Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind?

[Bushido216]

I know that and you know that. The OP doesn't seem to know that.

People tend to forget that if you want to discuss or critique a field of inquiry you have to understand the way that field uses its terms.

 

[Greg1234]

Nature is what we observe, what we have evidence for.

We have evidence for a lot more than that. Afraid to venture though, as we would fall of the edge of the earth. But man will advance regardless.
And your fairy, leprechaun and a "daddy" living in the sky are created material beings. There is no evidence that they are atheists.

 

[Gracchus]

We have evidence for a lot more than that. Afraid to venture though, as we would fall of the edge of the earth. But man will advance regardless.
And your fairy, leprechaun and a "daddy" living in the sky are created material beings. There is no evidence that they are atheists.

No they are imaginary beings.

 

[Greg1234]

No they are imaginary beings.

You presented them. The information derived on them says that they are material composed of corporeal bodies. In comparison, I have just as much reason to believe in them as the crocoduck. The categorical composition being an exact match.

And as with all material beings, they are finite, would also have to be created at a set point in time by a creator. They would also be composed of a DNA code which would have to be written and programmed. Therefore, their existence would depend on the creator.

Information derived shows that your fairies live in a forest. Your leprechaun under a rainbow. It would be impossible for your leprechaun to create the earth from earth before the earth ever was. The same for your fairy.

Before you repeat what Hitchens says, do try to employ deductive logic. And this is just the creative aspect. Your idea of what God the Father is primarily stems from, again, the cessation of actual study. The idea that it is a man [in the sky], most likely came from depictions like Zeus, and Bruce Almighty. The discernment between records of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit you most likely never bothered to discern. Though they are all one, their manifestation is depicted as God. You also look for a single entity, reasoning which came from that same source. This is way to extensive to get into, but when you believe that what was given came from hominids, you approach with your "superior knowledge" then spew words based on the belief that you don't need to study what was given. This is because your mental capabilities far surpass anything ever know to man. Why should you even bother reading works given by bigfoot....right? This is further drilled into you with references like "cretard" and such used by atheists to feed the ego. You'll learn.

The fact is, what was actually given, has been confirmed. And when you realize what God is, you will know what to look for, you will find, and avoid repeating fallacy. Till then

 

[Maxwell511]

No, science merely limits itself to what there is evidence for, so, If there were evidence for it, scientists would be studying it.

The problem is that paradigms limit the evidence that we observe. Therefore science is limited by its theories.

For example the Large Hadron Collider is built in a manner that satisfies our current theories. We are limited to asking the questions that particle physics lets us ask. It is entirely possible that the results of the LHR will require a paradigm shift that will change how we ask questions and that the cost of the LHR was unnecessary from an evidence gathering view.

If you don't think that this has happened before I would direct you to James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. This was a massive paradigm shift. Before this nobody thought of the Hertz's experiments or gathering data on that question. Also before Einstein's General Relativity nobody thought of measuring the apparent location of stars at different times in the solar year.

The problem the OP seems to have, although I am not sure if he actually understands it, is that we do not have any decent paradigm in the social sciences. In social studies and economics we may not be asking the right questions and therefore are forming theories that are limited in the utility of their answers. Therefore "science" cannot currently be applied to solve social and political problems. It would be analogous to trying to design a circuit with capacitors before we had Maxwell's theory.

 

[Gracchus]

You presented them. ... The fact is, what was actually given, has been confirmed. And when you realize what God is, you will know what to look for, you will find, and avoid repeating fallacy.

Alas, you have poed. You took sarcasm for assertion. It is very difficult for those who believe absurdities and are careless of logical reasoning to tell what is real from what is unreal.

I have been posting here for nearly eight years, newbie, and if you looked at my profile you would have seen that I am not an atheist.

 

[Gracchus]

The problem is that paradigms limit the evidence that we observe. Therefore science is limited by its theories.

And your house is limited by its walls and roof, which is what makes it useful as a house. Without theories, there is no science, because theories are what science is designed to produce: explanations of the observed world. And good reasoning, like good poetry, or good music, must have form and structure.

For example the Large Hadron Collider is built in a manner that satisfies our current theories. We are limited to asking the questions that particle physics lets us ask. It is entirely possible that the results of the LHR will require a paradigm shift that will change how we ask questions and that the cost of the LHR was unnecessary from an evidence gathering view.

But of course we don't know how our theories and paradigms are incorrect (and we know they are) until we perform the experiments and gather the data. If the LHC changes our view of particle physics then it has performed as desired and was not a waste of money.

The problem the OP seems to have, although I am not sure if he actually understands it, is that we do not have any decent paradigm in the social sciences. In social studies and economics we may not be asking the right questions and therefore are forming theories that are limited in the utility of their answers. Therefore "science" cannot currently be applied to solve social and political problems. It would be analogous to trying to design a circuit with capacitors before we had Maxwell's theory.

The big problem in economics and social sciences is that what has been discovered is politically unpopular and has the potential to financially injure some very rich and powerful people. Markets must be regulated, profits capped, and the accumulation of wealth limited. It must be recognized that cooperation is more beneficial for all than competition, which only works until someone has won. It is not that we are not asking the right questions in economics and the social sciences, it is that many find the answers unpleasant.

 

[variant]

The problem is that paradigms limit the evidence that we observe. Therefore science is limited by its theories.

For example the Large Hadron Collider is built in a manner that satisfies our current theories. We are limited to asking the questions that particle physics lets us ask. It is entirely possible that the results of the LHR will require a paradigm shift that will change how we ask questions and that the cost of the LHR was unnecessary from an evidence gathering view.

It seems contradictory to say that we are limited by the information we have gained and understood in the past.

Paradigm shifts happen, in no small part, due to the data not matching up well with theory, and finding alternative ways of explaining or understanding it.

Of course that is how science is supposed to work.

The LHR was built to test a theory, if the theory is wrong the predictions made will not come to fruition and new theories will take their place.

If you don't think that this has happened before I would direct you to James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. This was a massive paradigm shift. Before this nobody thought of the Hertz's experiments or gathering data on that question. Also before Einstein's General Relativity nobody thought of measuring the apparent location of stars at different times in the solar year.

And these things were inspired by the integrating science that was going on at the time in a different way.

The problem the OP seems to have, although I am not sure if he actually understands it, is that we do not have any decent paradigm in the social sciences. In social studies and economics we may not be asking the right questions and therefore are forming theories that are limited in the utility of their answers. Therefore "science" cannot currently be applied to solve social and political problems. It would be analogous to trying to design a circuit with capacitors before we had Maxwell's theory.

We don't have controlling paradigms in the social sciences because they are more open to interpretation than physics.

 

[coberst]

The human sciences have no paradigms because there exists no easily discernable patterns with in the human sciences. Humans have free will, which means that they do not function in a pattern like manner except on a very deep and complex level. Paradigms exist only where math can reside.

 

[Greg1234]

It is very difficult for those who believe absurdities and are careless of logical reasoning to tell what is real from what is unreal.

Reality extends far the beyond the severe case of myopia you embody. To justify the absurdity of random mutation creating a human is only the tip of the iceberg.

and if you looked at my profile you would have seen that I am not an atheist.

Your classification is based on what you present. Stalin could have on his profile that he is a loving democratic humanist. Moot. You clearly are, what you are.

I have been posting here for nearly eight years, newbie

To be sure, my join date is not my date of birth.

 

[Whatthedeuce]

The human sciences have no paradigms because there exists no easily discernable patterns with in the human sciences. Humans have free will, which means that they do not function in a pattern like manner except on a very deep and complex level. Paradigms exist only where math can reside.

If you disagree with Kuhn's description of science in terms of paradigms, why would you make a thread criticizing science for having paradigms?

 

[coberst]

If you disagree with Kuhn's description of science in terms of paradigms, why would you make a thread criticizing science for having paradigms?

The fault does not lie within the science but only within the naiveté of the individual who fails to comprehend the limitations of the science and the dimensions of the self and the world.