Skywyze Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 :shrug: This time I got it all figured out: All I know is that I dont know,All I know is that I don't know nothin'! And thats fine! -Operation Ivy :hyper: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 f kids are taught the wrong thing in school, that is the fault of their teachers, not of the institution and practice of science. Well put. Good science teachers don't teach truths - they teach kids to use the scientific method to learn new things. Anyone who thinks Hypography - or any science source - will provide them with ultimate answers are looking in the wrong place. They should stick to religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywyze Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 The problem originates when we start believing in SCIENCE as the ultimate truth, that is all set to replace the divine truth - we are so much accustomed to. The culprit is indeed our science education that leads children to believe that SCIENCE is the ultimate truth, it can answer any question, that well known scientists are like demigods. I don't think science is taught as a universal truth... It's more a method of finding the truth. In my experience, those who believe in the scientific method are more able to think critically and seek after knowledge with the conviction that it can be found. Those who believe in divine truth tend to close themselves off to the ideas of anyone who is not proclaiming themselves to be "of god." These people also tend to brush off the pursuit of knowledge, saying "God" as a response to any how or why. CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Well put. Good science teachers don't teach truths - they teach kids to use the scientific method to learn new things. What if they don't? You still call them science teachers!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 What if they don't? You still call them science teachers!!! That's why I specified "good" science teachers. I am not the one who gives people their job position, hallenrm. :hyper: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 What if they don't? You still call them science teachers!!!Reminds me of joke that's entirely too true for me to be comfortable: What do you call a doctor who graduated last in their class?...Doctor. :hyper: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 The problem originates when we start believing in SCIENCE as the ultimate truth, that is all set to replace the divine truth - we are so much accustomed to. The culprit is indeed our science education that leads children to believe that SCIENCE is the ultimate truth, it can answer any question, that well known scientists are like demigods.Are you accusing SCIENCE as claiming to be "ultimate truth" or threatening religion that it will "replace divine truth"? It doesn't. IMHO, the real problem has nothing whatsoever to do with believing SCIENCE is the ultimate truth. That is a red herring. That is a distraction to avoid confronting the Rhinoceros on the Coffee Table that many folks would prefer to ignore: The REAL PROBLEM is that religion claimed to be the ultimate and divine truth and then SCIENCE came along and began answering questions that your priests and shamans were not able to deal with. SCIENCE starting healing people when all your "laying on of hands" had failed. SCIENCE started growing better crops and building better tools and making people's lives better -- in the face of religion's abject failure to do so. SCIENCE gave people understanding that they could use, instead of rituals and stained glass and pie in the sky. SCIENCE has UTILITY. SCIENCE makes SENSE. And the gods of religion are jealous. Children cannot understand religion any more than they can understand Santa Claus -- but they CAN understand SCIENCE, and they see its utility and reality. As long as some religions insist that their scriptures compete against SCIENCE, then it is inevitable that kids will have to make a choice of one or the other. And given a fair choice, most of them will choose SCIENCE over an invisible, all-powerful, deity in the sky. This is the REAL PROBLEM. I have a suggestion that may alleviate some of their discomfort. Why don't they restructure their religion and redefine their Biblical interpretations so as to bring their "divine truth" into closer agreement with reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Are you accusing SCIENCE as claiming to be "ultimate truth" or threatening religion that it will "replace divine truth"? It doesn't. Tchh! Tchh! All I can say is "read carefully, before you spurt impeteusly" I never meant the above two accusations/threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 ... I never meant the above two accusations...Ahhhh, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie,...whatever are we to do with you, lad?If you didn't mean the accusations then why did you write them?Well, never mind.Perhaps after I have read enough of your letters, I will learn to figure out when you actually mean what you are saying. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Hi! Pyrotex! I thought my comments would induce you to read my post again, but alas, you go on believing what you have started to. For you and only you I am reproducing what I had said, The problem originates when we start believing in SCIENCE as the ultimate truth, that is all set to replace the divine truth - we are so much accustomed to. The culprit is indeed our science education that leads children to believe that SCIENCE is the ultimate truth, it can answer any question, that well known scientists are like demigods. My philosophy in Life: There is no ultimate truth, it is always a transitory. There is always room for you and me to explore and find the next level. Clearly what I am saying is that the real problem with people become uncomfortable wiith science when they find that science does not have answetrs to all questions, is their old habit (which religion induced in people).Isn't it almost similar to what you say (though not in so many words). I do believe that SCIENCE continues to improve, that is, it continuosly tries to reach the truth, that is the true spirit of science.In fact, my first post in this thread was a rejoinder to your thoughts I quoted, and I did add to your gloryDo you still have any different opinion, can I now request not to view my posts with the coloured glasses, you seen to be donning. Do pause for a moment before you start forming opinions and spurt out accusation which are misplaced.:hihi: Pyrotex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Hi! Pyrotex!...I thought my comments would induce you to read my post again, but alas, you go on believing what you have started to. ...that the real problem with people become uncomfortable wiith science when they find that science does not have answetrs to all questions, is their old habit (which religion induced in people).Isn't it almost similar to what you say (though not in so many words). ....:)Hi Hallen!Okay, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and retract all those ugly things I said about your mother.I went back and re-read your posts, and there was still some ambiguity in the context within which you answered. You spoke of "the problem" and I now see that "the problem" you were addressing was significantly different from the "the problem" that I thought you were addressing.Whether or not we were similar in POV, ... well, maybe. Truly, I cannot tell for sure. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: But what the heck, Dick Cheney speaks ill of you so you MUST be a pretty nice person. :) :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 :wink: :gift: ... are people? goiing to actually read this all and even post more?i give you the mobius strip as the answer to am i sexy! DEFINITION OF SCIENCEanyways please tell me how Science is NOT just a very imited domain set of items for each theory to be applied based on axioms that generates equations which were initially obtained from some type of curve fit to data in that limited domain set.SCIENCE is therefore NOT a description of reality but merely a predictor of dynamics of what is actually seen by curve fitting equations obtained from measurements to data sets previously measured with NO guarentee that the next measurement will be COMPLETELY off the map! i mean just what is happening to the Postulate? that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame lately? And for any action there is an opposite and equal reaction . . . SOMETIMES! We actually need the space shuttle! omg!:steering: :hyper: How rude. You're sentence made very little sense. Science is orginally Greek for knowledge. There is no limitatations to what knowledge is, the equation and thearies that you assume "limit" us are simply there to make life easier. So we don't solve mysteries of life with answers that we pulled out of our asses, we need proof so we use equations and already proven theoaries, they are guidelines. Not limitatations. PLease read few books, speed of light is a reference to YOU. That was one the questions asked after the equation was solved, it gave that number. Eventually the question came that number refereenced to what? To you. To the observer. Since speed of light is constant to observe, it won't matter what speed .... why am I even bothering with this? Google is useful enough to explain. Please, before commenting rudely, have some kind of evidance to support you're....how should I say...arguement. I.E. you said that newtons third law wasn't always, ok, give me proof. Although we all know it isn't, in science there is ALWAYS a small chance of something rarely, but surely being an exception. Thank you for you're time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Science is a best guess approximation at reality, and faulty theories are removed and no longer used once proven incorrect or a better theory replaces it. Religion ever wrong? No, not so much. That'd cause one to go to a hot fiery place or become a leper or something. If kids are taught the wrong thing in school, that is the fault of their teachers, not of the institution and practice of science. It's sciences' willingness to state that it was wrong which makes it so right. Absolutely! Cheers. :steering: Yup. Science is simply an answer. Not always the right one, but the best one. It can always be changed for the better. But at the moment is the best. Religion and science are simply two different languages searching for the same truth. As I see it, science is winning the search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Religion and science are simply two different languages searching for the same truth. As I see it, science is winning the search.Yet part of the problem which is holding us back in our quest for knowledge is the lack of symbiosis... the need to see it as a competition. I believe the ones who find the most accurate answers are those who look to both religion and science with a critical yet open view... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Well then...I am good canidate...if it iwasn't for the part that i don't trust and debate everything i read and hear. So much for the open view. . . Yet at the same time, during my arguements I subconciously view both parts of the arugment and open to both of them. Thats why I almost alwayys argue my own points. But this good, i can have a none biast view on things until I finally hit one last answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.