Does Science Have All The Answers?

[Honorentheos]

Maybe. But catagorically the entire discussion we have been having shows that science is a very current, and evolving understanding of the world/universe. By definition it can not include what it MAY include in the future to still be scientific. So if our understanding changes, and it will, that will be the current science. Until then this is it.

Honestly, I don't think you really want to go down the God-as-quantum-particle road. It's worse than the fourth dimensional god-theory in what it does to theology. Seriously.

[mfbukowski]

Funny, that how I feel too. I'm tempted to bring up my lion analogy again, but think I'll let it rest if that passing reference will allow it to do so.

No, that's ok, I get it.

I have often wondered if the whales laugh at us for being so poorly adapted that we have to go through all of this cultural creation. I think they sing their memorized scriptures to each other over miles of open sea.

Context is not everything- it is the ONLY thing. Now that is your "objective truth"!

We seem to be pretty effective at killing threads.

[Honorentheos]

No, that's ok, I get it.

I have often wondered if the whales laugh at us for being so poorly adapted that we have to go through all of this cultural creation. I think they sing their memorized scriptures to each other over miles of open sea.

Nice imagery!

We seem to be pretty effective at killing threads.

They deserved to die. We're just doing everyone a favor.

...or else we're making them awesomer!

[DH]

Science does not have all the answers, and scientists certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

Religionists, on the other hand, DO claim to have all the answers. But they don't.

DH

[ttribe]

Science does not have all the answers, and scientists certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

Religionists, on the other hand, DO claim to have all the answers. But they don't.

DH

Hmmm...perhaps you could point out where it is that "religionists" (a pretty broad group) claimed to have "all the answers"?

[lostindc]

Science does not have all the answers, and scientists certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

Religionists, on the other hand, DO claim to have all the answers. But they don't.

DH

I enjoy science, but the current upholding of science as some type of alter of knowledge is entirely wrong. Lately, science has turned to rhetoric as the source of legitimacy thus attracting a dense amount of negative attention.

Science in general is in need of a major overall from within, starting with those that limit the scientific method and limit the possibilities of the physical, metaphysical, etc.

Furthermore, a large overhaul of basic scientific philosophy which often merits a great deal of criticism dealing with the incapability of creationism and science is of immediate attention.

Once the possibility of linking a cause/creator was eliminated then science became a rigid, weakly based, one partied belief system, out to hunt down and destroy any and every cosmological viewpoint (Note: it is "okay" in the field of science to say that life was planted here or brought here as long as one states it is not GOD).

edited for format error

[thesometimesaint]

lostindc:

Science is nothing more than the knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

If it can not be measured in some objective way it is not science. Many scientists are also theists.

I would object to you proposing that life came for anyway but this earth without substantial observable evidence that it did.

[mfbukowski]

lostindc:

Science is nothing more than the knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

If it can not be measured in some objective way it is not science. Many scientists are also theists.

I would object to you proposing that life came for anyway but this earth without substantial observable evidence that it did.

I don't want to be too disagreeable, but allow me to point out that science does not study the natural world. It studies how we experience the natural world. Big difference. And "experience" would include instruments which we have made which allow us to extend our senses in areas like radio astronomy, spectrographic analysis or even tape measures. It is all still how we experience the world.

We never see anything "the way it is". More correctly, the way we experience it is "the way it is". Suppose everyone was colorblind. We would have fewer colors and no one would know what "green" (for example) was. Or alternatively, suppose we could see radio waves. Our perceptions of everything would be radically different.

The belief that science studies "what is" is one of the great errors in thought, because it causes one to believe in an "objective world" which simply is unknowable. Science ultimately, like art, is part of culture, nothing more, nothing less.

[Walden]

Does science have all the answers?

Personally, I distrust any person or institution that purports to have all the answers, whether it be science or religion.