last thousand years we wouldn't have electricity, refrigeration, steam engines, or anything else other than mud buildings, disease, filth, corrupt kings and popes, and squalor. I like the idea of science being able to question reality. god should stick to souls and leave the real world alone.

The above declaration is not helpful in a scientific discussion. It appears to me that you prefer discussing religion instead of cause. I am speaking about scientific knowledge, not dogmatic religions. You may have a problem with the name god, and I have a problem with the name electric charge. So what. We both used names. What is the scientific basis for insisting on one name over another?

James

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

And, naming anything as electric charge or mass or spacetime causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject being found. We cannot move forward and learn the true natural properties of the universe so long as the materialistic belief system maintains a stranglehold on what is permitted to be declared as being scientific.



The above declaration is not helpful in a scientific discussion. It appears to me that you prefer discussing religion instead of cause. I am speaking about scientific knowledge, not dogmatic religions. You may have a problem with the name god, and I have a problem with the name electric charge. So what. We both used names. What is the scientific basis for insisting on one name over another?

James

Electric charge is not dogma, if someone comes up with a better idea it will be used, god cannot be questioned freely, if someone questions god they are immediately shunned or ridiculed and their ideas are banned. It's that simple.

[freeztar]

James,

Let's say that we assume god as the cause of qualities of the universe we have measured such as mass, electric charge, etc.
How should science go about determining god/cause?
What experiments should be performed?

If you can answer those questions seriously, then the most massive of revolutions in science, and theology, shall occur.

Until then, science deals with that which is capable of being rigorously tested. It's not dismissive, it's logical.