Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Flaws of the scientific process

cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 8:21:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I considered posting this as a debate, but I don't want to get bogged down with gigantic amounts of information to post, so I'll post this where I can get multiple opinions or responses, and hopefully have a healthy discussion.

In our everyday experience, science has had a huge impact on our lives and has done great things for us. Right now, it is the closest there is to getting outside of single human minds and approximating reality in an objective manner. Religious leaders, sadly, fail to see what science has done on this Earth, and this is why they get buried, ESPECIALLY when they attempt to rely on science to show God's existence.

But, sadly, those religious leaders also take the fall when science shows its failure time and time again. Multiple theories supersede one another, rendering the previous theory obsolete, thus, working against religious leaders who rely on the scientific process as vindication, rather than keeping and pressing their advantage of their and believers' personal experiences.

Even atheists have to wake up and face the reality that the scientific process is flawed, leads to constant mstakes, and is driven by mistake-prone humans at the very edge of it. As much as we try to eliminate human error, there are multiple humans involved in every step of the scientific method. The final step is especially vulnerale, as it is the significant part after experimentation that relies on nothing but collective human reasoning, at times, without any ability or responsibility to validate.

The Scientific Method is also flawed because it leaves us unable to test past events that cannot be recreated. There is no provision in the Scientific Method that can test for the Big Bang, Giant Impact Theory, Abiogeness Theory, Acretion Theory, etc... Collecting evidence that indirectly supports these theories only goes so far, and does not satisfy the steps of the Scientific Method, thus cannot technically be called scientific theories.

It's sad to say, but the flaws of science also extend to the scholars themselves. Funding for projects such as LHC, underground Dark Matter detectors and such have reached into the billions. Not taking into account that the construction of these things completely ignores unpopular but not falsified theories, but it shows the disparity between what people want to test and what people do not want to test for.

I look at a theory like MOND, for example. The MOND of the 80s made some predictions that cannot be made using Dark Matter/Energy, such as the low surface brightness of Andromeda. It can't compete with the Standard Model when it comes to galaxy cluster gravitational lensing, but there are spinoff theories that can be tested for, and would fix a lot of the gaping holes left in the Standard Model of Cosmology. Such thories, however, don't get university classes. They are last in line at the telescopes, no sponsorships from universities, no research funding, no detectors. It's all about the billions of dollars investment in Dark Matter?

By the way, know how much non-neutrino dark matter has been found? None that are confirmed, but the money is rolling in, so we'll see if the better detectors will find it. After all, the excuse for not finding it is that the particles are too small to detect. It's masked unfalsifiability like this that ruins science and is where many people contradict themselves when talking about God.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 8:44:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Scientific Method is flawed.

However,

1. It's flaws are its greatest strength.
2. It is still the best epistemological method in existence.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 8:47:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 8:44:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
The Scientific Method is flawed.

However,

1. It's flaws are its greatest strength.
2. It is still the best epistemological method in existence.

+1
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 8:57:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 8:44:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
The Scientific Method is flawed.

However,

1. It's flaws are its greatest strength.
2. It is still the best epistemological method in existence.

I've been debating stuff on forums for over 12 years. You are one of the first to admit that the method is even flawed.

I'm not entirely sure it's a safe thing to assume that its flaws are strengths. The whole problem is that they remain subjective,while the whole point of the method is the attempt to remove that very subjectivity. I reckon people agree with you, because, as stated in my OP, this method is breaking down as measurements can't keep up with theory.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 8:59:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 8:21:55 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
I considered posting this as a debate, but I don't want to get bogged down with gigantic amounts of information to post, so I'll post this where I can get multiple opinions or responses, and hopefully have a healthy discussion.

In our everyday experience, science has had a huge impact on our lives and has done great things for us. Right now, it is the closest there is to getting outside of single human minds and approximating reality in an objective manner. Religious leaders, sadly, fail to see what science has done on this Earth, and this is why they get buried, ESPECIALLY when they attempt to rely on science to show God's existence.

But, sadly, those religious leaders also take the fall when science shows its failure time and time again. Multiple theories supersede one another, rendering the previous theory obsolete, thus, working against religious leaders who rely on the scientific process as vindication, rather than keeping and pressing their advantage of their and believers' personal experiences.

Science is tentative, it is always open that what every the claim it could be wrong. That's not a failure. I doubt your claim about the previous theory being made obsolute. If an old theory was able to make testable predictions, but the new theory makes testable predictions but gets them more exact, it has to explain how its getting them more exact over the old theory.


Even atheists have to wake up and face the reality that the scientific process is flawed, leads to constant mstakes, and is driven by mistake-prone humans at the very edge of it. As much as we try to eliminate human error, there are multiple humans involved in every step of the scientific method. The final step is especially vulnerale, as it is the significant part after experimentation that relies on nothing but collective human reasoning, at times, without any ability or responsibility to validate.

Already said science is tentative. You can have all the reasoning you want but you need to produce results.


The Scientific Method is also flawed because it leaves us unable to test past events that cannot be recreated. There is no provision in the Scientific Method that can test for the Big Bang, Giant Impact Theory, Abiogeness Theory, Acretion Theory, etc... Collecting evidence that indirectly supports these theories only goes so far, and does not satisfy the steps of the Scientific Method, thus cannot technically be called scientific theories.

Right you can't test past events, but you can make predictions based on your theory and test those.

It's sad to say, but the flaws of science also extend to the scholars themselves. Funding for projects such as LHC, underground Dark Matter detectors and such have reached into the billions. Not taking into account that the construction of these things completely ignores unpopular but not falsified theories, but it shows the disparity between what people want to test and what people do not want to test for.

I don't know much about those things, other than to say, that in order to test various things they perhaps needed to create some of those things, like ramming particles near light speed into each other.

I look at a theory like MOND, for example. The MOND of the 80s made some predictions that cannot be made using Dark Matter/Energy, such as the low surface brightness of Andromeda. It can't compete with the Standard Model when it comes to galaxy cluster gravitational lensing, but there are spinoff theories that can be tested for, and would fix a lot of the gaping holes left in the Standard Model of Cosmology. Such thories, however, don't get university classes. They are last in line at the telescopes, no sponsorships from universities, no research funding, no detectors. It's all about the billions of dollars investment in Dark Matter?

By the way, know how much non-neutrino dark matter has been found? None that are confirmed, but the money is rolling in, so we'll see if the better detectors will find it. After all, the excuse for not finding it is that the particles are too small to detect. It's masked unfalsifiability like this that ruins science and is where many people contradict themselves when talking about God.

But don't they have other reasons to pursue dark matter ? perhaps the gravity some where isn't in sync with the observable mass. In other words the "mass" it coming from some where else.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 9:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Scientific Method is also flawed because it leaves us unable to test past events that cannot be recreated. There is no provision in the Scientific Method that can test for the Big Bang, Giant Impact Theory, Abiogeness Theory, Acretion Theory, etc... Collecting evidence that indirectly supports these theories only goes so far, and does not satisfy the steps of the Scientific Method, thus cannot technically be called scientific theories.

It's not the scientific method that causes lack of certainty - that's technology. You can collect all the evidence you want, but eventually we'll all have to make a "leap of faith" where we categorize our belief as knowledge.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 9:04:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 8:57:44 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 4/30/2012 8:44:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
The Scientific Method is flawed.

However,

1. It's flaws are its greatest strength.
2. It is still the best epistemological method in existence.

I've been debating stuff on forums for over 12 years. You are one of the first to admit that the method is even flawed.

Because people probably disagree that what you note are flaws. However, no one denies the the fact that scientific theories will inevitably be proven wrong and change over time. THAT'S THE POINT. That is the ENTIRE point of science. You can't LEARN unless you admit that your existing knowledge base is wrong.

Again, no one denies this and it is, in fact, a deliberate, fundamental component of science called falsifiability.


I'm not entirely sure it's a safe thing to assume that its flaws are strengths.

Ok. You're not sure. So what? It's an objective fact, not an assumption.

The whole problem is that they remain subjective,while the whole point of the method is the attempt to remove that very subjectivity. I reckon people agree with you, because, as stated in my OP, this method is breaking down as measurements can't keep up with theory.

Name something better than the scientific method.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 2:53:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science is tentative, it is always open that what every the claim it could be wrong. That's not a failure. I doubt your claim about the previous theory being made obsolute. If an old theory was able to make testable predictions, but the new theory makes testable predictions but gets them more exact, it has to explain how its getting them more exact over the old theory.

This is one of the most powerful parts about science, but it's also a grand limitation because it admits that truth can never be found through the scientific process, just better approximations. In saying that, science has no more of a case than Buddhist monks at finding absolute truth.

Already said science is tentative. You can have all the reasoning you want but you need to produce results.

Tell that to supergravity supporters. We've been waiting long enough for them!

Right you can't test past events, but you can make predictions based on your theory and test those.

This is what the Scientific Method is good at: Predicting future events based on experimentation. It requires two things:

~The event can be recreated.
~The experiments must be possible including all testing standards (controls, etc...).

Both of those things limit the scientific method to little more than what is on this Earth.

I don't know much about those things, other than to say, that in order to test various things they perhaps needed to create some of those things, like ramming particles near light speed into each other.

Well, it is true at you can't test for every theory. Even though it is an unfair issue to raise, it does raise problems. It basically says that scientific direction goes to who has the money. It's a sad reality, but too often you have science champions state how objective the process and people are. It's far from the case.

But don't they have other reasons to pursue dark matter ? perhaps the gravity some where isn't in sync with the observable mass. In other words the "mass" it coming from some where else.

They have just as much of a reason to pursue dark matter as they do any other theory that explains the same thing and makes unique predictions.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 3:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because people probably disagree that what you note are flaws. However, no one denies the the fact that scientific theories will inevitably be proven wrong and change over time. THAT'S THE POINT. That is the ENTIRE point of science. You can't LEARN unless you admit that your existing knowledge base is wrong.

That is the good thing and the ultimate limitation of science. The process is great for collecting human knowledge over the ages and preserving it for future generations, but it also shows that science will never lead anyone to truth any more than a Buddhist monk can.

Again, no one denies this and it is, in fact, a deliberate, fundamental component of science called falsifiability.

Which is a good thing, as long as people don't toot the horn of science when they simply come up with a slightly better approximation.

Ok. You're not sure. So what? It's an objective fact, not an assumption.

Calling a flaw a strength in any specific area is borderline contradiction ... certainly not "objective" (the most overused word in science).

Name something better than the scientific method.

I'm not saying we should do away with it. My point is that we should recognize that science is flawed and not treat it like it will lead to the truth more than God, or anything else for that matter.

Science is, as stated above, just a series of approximations. According to its own process and admission, it can't prove anything. People should try to use the process for what it is good at, predicting things within our ability to observe and test.

It hasn't done a good job in the Modern Era at least.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 6:21:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 3:16:34 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Because people probably disagree that what you note are flaws. However, no one denies the the fact that scientific theories will inevitably be proven wrong and change over time. THAT'S THE POINT. That is the ENTIRE point of science. You can't LEARN unless you admit that your existing knowledge base is wrong.

That is the good thing and the ultimate limitation of science.

No, it is precisely why science is potentially unlimited. You are limited when you can't grow. You can't grow without change and you can't change unless you admit the status quo is insufficient.

The process is great for collecting human knowledge over the ages and preserving it for future generations, but it also shows that science will never lead anyone to truth any more than a Buddhist monk can.

Agreed. The quest of science will never end. But, while it will never reach ultimate truth, it is the reason we are as close as we are and, currently, the best method for getting us closer.


Again, no one denies this and it is, in fact, a deliberate, fundamental component of science called falsifiability.

Which is a good thing, as long as people don't toot the horn of science when they simply come up with a slightly better approximation.

Ok. You're not sure. So what? It's an objective fact, not an assumption.

Calling a flaw a strength in any specific area is borderline contradiction ... certainly not "objective" (the most overused word in science).

Please, poetic license. The statement means: "What you consider to be a flaw is actually it's greatest strength."


Name something better than the scientific method.

I'm not saying we should do away with it. My point is that we should recognize that science is flawed and not treat it like it will lead to the truth more than God, or anything else for that matter.

Science is, as stated above, just a series of approximations. According to its own process and admission, it can't prove anything. People should try to use the process for what it is good at, predicting things within our ability to observe and test.

It hasn't done a good job in the Modern Era at least.

You didn't name something better.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 8:59:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dark matter is right here, if we can understand it more we could experiment our theories, and frankly throw many out, but that is science. If we understand dark matter and can observe it better, we would be able to explain things better. Just like you know every time you mix baking soda with vinegar it will fizz. That is science but its not a theory it has been proven. If we can experiment with dark matter, it is believed that we would better understand the universe and here too. I love hearing about dark matter, i am all for the experiments with it.

http://hubblesite.org...
http://science.nasa.gov...
Me
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 4:51:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, it is precisely why science is potentially unlimited. You are limited when you can't grow. You can't grow without change and you can't change unless you admit the status quo is insufficient.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Planck scale limits would disagree with this statement. Human ability to measure is very close to maximized with reasonable accuracy.

Agreed. The quest of science will never end. But, while it will never reach ultimate truth, it is the reason we are as close as we are and, currently, the best method for getting us closer.

Being close to knowing the truth means nothing if there is still an infinite amount of knowledge we do not have. This is the reason Science will never answer more critical questions than God can provide for us in our lives.

Please, poetic license. The statement means: "What you consider to be a flaw is actually it's greatest strength."

Not according to the scientific method itself, and the very point of having it.

You didn't name something better.

Why name something better? As I said in the very statement you quoted while typing that, the Scientific Method is fine, but don't expect so much from it. Just because it's the best earthly process to eliminate human subjectivity doesn't mean it's very good.

It's like he Charlotte Bobcats vs the Washington Wizards. The Wizards (SM) may be better, but that's not saying much.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 4:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 8:59:04 AM, yoda878 wrote:
Dark matter is right here, if we can understand it more we could experiment our theories, and frankly throw many out, but that is science. If we understand dark matter and can observe it better, we would be able to explain things better. Just like you know every time you mix baking soda with vinegar it will fizz. That is science but its not a theory it has been proven. If we can experiment with dark matter, it is believed that we would better understand the universe and here too. I love hearing about dark matter, i am all for the experiments with it.

http://hubblesite.org...
http://science.nasa.gov...

This is simply theory. There are other theories than Dark Matter. Hubble didn't detect Dark Matter, Hubble detected gravitational lenses which show that there's more going on than our current knowledge tells us. spinoffs of MOND address the very same issues, and make predictions not made by Dark Matter/Energy.

I'm not saying that Dark Matter doesn't exist, but there is no proof as of yet despite repeated promises that WIMPS or Axons exist despite our inability to detect them.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 11:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theories are supposed to fail eventually what is why they are theories, aka temporary explaination untill a better one comes along, that is how science evolves.
We don't just through other one out, we keep what was good about it and add on.

The inference are forward in time. For I may see a pattern when I look back in history and make and inference about even further back. THE ACTUAL INFERENCE IS FOWARD. It doesn't matter if the information is past tense.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 5:09:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 11:33:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Theories are supposed to fail eventually what is why they are theories, aka temporary explaination untill a better one comes along, that is how science evolves.
We don't just through other one out, we keep what was good about it and add on.

The inference are forward in time. For I may see a pattern when I look back in history and make and inference about even further back. THE ACTUAL INFERENCE IS FOWARD. It doesn't matter if the information is past tense.

Yeah, but what good is a theory when it is said to be untrue after a century or so? If you have to keep replacing theories, why should I believe the current main theory gets us any closer to truth?

Relativity is on its deathbed. It's only a matter of time before most of that theory goes the way of Newton.

I'm not saying Science isn't useful. It provides us with some good guesses and approximations, but it's unreliable and hasn't shown that we can answer the fundamental questions that it seeks to answer (who are we? why are we here? How did the Universe come into being?)
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 6:54:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 4:51:48 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
No, it is precisely why science is potentially unlimited. You are limited when you can't grow. You can't grow without change and you can't change unless you admit the status quo is insufficient.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Planck scale limits would disagree with this statement. Human ability to measure is very close to maximized with reasonable accuracy.

This doesn't exactly address my point, or my logic. There will ALWAYS be more to learn, even if it isn't the exact positiion for velocity of a given particle. But learning requires change. Refute this, or accept it.


Agreed. The quest of science will never end. But, while it will never reach ultimate truth, it is the reason we are as close as we are and, currently, the best method for getting us closer.

Being close to knowing the truth means nothing if there is still an infinite amount of knowledge we do not have. This is the reason Science will never answer more critical questions than God can provide for us in our lives.

God doesn't exist. And, if he did, he is apparently uninterested in providing us anything. God answers no questions. God is a distraction.



Please, poetic license. The statement means: "What you consider to be a flaw is actually it's greatest strength."

Not according to the scientific method itself, and the very point of having it.

Yes according to the scientific method itself.


You didn't name something better.

Why name something better?

Because I asked you to.

As I said in the very statement you quoted while typing that, the Scientific Method is fine, but don't expect so much from it. Just because it's the best earthly process to eliminate human subjectivity doesn't mean it's very good.

It's the best thing we have. If you disagree, NAME SOMETHING BETTER.


It's like he Charlotte Bobcats vs the Washington Wizards. The Wizards (SM) may be better, but that's not saying much.

Unless the Washington Wizards are the best team there is, then the analogy fails.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 8:34:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 5:09:37 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 11:33:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Theories are supposed to fail eventually what is why they are theories, aka temporary explaination untill a better one comes along, that is how science evolves.
We don't just through other one out, we keep what was good about it and add on.

The inference are forward in time. For I may see a pattern when I look back in history and make and inference about even further back. THE ACTUAL INFERENCE IS FOWARD. It doesn't matter if the information is past tense.

I didn't know that Newtonian physics was disproved.

Yeah, but what good is a theory when it is said to be untrue after a century or so? If you have to keep replacing theories, why should I believe the current main theory gets us any closer to truth?

Relativity is on its deathbed. It's only a matter of time before most of that theory goes the way of Newton.

I'm not saying Science isn't useful. It provides us with some good guesses and approximations, but it's unreliable and hasn't shown that we can answer the fundamental questions that it seeks to answer (who are we? why are we here? How did the Universe come into being?)
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 8:58:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Planck scale limits would disagree with this statement. Human ability to measure is very close to maximized with reasonable accuracy.

This doesn't exactly address my point, or my logic. There will ALWAYS be more to learn, even if it isn't the exact positiion for velocity of a given particle. But learning requires change. Refute this, or accept it.

Of course, it's obvious that you have to be open to new ideas to earn. I never disputed that. My point is that there are limits to how far science can take us. You have limits on what you can measure. You can't observe what happened in the past if it doesn't happen the exact same way again. To say that science has no limits is foolish IMO because even the most hardened of scientists will tell you otherwise.

Agreed. The quest of science will never end. But, while it will never reach ultimate truth, it is the reason we are as close as we are and, currently, the best method for getting us closer.

Being close to knowing the truth means nothing if there is still an infinite amount of knowledge we do not have. This is the reason Science will never answer more critical questions than God can provide for us in our lives.

God doesn't exist. And, if he did, he is apparently uninterested in providing us anything. God answers no questions. God is a distraction.

This statement simply comes from your bias for the scientific method, assuming that, if something doesn't provide answers through your dogma, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Again, this shows the problem with science in that even average people fall into the trap of subjectivity and allow it to cloud their judgments.

Stating simply that "God does not exist" also places the burdon of proof on you to justify such a claim if those reading your statements should take what you've written seriously since you clearly put no question or doubt into the statement.

Please, poetic license. The statement means: "What you consider to be a flaw is actually it's greatest strength."

Not according to the scientific method itself, and the very point of having it.

Yes according to the scientific method itself.

I'd like to see where you are coming up with this idea that subjectivity is supposed to be good thing in science.

You didn't name something better.

Why name something better?

Because I asked you to.

I would say our collective knowledge, senses, and testimonies as a people are far more effective at narrowing down absolutes than all methods of science. It's not as good at developing a collective knowledge base and retaining that knowledge, though.

For this Earth, there is nothing better than the scientific method at the moment.

As I said in the very statement you quoted while typing that, the Scientific Method is fine, but don't expect so much from it. Just because it's the best earthly process to eliminate human subjectivity doesn't mean it's very good.

It's the best thing we have. If you disagree, NAME SOMETHING BETTER.

Your grief seem to come from a misunderstanding of my contention. My contention isn't that science is evil. My contention is that we stretch its capabilities beyond its bounds and claim to be able to use it for more than we can. For such questions that the scientific processes cannot answer well, we should refrain from relying on theories until AT LEAST the direct and measurable observations follow.

Even then, just take science for what it is, a guess, and not have so much faith in it.

It's like he Charlotte Bobcats vs the Washington Wizards. The Wizards (SM) may be better, but that's not saying much.

Unless the Washington Wizards are the best team there is, then the analogy fails.

It's simply saying that all methods that rely on humanity have sucked throughout history. The SM just sucks the least at the moment.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 9:33:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 8:58:27 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Planck scale limits would disagree with this statement. Human ability to measure is very close to maximized with reasonable accuracy.

This doesn't exactly address my point, or my logic. There will ALWAYS be more to learn, even if it isn't the exact positiion for velocity of a given particle. But learning requires change. Refute this, or accept it.

Of course, it's obvious that you have to be open to new ideas to earn. I never disputed that. My point is that there are limits to how far science can take us. You have limits on what you can measure. You can't observe what happened in the past if it doesn't happen the exact same way again. To say that science has no limits is foolish IMO because even the most hardened of scientists will tell you otherwise.

This is mere quibbling over semantics. These "limitations" don't prevent science from being unlimited in the sense that it will allow us to continue to learn more about the universe. It is unlimited in the way that matters: it's ability to add to our knowledgebase. There will always be something new to learn.


Agreed. The quest of science will never end. But, while it will never reach ultimate truth, it is the reason we are as close as we are and, currently, the best method for getting us closer.

Being close to knowing the truth means nothing if there is still an infinite amount of knowledge we do not have. This is the reason Science will never answer more critical questions than God can provide for us in our lives.

God doesn't exist. And, if he did, he is apparently uninterested in providing us anything. God answers no questions. God is a distraction.

This statement simply comes from your bias for the scientific method, assuming that, if something doesn't provide answers through your dogma, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I don't have a dogma, so your statement is unjustified.


Again, this shows the problem with science in that even average people fall into the trap of subjectivity and allow it to cloud their judgments.

Stating simply that "God does not exist" also places the burdon of proof on you to justify such a claim if those reading your statements should take what you've written seriously since you clearly put no question or doubt into the statement.

I've spent most of my life putting that statement into question and subjecting it to doubt, but forgive me if I don't repeat the entirety of such a monumental quest into each and every post I make on the internet. That is, however, the conclusion. If you want to know how I have arrived at it, perhaps, instead of just assuming I'm being closeminded and dogmatic, you could ... oh ... I don't know ... not make such assumptions and ask. And even if you did ask, it's out of the scope of this discussion.


Please, poetic license. The statement means: "What you consider to be a flaw is actually it's greatest strength."

Not according to the scientific method itself, and the very point of having it.

Yes according to the scientific method itself.

I'd like to see where you are coming up with this idea that subjectivity is supposed to be good thing in science.

Well, I'm not referring to subjectivity here. The scientific process excises subjectivity.


You didn't name something better.

Why name something better?

Because I asked you to.

I would say our collective knowledge, senses, and testimonies as a people are far more effective at narrowing down absolutes than all methods of science. It's not as good at developing a collective knowledge base and retaining that knowledge, though.

For this Earth, there is nothing better than the scientific method at the moment.

Then I fail to see your issue.


As I said in the very statement you quoted while typing that, the Scientific Method is fine, but don't expect so much from it. Just because it's the best earthly process to eliminate human subjectivity doesn't mean it's very good.

It's the best thing we have. If you disagree, NAME SOMETHING BETTER.

Your grief seem to come from a misunderstanding of my contention. My contention isn't that science is evil. My contention is that we stretch its capabilities beyond its bounds and claim to be able to use it for more than we can.

Can you provide an example?

For such questions that the scientific processes cannot answer well, we should refrain from relying on theories until AT LEAST the direct and measurable observations follow.

Even then, just take science for what it is, a guess, and not have so much faith in it.

It's like he Charlotte Bobcats vs the Washington Wizards. The Wizards (SM) may be better, but that's not saying much.

Unless the Washington Wizards are the best team there is, then the analogy fails.

It's simply saying that all methods that rely on humanity have sucked throughout history. The SM just sucks the least at the moment.

Which is objectively false. Unless, of course, you're a fan of polio.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 9:41:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The scientific method is only one approach in science, so you're basically conflating science with one of its constituents.

The theories you indicate are weak because they aren't empirical -- take the Big Bang for example -- we rather have a blend of a priori (in the form of mathematics) and a posteriori (empirical experimentation) of those theories to give them the dimension they have today. Current scientific theories make no claim for greater validity than they have.

Do you propose a better approach?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 1:32:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is mere quibbling over semantics. These "limitations" don't prevent science from being unlimited in the sense that it will allow us to continue to learn more about the universe. It is unlimited in the way that matters: it's ability to add to our knowledgebase. There will always be something new to learn.

Yes, but science provides more and more diminishing returns. In terms of its ability to find new information, it follows a root regression where where the resources to learn just something small will be so great that you'll never get a return on that investment. This is, of course, assuming perfect knowledge preservation, which we're becoming much better at.

I don't have a dogma, so your statement is unjustified.

The dogma of science, unless you aren't a science flag carrier, of course, which would contradict your statements. Yes, science and the method itself, is a dogma. Since you do not participate in almost all of the scientific process, choosing to have faith in it is no different than having faith in anything else, including God.

I've spent most of my life putting that statement into question and subjecting it to doubt, but forgive me if I don't repeat the entirety of such a monumental quest into each and every post I make on the internet. That is, however, the conclusion. If you want to know how I have arrived at it, perhaps, instead of just assuming I'm being closeminded and dogmatic, you could ... oh ... I don't know ... not make such assumptions and ask. And even if you did ask, it's out of the scope of this discussion.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm simply stating that you should not put something unknown and state it as an absolute. Believe me, I've been searching for truth for my entire life, as I'm sure everyone wants to. If you are that sure of a fact, and I don't have the information, I think I'd love to know what gives you such bold confidence, regardlsss of where and how you state this great truth.

Well, I'm not referring to subjectivity here. The scientific process excises subjectivity.

That's the flaw I've been talking about in my original points and arguments.

Then I fail to see your issue.

It's ok, it's probably in my last several posts :). In fact, I'll leave the below quote up so you can see exactly what my issue is.

As I said in the very statement you quoted while typing that, the Scientific Method is fine, but don't expect so much from it. Just because it's the best earthly process to eliminate human subjectivity doesn't mean it's very good.

It's the best thing we have. If you disagree, NAME SOMETHING BETTER.

Your grief seem to come from a misunderstanding of my contention. My contention isn't that science is evil. My contention is that we stretch its capabilities beyond its bounds and claim to be able to use it for more than we can.

Can you provide an example?

Big Bang Theory,
Giant Impact Theory,
Abiogenesis,
acceptably accurate theory of evolution,
String Theory,
M Theory,
Accretion Theory of planetary formation,
most of quantum theory,
Dark Matter,
Dark Energy,
especially inconsistencies (LSB Galaxies) with the prior two,
Universe size,
universe shape,
birth of causality (i.e. what caused the "Big Bang"),
Origin of properties of matter, energy, electric charge

And, these are just a handful of popular theories. These are theories that do not go through the rigors of the Scientific Method. Most of these can never be fully tested, making them unfalsifiable. This is so because of what I have stated at the beginning. These events either happened in the distant past results that can't be reproduced (big bang, for example), or thy are outside of the bounds of human measurement, either by constraints of light speed (universe size, shape), or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

The absolute terrible thing is that, even as observations lag miles behind theoretical work, theoretical physicists use these incredibly questionable mathematical constructs for new constructs. It is like not testing the ground before you build a 2000 foot skyscraper. If you have to wait until the building starts to sink into the quicksand before you stop and try a new one, you've already wasted tremendous resources on ... nothing. It's an absolute joke.

It's simply saying that all methods that rely on humanity have sucked throughout history. The SM just sucks the least at the moment.

Which is objectively false. Unless, of course, you're a fan of polio.

Millions still die from disease every day. Curing disease is a good gesture, but science hasn't solved the broad problem. Also, science has yet to provide us with any form of immortality, so the Polio vaccine doesn't cure death, it only prevents one form of it.

The argument that science saves lives is foolish. Everybody dies, so science has not saved a single life. Extending the lifetime of someone, while not a bad gesture, isn't solving any problems.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 1:34:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I didn't know that Newtonian physics was disproved.

As it pertains to gravity and other things it is a depreciated theory.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 1:42:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 9:41:47 AM, Ren wrote:
The scientific method is only one approach in science, so you're basically conflating science with one of its constituents.

The theories you indicate are weak because they aren't empirical -- take the Big Bang for example -- we rather have a blend of a priori (in the form of mathematics) and a posteriori (empirical experimentation) of those theories to give them the dimension they have today. Current scientific theories make no claim for greater validity than they have.

Do you propose a better approach?

Despite your swipe at whatever it is you're talking about (not sure what you're saying is not empirical), you're giving credence to the least empirical theory there is, the Big Bang.

We have absolutely no direct evidence of the Big Bang. The current standard model clearly states that the closest evidence we ave would be 300,000 or so years after the Big Bang. Since the theory relies on something that can never be measured by their own admission, this is an unfalsifiable theory beyond this evidence unless we can trace something back to the point of creation and then use it to predict future events. We've yet to detect gravitational waves with our detectors to my knowledge (update me if it's been detected), and unless we do, the Big Bang could remain one of the many potentially unfalsifiable theories lingering around.

As I have stated several times already, I propose we find a better one if this is what we want to pursue, but, the beef is that scientists rely too much on theory and not enough on the very observations science is supposed to be limited to.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 2:11:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 8:21:55 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
I considered posting this as a debate, but I don't want to get bogged down with gigantic amounts of information to post, so I'll post this where I can get multiple opinions or responses, and hopefully have a healthy discussion.

In our everyday experience, science has had a huge impact on our lives and has done great things for us. Right now, it is the closest there is to getting outside of single human minds and approximating reality in an objective manner. Religious leaders, sadly, fail to see what science has done on this Earth, and this is why they get buried, ESPECIALLY when they attempt to rely on science to show God's existence.

But, sadly, those religious leaders also take the fall when science shows its failure time and time again. Multiple theories supersede one another, rendering the previous theory obsolete, thus, working against religious leaders who rely on the scientific process as vindication, rather than keeping and pressing their advantage of their and believers' personal experiences.

Even atheists have to wake up and face the reality that the scientific process is flawed, leads to constant mstakes, and is driven by mistake-prone humans at the very edge of it. As much as we try to eliminate human error, there are multiple humans involved in every step of the scientific method. The final step is especially vulnerale, as it is the significant part after experimentation that relies on nothing but collective human reasoning, at times, without any ability or responsibility to validate.

The Scientific Method is also flawed because it leaves us unable to test past events that cannot be recreated. There is no provision in the Scientific Method that can test for the Big Bang, Giant Impact Theory, Abiogeness Theory, Acretion Theory, etc... Collecting evidence that indirectly supports these theories only goes so far, and does not satisfy the steps of the Scientific Method, thus cannot technically be called scientific theories.

It's sad to say, but the flaws of science also extend to the scholars themselves. Funding for projects such as LHC, underground Dark Matter detectors and such have reached into the billions. Not taking into account that the construction of these things completely ignores unpopular but not falsified theories, but it shows the disparity between what people want to test and what people do not want to test for.

I look at a theory like MOND, for example. The MOND of the 80s made some predictions that cannot be made using Dark Matter/Energy, such as the low surface brightness of Andromeda. It can't compete with the Standard Model when it comes to galaxy cluster gravitational lensing, but there are spinoff theories that can be tested for, and would fix a lot of the gaping holes left in the Standard Model of Cosmology. Such thories, however, don't get university classes. They are last in line at the telescopes, no sponsorships from universities, no research funding, no detectors. It's all about the billions of dollars investment in Dark Matter?

By the way, know how much non-neutrino dark matter has been found? None that are confirmed, but the money is rolling in, so we'll see if the better detectors will find it. After all, the excuse for not finding it is that the particles are too small to detect. It's masked unfalsifiability like this that ruins science and is where many people contradict themselves when talking about God.

If the Scientific method didn't have the flaws that you dictate, then by definition it would be religion.

Now think carefully. Would you prefer to be told that your worldview is inaccurate by someone representing a gradually expanding number of highly intellectual, qualified and constantly self-scrutinising people? Or would you prefer to be told ot by a gradually expanding number of people who believe that you'll forever burn in hell because you don't believe in the Cosmic Mallard of all Creation?

All hail his silken feathers, may his Quacks echo throughout the universe and drown out all others.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 2:27:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 1:42:31 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/2/2012 9:41:47 AM, Ren wrote:
The scientific method is only one approach in science, so you're basically conflating science with one of its constituents.

The theories you indicate are weak because they aren't empirical -- take the Big Bang for example -- we rather have a blend of a priori (in the form of mathematics) and a posteriori (empirical experimentation) of those theories to give them the dimension they have today. Current scientific theories make no claim for greater validity than they have.

Do you propose a better approach?

Despite your swipe at whatever it is you're talking about (not sure what you're saying is not empirical), you're giving credence to the least empirical theory there is, the Big Bang.

We have absolutely no direct evidence of the Big Bang. The current standard model clearly states that the closest evidence we ave would be 300,000 or so years after the Big Bang.

The Fool: Its called mathmatics. you just rewind the directions things are going now.

Since the theory relies on something that can never be measured by their own admission, this is an unfalsifiable theory beyond this evidence unless we can trace something back to the point of creation and then use it to predict future events.

The Fool: there is nothing about creation in the big bang theory, it doesn't say that the universe didnt exist. It is just condensed, it could have been expanded before.

We've yet to detect gravitational waves with our detectors to my knowledge (update me if it's been detected)

The Fool: Gravity like all phyisics is measured by mathematicalrelationships between object.

and unless we do, the Big Bang could remain one of the many potentially unfalsifiable theories lingering around.

The Fool: Its A theory its not meant to be permenant its the explanation(formula) that we have with our current theories. We may have a better theory then Quantum mechanics tommorow. If this is true and it will happen it doesn't mean Quantum mechanics was not usefull thus far. Just like newtons theory was very usefull at the time. SCIENCE IS ERROR CORRECTING aka evolving.

As I have stated several times already, I propose we find a better one if this is what we want to pursue, but, the beef is that scientists rely too much on theory and not enough on the very observations science is supposed to be limited to.

The Fool: I think they are way ahead of you on that. What you get on the internet and media is Pop science, its already old. It takes often up to three years to get new science article Published.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 2:29:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh yeah. not all scientist are athiest and not all athiests are scientific.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 2:43:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the Scientific method didn't have the flaws that you dictate, then by definition it would be religion.

It's the mentioned flaws that makes it exactly like what religion is criticized for.

Science is supposed to be empirical, relying on data and near-perfect objectivity. That's the very thing that science proponents use to distinguish it from religion.

The flaw in stating that is that science fails at it own goals, and that is the flaw I have mentioned repeatedly and is shown especially in modern physics.

Now think carefully. Would you prefer to be told that your worldview is inaccurate by someone representing a gradually expanding number of highly intellectual, qualified and constantly self-scrutinising people? Or would you prefer to be told ot by a gradually expanding number of people who believe that you'll forever burn in hell because you don't believe in the Cosmic Mallard of all Creation?

So, is this insinuating that only scientists are "self scrutinizing?" Is this also assuming that all scientists are self scrutinizing? That's the problem with scientific proponents, they present themselves somehow as the kings of logic, progression, and reasoning, and then they use the fact that they're the only ones who are self-centered to bully others.

I'm not saying that people in religion don't do it too. It's big problem, but saying that someone is enlightened because they agree with scientific dogma is foolish.

In saying that that, I'd prefer to be given all of the information I need. God provides that information to me more than science ever can. Scientific guesswork is great, and I absolutely love science, working with numbers, and the like, but I also know how to keep science within its very tight limitations as far as its extreme limitations, and also to realize that my potential to find a stronger truth rests more with God, and far less with science.

Science is easier than God, but it doesn't make it better.

The love of God doesn't come from the fear of hell. How can we fear it? We don't even know what it is! We can relate to it in no way because we don't experience heaven or hell as a result of our attitude toward God while we are living on Earth. We simply read about these things.

Our experiences are with our relationship with God in the here and now. This is all we have to go by. Religions provide a lot of extra window dressing, rules, customs, conventions, conveniences, rituals, and interpretations, but these only distract from the core -- the personal, one on one relationship that each person has with God.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 3:23:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool:
Its called mathmatics. you just rewind the directions things are going now.

The mathematics only state that the Universe used to be smaller since it is currently growing.

Note that mathematics are not observations. Mathematics make sense of what we observe <b>AFTER</B> we observe it. At least, this is where mathematics are supposed to come into play with science.

When you use mathematics before the observations come out, it is called modeling. Mathematical models sound good, but a mathematical model is not evidence, it is simply something that potentially fits. If you don't believe me, and see mathematical modeling as evidence, then I urge you to look up Einsein's Theory of Everything, and look up the Ptolemy system.

Both of these models worked flawlessly for the Universe observed at the time, but they were simply wrong because the mathematics were crushed by future observations.

Until someone comes up with DIRECT evidence for the Big Bang,there are no guarantees that, given our ability to measure it (and that's not a guarantee), you can't say with certainty that mathematics will agree with observations and make the "Big Bang" obsolete.

The Fool:
there is nothing about creation in the big bang theory, it doesn't say that the universe didnt exist. It is just condensed, it could have been expanded before.

The Big Bang states that there is a finite point in time where the Universe come into being. This is established in the Standard Model. Since there was a beginning, the Universe must have been caused.

Unless you are to assume that it just poofed into existence randomly without any reason.

We've yet to detect gravitational waves with our detectors to my knowledge (update me if it's been detected)

The Fool:
Gravity like all phyisics is measured by mathematicalrelationships between object.

I think you misunderstand what a gravitational wave is, so let me put it simply:

If you weigh 100 pounds, and a gravitational wave goes through the Earth, you might weigh 110 pounds at the crest of the wave and 90 pounds at the trough. A gravitational wave is a change in gravity due to some cosmic phenomena. For example, if the Sun just disappeared, that would create a gravitational ripple before we saw the lights go out.

More realistically, it supposedly happens when black holes are created and especially when they merge.

Detecting small enough ripples, you can supposedly gather information about the early geometry and density variation of the Universe, opening up a door to a theory based on limited observations.

and unless we do, the Big Bang could remain one of the many potentially unfalsifiable theories lingering around.

The Fool:
Its A theory its not meant to be permenant its the explanation(formula) that we have with our current theories. We may have a better theory then Quantum mechanics tommorow. If this is true and it will happen it doesn't mean Quantum mechanics was not usefull thus far. Just like newtons theory was very usefull at the time. SCIENCE IS ERROR CORRECTING aka evolving.

If I say the flying spaghetti monster created the Universe, this theory is equally valid to you, I suppose.

After all, who can prove me wrong?

That's what unfalsifiable theories do.

The Fool:
I think they are way ahead of you on that. What you get on the internet and media is Pop science, its already old. It takes often up to three years to get new science article Published.

How long it takes to write up a paper has nothing to do with theory being miles ahead of the observations. If we can't observe anything that is closer than 300,000 years after the Big Bang, and we're already making theories about what happened before the big bang, then I think that's too huge of a gap to just ignore and let slide.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 3:24:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 2:43:22 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
If the Scientific method didn't have the flaws that you dictate, then by definition it would be religion.

It's the mentioned flaws that makes it exactly like what religion is criticized for.

The Fool: Its called predicability . An explaination is only usefull if you can predict something. Because we can predict what will happen is we manipulate matter in a certain way. We can Build things.

Science is supposed to be empirical, relying on data and near-perfect objectivity. That's the very thing that science proponents use to distinguish it from religion.

The Fool: you need an update on your philosophy of science. We even have cognitive science which is science of the mind. Religion can't predict anything.

The flaw in stating that is that science fails at it own goals, and that is the flaw I have mentioned repeatedly and is shown especially in modern physics.

The Fool: Its doesn't even fail its own goal. It evolves. I just gave you perfect example. We get rid of an old theory because we have a better one. The old one was good and usefull because its helped predict something. But evolve by taking the one that predicts more.

Now think carefully. Would you prefer to be told that your worldview is inaccurate by someone representing a gradually expanding number of highly intellectual, qualified and constantly self-scrutinising people?

The Fool: firstly I would reject to concept of worldview. it give the impression that view have equality. When they don't some are foggy, some are clear, and some make no sense at all. Secondly it is such critical thinking which drive knowledge forward. We look for mistakes in the last theory and then we know what to fix. That is how knowledge progresses.

Or would you prefer to be told ot by a gradually expanding number of people who believe that you'll forever burn in hell because you don't believe in the Cosmic Mallard of all Creation?

The Fool: its only expanding in the US its decreasing everywhere else. And that is correlated with current academic failure. So ether people are believing more because they are becoming less intellegent or the beliefs are making them dumber.
Both ways its a really bad situation.

The Fool: I prefer to believe what is true logical. I am not talking about the language of

So, is this insinuating that only scientists are "self scrutinizing?" Is this also assuming that all scientists are self scrutinizing? That's the problem with scientific proponents, they present themselves somehow as the kings of logic, progression, and reasoning, and then they use the fact that they're the only ones who are self-centered to bully others.

I'm not saying that people in religion don't do it too. It's big problem, but saying that someone is enlightened because they agree with scientific dogma is foolish.

The Fool: nobody says that, we treat enlightment is knowledge.
but the criteria for what is considered knowledge is so Low in religion that it equates it with believe. Which mean anybodies believe is knowledge. That is what I mean about non religious athiest having a higher standard for knowledge. If they thought it made sense we would all be religious.


In saying that that, I'd prefer to be given all of the information I need. God provides that information to me more than science ever can.

The Fool: Its not rational information. Most people want logically coherent information. Religion doesn't progress, and it hurts us. its cause people only to be moral because someone else said so. We are supposed to be moral for the sake of being a good person, not because you fear getting punished. that is I moral. and because its belief based it can never be objectivy moral . Believe is as subjective as it get.

Scientific guesswork is great, and I absolutely love science, working with numbers, and the like, but I also know how to keep science within its very tight limitations as far as its extreme limitations, and also to realize that my potential to find a stronger truth rests more with God, and far less with science.

The Fool: The whole purpose of sciece is to not guess. That is why they use math or experiements. There is no such thing as stronger truth. Lol. its either true or false.

Science is easier than God, but it doesn't make it better.

The Fool: No God is specificaly the easy way out. You don't have to learn anything. you don't have to think. All you do is read and obey like a slave.

The love of God doesn't come from the fear of hell. How can we fear it? We don't even know what it is!

The Fool: as much as this is way off topic. You don't even know what God is. You just have a definition of God, a set of words that refer to the word, "God"

We can relate to it in no way because we don't experience heaven or hell as a result of our attitude toward God while we are living on Earth. We simply read about these things.

The Fool: including God. lol

Our experiences are with our relationship with God in the here and now.

The Fool: and what do you base this on??? 0

This is all we have to go by. Religions provide a lot of extra window dressing, rules, customs, conventions, conveniences, rituals, and interpretations, but these only distract from the core -- the personal, one on one relationship that each person has with God.

The Fool: personal just means private you can't even tell if you are experiencing the same God. The word spirit come from (to Breath) as in Air that makes sound. that is also where the idea of Ghost come from. Noisy air. Over time this meaning got lost. There is no critia to know if you or anybody is experiencing the samething because the definition is completly EMPTY
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL