Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If there were no science?

Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 6:26:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

Why do you think the year 1000 was more advanced than the year 2000?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 6:52:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 6:26:50 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

Why do you think the year 1000 was more advanced than the year 2000?

Ooops. I meant that things 1000 years ago were more advanced than 2000 years ago.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 8:20:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the advancement of technology and knowledge apart from the Age of Enlightenment is given short shrift. Knowledge in many areas continued to advance significantly between the end of the Classical Era and the Renaissance. The Catholic Church and feudal systems certainly put a damper on it. But really, I don't see THAT much difference between those that clamped down on Copernicus and Newton and Huss, and people I run into nowadays who can't bother making a sound argument, but just rely on their dogma based on perceived consensus.

I think that if we didn't have a Reformation that pushed literacy as hard as it did, we would right now be living the same way people lived in Ireland in the 1950's. Church and State were married and benefited from and ignorant populace, though we'd probably have had some kind of lesser Industrial Revolution by now. Lots of poor working conditions for the average man. Lots of pollution. I guess that means conditions in Mexico would be considered as good as it gets in the West, but with fewer modern gadgets.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 8:32:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 6:52:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:26:50 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

Why do you think the year 1000 was more advanced than the year 2000?

Ooops. I meant that things 1000 years ago were more advanced than 2000 years ago.

Are you so sure???

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 9:55:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 8:32:34 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:52:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:26:50 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

Why do you think the year 1000 was more advanced than the year 2000?

Ooops. I meant that things 1000 years ago were more advanced than 2000 years ago.

Are you so sure???

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I believe that ancient cultures were every bit as intelligent as ours, but time is needed to accumulate knowledge, build on it, and use it to fuel our inventions. The laptop I'm using right now is far more powerful than the calculating machine that article speaks of, at least in terms of data processing.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 10:04:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 9:55:00 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 8:32:34 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:52:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:26:50 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

Why do you think the year 1000 was more advanced than the year 2000?

Ooops. I meant that things 1000 years ago were more advanced than 2000 years ago.

Are you so sure???

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I believe that ancient cultures were every bit as intelligent as ours, but time is needed to accumulate knowledge, build on it, and use it to fuel our inventions. The laptop I'm using right now is far more powerful than the calculating machine that article speaks of, at least in terms of data processing.

If it is Dell, I seriously doubt it
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 10:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 10:04:43 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/13/2015 9:55:00 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 8:32:34 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:52:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 6:26:50 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

Why do you think the year 1000 was more advanced than the year 2000?

Ooops. I meant that things 1000 years ago were more advanced than 2000 years ago.

Are you so sure???

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I believe that ancient cultures were every bit as intelligent as ours, but time is needed to accumulate knowledge, build on it, and use it to fuel our inventions. The laptop I'm using right now is far more powerful than the calculating machine that article speaks of, at least in terms of data processing.

If it is Dell, I seriously doubt it

If it were a Dell I probably wouldn't have said it, lol.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:51:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

Haha dead on brother. I remember being young i saw this cactus ball rolling atop my grand fathers car. He said not to touch it and that it would hurt. I asked if it would kill me. And he said no, but again don't touch it. When he turned around I touched it. it began to crawl up my arm tearing the skin as it went. My eyes watered but I was staring in awe in how it moved. My brother was freaking out more than I did.

yeah from that day I poke things first.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:55:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 6:51:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

Haha dead on brother. I remember being young i saw this cactus ball rolling atop my grand fathers car. He said not to touch it and that it would hurt. I asked if it would kill me. And he said no, but again don't touch it. When he turned around I touched it. it began to crawl up my arm tearing the skin as it went. My eyes watered but I was staring in awe in how it moved. My brother was freaking out more than I did.

yeah from that day I poke things first.

I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but my most memorable gaffe included peeing on an electric fence, lol.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:57:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 6:55:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2015 6:51:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

Haha dead on brother. I remember being young i saw this cactus ball rolling atop my grand fathers car. He said not to touch it and that it would hurt. I asked if it would kill me. And he said no, but again don't touch it. When he turned around I touched it. it began to crawl up my arm tearing the skin as it went. My eyes watered but I was staring in awe in how it moved. My brother was freaking out more than I did.

yeah from that day I poke things first.

I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but my most memorable gaffe included peeing on an electric fence, lol.

lol oh I'm sure we could exchange a lot of ..cough.. science lessons we learned as youths.

and ouch.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:26:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

There are people who can be religious without effecting their ability to be critical thinkers but from what I have seen far to many commit to willful stupidity for their beliefs. This bars them from actually learning about the science behind what they don't "believe in" or even understanding what science is in the first place. They are the enemy of progress and the enemy's of progress are evil because progress saves and improves more lives then religion ever could.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:37:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

We cannot grasp that. I think that philosophy would have developed to a point where science would almost be considered unnecessary, but who knows.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:41:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

You would proabably just get stuck with a double lesson of english
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 10:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:26:28 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

There are people who can be religious without effecting their ability to be critical thinkers but from what I have seen far to many commit to willful stupidity for their beliefs. This bars them from actually learning about the science behind what they don't "believe in" or even understanding what science is in the first place. They are the enemy of progress and the enemy's of progress are evil because progress saves and improves more lives then religion ever could.

I agree that many religious people are willfully unscientific, but that certainly doesn't make them non-progressive. The Reverend Martin Luther King was very progressive, as was Susan B. Antony, and it had nothing to do with science. Reaching out to people with basic needs such as food, caring and shelter would be a progressive way to improve the world. Science definitely has its place, and its an important place, but there are other things just as important. Ultimately we are subjective beings and whatever makes our lives better to us is what's best. A person can be too progressive. Remember, science made possible a cold war which kept the world living in fear for its very existence for decades, and actually still does to some extent. So I think it's only fair to consider both sides of the coin. Anything can be abused, including both religion and science.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:57:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:41:03 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

You would proabably just get stuck with a double lesson of english

Oh, God, not that! lol I hated English in high school, although it did get better in college.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 4:27:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

Just look at the world before science. Harvest no good again, think it be witches, better go kill them witches to get good crops again.
"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
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 12:59:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 10:08:51 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:26:28 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

There are people who can be religious without effecting their ability to be critical thinkers but from what I have seen far to many commit to willful stupidity for their beliefs. This bars them from actually learning about the science behind what they don't "believe in" or even understanding what science is in the first place. They are the enemy of progress and the enemy's of progress are evil because progress saves and improves more lives then religion ever could.

I agree that many religious people are willfully unscientific, but that certainly doesn't make them non-progressive. The Reverend Martin Luther King was very progressive, as was Susan B. Antony, and it had nothing to do with science. Reaching out to people with basic needs such as food, caring and shelter would be a progressive way to improve the world. Science definitely has its place, and its an important place, but there are other things just as important. Ultimately we are subjective beings and whatever makes our lives better to us is what's best. A person can be too progressive. Remember, science made possible a cold war which kept the world living in fear for its very existence for decades, and actually still does to some extent. So I think it's only fair to consider both sides of the coin. Anything can be abused, including both religion and science.

I look around at what is happening today and it bothers me that religion fueled anti-intellectualism is gaining so much power. We have already seen what it did at the Library of Alexandria, the Middle East and other sanctuaries of knowledge that fell because of anti-intellectualism.

The Middle East was once the most scientifically advanced civilization in the world and look at them now, destroyed by their own religion and living in the stone age.

Carl Sagan once said that if religion had never existed we would be two thousand years ahead of where we are now. We would be flying to the stars and I wanted to live in that future but religion denied me that and because of that will always be the enemy.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:59:24 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/14/2015 10:08:51 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:26:28 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

There are people who can be religious without effecting their ability to be critical thinkers but from what I have seen far to many commit to willful stupidity for their beliefs. This bars them from actually learning about the science behind what they don't "believe in" or even understanding what science is in the first place. They are the enemy of progress and the enemy's of progress are evil because progress saves and improves more lives then religion ever could.

I agree that many religious people are willfully unscientific, but that certainly doesn't make them non-progressive. The Reverend Martin Luther King was very progressive, as was Susan B. Antony, and it had nothing to do with science. Reaching out to people with basic needs such as food, caring and shelter would be a progressive way to improve the world. Science definitely has its place, and its an important place, but there are other things just as important. Ultimately we are subjective beings and whatever makes our lives better to us is what's best. A person can be too progressive. Remember, science made possible a cold war which kept the world living in fear for its very existence for decades, and actually still does to some extent. So I think it's only fair to consider both sides of the coin. Anything can be abused, including both religion and science.

I look around at what is happening today and it bothers me that religion fueled anti-intellectualism is gaining so much power. We have already seen what it did at the Library of Alexandria, the Middle East and other sanctuaries of knowledge that fell because of anti-intellectualism.

I don't understand this. In most of my observation I hear atheists bragging about how religion is losing it's power and becoming incompetent. It certainly lacks the hold on society (and science) that it held for so many centuries. What we see now are isolated events, not a world-wide system in which religion holds all the power.

The Middle East was once the most scientifically advanced civilization in the world and look at them now, destroyed by their own religion and living in the stone age.

Yes, but even when they were " the most scientifically advanced civilization in the world", they were even more religious than they are today. Religion and science do not cancel each other. I have little faith in religion because of how easily it has been used by so many, but the same has happened with science. Since the dawn of history our wars and our crimes against humanity have become ever more terrific due to the nature of people and the power which science gave them, just as what happens with religion. They are both neutral tools used by subjective people, which in effect makes them seem subjective, too. Science may purposely or accidentally lead to the death of all life on our planet, or it may save it. We can't know yet. The future is constantly coalescing before us, comprised of bits of all the possible futures which exist. Therefore everything is in need of moderation and careful consideration, including both science and religion.

Carl Sagan once said that if religion had never existed we would be two thousand years ahead of where we are now. We would be flying to the stars and I wanted to live in that future but religion denied me that and because of that will always be the enemy.

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 10:38:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:59:24 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/14/2015 10:08:51 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:26:28 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:52:40 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 1:33:20 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:50:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2015 12:20:11 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Describe what the world would look like today if there were no Age of Enlightenment and no Scientific Revolution.

It would be backwards. What most people don't seem to perceive is that science is an inherent part of life itself. We are, and have been, always looking for new understanding and new and better ways to perform our tasks. We are born brimming with curiosity, some more than others, and science has been occurring since before recorded history. We look at ancient people who believed in dragons and trolls because they found skeletons of huge creatures buried in the ground, and we think of those people as ignorant. But the truth is that every generation has done that, including our own. We now refer to ourselves as the "post-modern age," but I feel pretty sure that in a few hundred years we won't be. We understand less than 5% of the universe we are aware of, and that with be multiplied many times if we find that there are indeed another seven or more dimensions we're not even aware of.

People who lived thousands of years ago are as intelligent as those who live today. The Greeks postulated the atom, yet modern scientists were still doubting it in 1900. The first time you burned your hand and learned not to touch hot stoves you learned to practice science. Afterward I'm sure you took much more care when touching strange objects.

It certainly would be backwards compared to today. I think it would look a lot like the sixteenth century. The population would be much lower too. Personally I prefer my super cushy modern lifestyle and anyone with any religious opposition to science is the enemy. If the pious could somehow be transported to a world without science to prove their faith would they go? Hell no.

I totally agree it would be backward compared to today. But then I bet the year 1000 was more advanced than 2000. Actually one of the greatest inventions of all time was the heavy plow, which helped Europe triple it's agriculture intake at a time when agriculture made-up over 90% of wealth for trade. Without it Europe would never have become a colonial power. The same happened for the British with their ship designs, which helped them control most of the world's shipping lanes. Sometimes it's the little things which make all the difference. I'm not opposed to science myself. I've worked with electronics and mechanics most of my life. I just don't see why the two have to be so opposed.

There are people who can be religious without effecting their ability to be critical thinkers but from what I have seen far to many commit to willful stupidity for their beliefs. This bars them from actually learning about the science behind what they don't "believe in" or even understanding what science is in the first place. They are the enemy of progress and the enemy's of progress are evil because progress saves and improves more lives then religion ever could.

I agree that many religious people are willfully unscientific, but that certainly doesn't make them non-progressive. The Reverend Martin Luther King was very progressive, as was Susan B. Antony, and it had nothing to do with science. Reaching out to people with basic needs such as food, caring and shelter would be a progressive way to improve the world. Science definitely has its place, and its an important place, but there are other things just as important. Ultimately we are subjective beings and whatever makes our lives better to us is what's best. A person can be too progressive. Remember, science made possible a cold war which kept the world living in fear for its very existence for decades, and actually still does to some extent. So I think it's only fair to consider both sides of the coin. Anything can be abused, including both religion and science.

I look around at what is happening today and it bothers me that religion fueled anti-intellectualism is gaining so much power. We have already seen what it did at the Library of Alexandria, the Middle East and other sanctuaries of knowledge that fell because of anti-intellectualism.

I don't understand this. In most of my observation I hear atheists bragging about how religion is losing it's power and becoming incompetent. It certainly lacks the hold on society (and science) that it held for so many centuries. What we see now are isolated events, not a world-wide system in which religion holds all the power.

The Middle East was once the most scientifically advanced civilization in the world and look at them now, destroyed by their own religion and living in the stone age.

Yes, but even when they were " the most scientifically advanced civilization in the world", they were even more religious than they are today. Religion and science do not cancel each other. I have little faith in religion because of how easily it has been used by so many, but the same has happened with science. Since the dawn of history our wars and our crimes against humanity have become ever more terrific due to the nature of people and the power which science gave them, just as what happens with religion. They are both neutral tools used by subjective people, which in effect makes them seem subjective, too. Science may purposely or accidentally lead to the death of all life on our planet, or it may save it. We can't know yet. The future is constantly coalescing before us, comprised of bits of all the possible futures which exist. Therefore everything is in need of moderation and careful consideration, including both science and religion.

Carl Sagan once said that if religion had never existed we would be two thousand years ahead of where we are now. We would be flying to the stars and I wanted to live in that future but religion denied me that and because of that will always be the enemy.

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.

Nobody asks you to believe in science, science is just information.

If you read an article about Einstein and in it he says that the faster you go the slower your watch will run and that's all you learn on the subject then you say to yourself well Einstein was a brilliant man so I will believe what he says. That is a religious belief.

If you actually learn why he says it and come to understand it enough to make sense out of it (which could take a while) it turns out to be quite compelling and profound all at the same time.

If you flounder through the world not knowing the difference between believing in a religion and science you are a moron and shouldn"t be allowed to vote.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:40:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 10:38:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM, Idealist wrote:

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.

Nobody asks you to believe in science, science is just information.

If you read an article about Einstein and in it he says that the faster you go the slower your watch will run and that's all you learn on the subject then you say to yourself well Einstein was a brilliant man so I will believe what he says. That is a religious belief.

If you actually learn why he says it and come to understand it enough to make sense out of it (which could take a while) it turns out to be quite compelling and profound all at the same time.

If you flounder through the world not knowing the difference between believing in a religion and science you are a moron and shouldn"t be allowed to vote.

Well, I agree with everything but the last part. I think that's a little harsh. There's no sense or rationality in punishing people for their lack of interest, but I do believe that unless you get interested enough to follow-through and dig deeper then you'll never know enough of the story to be able to have a sound understanding.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:29:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:40:35 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:38:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM, Idealist wrote:

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.

Nobody asks you to believe in science, science is just information.

If you read an article about Einstein and in it he says that the faster you go the slower your watch will run and that's all you learn on the subject then you say to yourself well Einstein was a brilliant man so I will believe what he says. That is a religious belief.

If you actually learn why he says it and come to understand it enough to make sense out of it (which could take a while) it turns out to be quite compelling and profound all at the same time.

If you flounder through the world not knowing the difference between believing in a religion and science you are a moron and shouldn"t be allowed to vote.

Well, I agree with everything but the last part. I think that's a little harsh. There's no sense or rationality in punishing people for their lack of interest, but I do believe that unless you get interested enough to follow-through and dig deeper then you'll never know enough of the story to be able to have a sound understanding.

It would only be a little harsh if what other people believed did not have a negative effect on the rest of us. The people who believe that believing is enough can't lead us anywhere good.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:48:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The heart of Science is critical thinking, and critical thinking belongs to Philosophy, and is on loan to Science.
The Scientific Method, is a product of Philosophy.
Inquiry is a product of Philosophy.
So if we remove Science, we are left with Philosophy, and virtually all of the tools of Science.

On the other hand, what if there were no Philosophy.
No morals, no ethics, no logic, no epistemology, no metaphysics.
How would Science stumble along?
Human vivisection would be very helpful.
No messy moral values to hinder experimentation.

Ah, but you may say. Scientists could self regulate without the formal practice of Philosophy.
They could figure out that human vivisections were, socially not worth the effort.
They could take votes on what constituted reality, or knowledge, and the practical value of research.
Scientists, and the craft of Science would figure out a way to fill in the gaps left by the removal of Philosophy.

And so I will say it is the same with Philosophy, if it had to do without Science.
It would use the tools of critical thinking, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and morals, to satisfy the inquiring mind, and improve the human condition.

But suppose we are not correct in our thinking, and If there were no Science, none of the products of Science would happen. Philosophy would never try to explain the natural world, and make predictions about it.
Tools of war would be sticks and stones.
Farming with a seed sack and stick.
Healing with herbs.
Power with windmills and water turbines.
Fire by carbon fuels.
Dwellings built by hand.

And if there were no philosophy, and none of its products would occur.
No morality, no ethics, no baseline of what was real, or imaginary, no determination of what could be classified as knowledge.
No self regulation by scientist or Science, concerning values, or knowledge.
No recognition of the value of critical thinking.

If we had to choose one, which would we sacrifice?
I would say goodbye to Science.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 7:44:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 8:29:01 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:40:35 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:38:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM, Idealist wrote:

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.

Nobody asks you to believe in science, science is just information.

If you read an article about Einstein and in it he says that the faster you go the slower your watch will run and that's all you learn on the subject then you say to yourself well Einstein was a brilliant man so I will believe what he says. That is a religious belief.

If you actually learn why he says it and come to understand it enough to make sense out of it (which could take a while) it turns out to be quite compelling and profound all at the same time.

If you flounder through the world not knowing the difference between believing in a religion and science you are a moron and shouldn"t be allowed to vote.

Well, I agree with everything but the last part. I think that's a little harsh. There's no sense or rationality in punishing people for their lack of interest, but I do believe that unless you get interested enough to follow-through and dig deeper then you'll never know enough of the story to be able to have a sound understanding.

It would only be a little harsh if what other people believed did not have a negative effect on the rest of us. The people who believe that believing is enough can't lead us anywhere good.

I agree with this as stated. But people who believe in things outside proven science aren't necessarily believing that belief is enough, they usually belief that there is evidence which exists outside the scientific method. Even a lot of information in science is simply deduced from other, available data. For example, the TOE is full of missing data, yet we feel we have enough data to justify the theory as a whole.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:27:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 7:44:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/19/2015 8:29:01 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:40:35 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:38:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM, Idealist wrote:

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.

Nobody asks you to believe in science, science is just information.

If you read an article about Einstein and in it he says that the faster you go the slower your watch will run and that's all you learn on the subject then you say to yourself well Einstein was a brilliant man so I will believe what he says. That is a religious belief.

If you actually learn why he says it and come to understand it enough to make sense out of it (which could take a while) it turns out to be quite compelling and profound all at the same time.

If you flounder through the world not knowing the difference between believing in a religion and science you are a moron and shouldn"t be allowed to vote.

Well, I agree with everything but the last part. I think that's a little harsh. There's no sense or rationality in punishing people for their lack of interest, but I do believe that unless you get interested enough to follow-through and dig deeper then you'll never know enough of the story to be able to have a sound understanding.

It would only be a little harsh if what other people believed did not have a negative effect on the rest of us. The people who believe that believing is enough can't lead us anywhere good.

I agree with this as stated. But people who believe in things outside proven science aren't necessarily believing that belief is enough, they usually belief that there is evidence which exists outside the scientific method. Even a lot of information in science is simply deduced from other, available data. For example, the TOE is full of missing data, yet we feel we have enough data to justify the theory as a whole.

The TOE is full of missing data? What is missing?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:56:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 9:48:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The heart of Science is critical thinking, and critical thinking belongs to Philosophy, and is on loan to Science.
The Scientific Method, is a product of Philosophy.
Inquiry is a product of Philosophy.
So if we remove Science, we are left with Philosophy, and virtually all of the tools of Science.

On the other hand, what if there were no Philosophy.
No morals, no ethics, no logic, no epistemology, no metaphysics.
How would Science stumble along?
Human vivisection would be very helpful.
No messy moral values to hinder experimentation.

Ah, but you may say. Scientists could self regulate without the formal practice of Philosophy.
They could figure out that human vivisections were, socially not worth the effort.
They could take votes on what constituted reality, or knowledge, and the practical value of research.
Scientists, and the craft of Science would figure out a way to fill in the gaps left by the removal of Philosophy.

And so I will say it is the same with Philosophy, if it had to do without Science.
It would use the tools of critical thinking, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and morals, to satisfy the inquiring mind, and improve the human condition.

But suppose we are not correct in our thinking, and If there were no Science, none of the products of Science would happen. Philosophy would never try to explain the natural world, and make predictions about it.
Tools of war would be sticks and stones.
Farming with a seed sack and stick.
Healing with herbs.
Power with windmills and water turbines.
Fire by carbon fuels.
Dwellings built by hand.

And if there were no philosophy, and none of its products would occur.
No morality, no ethics, no baseline of what was real, or imaginary, no determination of what could be classified as knowledge.
No self regulation by scientist or Science, concerning values, or knowledge.
No recognition of the value of critical thinking.


If we had to choose one, which would we sacrifice?
I would say goodbye to Science.

Let's pretend that there is a science switch. Flip it one way and science is ON, flip it the other way and science is OFF.

You are presented the opportunity to choose which is best for humanity once and for all so you switch it off. Do you have any idea how many innocent people you just killed?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:00:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 8:27:45 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/19/2015 7:44:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/19/2015 8:29:01 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:40:35 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:38:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/18/2015 7:01:23 PM, Idealist wrote:

Carl Sagan is one man who was strongly biased. There are others who are his opposite. Dr. Antony Flew, for years a very vocal supporter of atheism, spent decades fighting religion. Do you think that during all that time he would ever have thought or said that he might one day be religious? Yet now he has become so, though he still doesn't accept a personal God. For me the biggest problem is that whether you believe in a single God or you believe in some first accidental causeless effect which led to everything, they are both too preposterous to accept out-of-hand. It's obvious that there is something (probably a lot) that we are missing. So I keep trying different angles and combinations of thought in a search for more truth. I learn from both atheists and religionists. Some people give us a push when we need one while others restrain us when we need restraint.

Nobody asks you to believe in science, science is just information.

If you read an article about Einstein and in it he says that the faster you go the slower your watch will run and that's all you learn on the subject then you say to yourself well Einstein was a brilliant man so I will believe what he says. That is a religious belief.

If you actually learn why he says it and come to understand it enough to make sense out of it (which could take a while) it turns out to be quite compelling and profound all at the same time.

If you flounder through the world not knowing the difference between believing in a religion and science you are a moron and shouldn"t be allowed to vote.

Well, I agree with everything but the last part. I think that's a little harsh. There's no sense or rationality in punishing people for their lack of interest, but I do believe that unless you get interested enough to follow-through and dig deeper then you'll never know enough of the story to be able to have a sound understanding.

It would only be a little harsh if what other people believed did not have a negative effect on the rest of us. The people who believe that believing is enough can't lead us anywhere good.

I agree with this as stated. But people who believe in things outside proven science aren't necessarily believing that belief is enough, they usually belief that there is evidence which exists outside the scientific method. Even a lot of information in science is simply deduced from other, available data. For example, the TOE is full of missing data, yet we feel we have enough data to justify the theory as a whole.

The TOE is full of missing data? What is missing?

There are countless inter-evolutionary species left to account for. Almost weekly we hear of the discovery of new remains, relics, or even living organisms of which we were not formerly aware, which make the TOE as a whole ever clearer. It's like assembling a puzzle. It's an ongoing process, and there's a lot left to go. As with astronomy and the universe, we are still working to establish a clearer understanding of the processes and realities involved.