Change?

[Kralizec]

Science isnt changing at all. It actually hasn't changed since its method has first been introduced. Yes they way we practice science has advanced, we have gotton answers for many questions and invented many things, but they way scientists work now hasnt changed a bit from the way the scientists worked in the modern times. it is still the step by step revealing of the darkness untill we reach close enough to that objective truth that we can say something about it and make it into a law.

and yes it is true that that law can be questioned, and yes it is true that the scientist can be questioned, but science itself? It cannot be questioned without being accused of not being scientific.


I dont know but i dont see the majority of the people asking questions about science, it concludes laws that are supposed to be infinite from a certain number of observations. Science is for Scientists i hear them say... sounds a lot like Church is for the Priests.




that is such an ignorant and narrow perception of religion. that is just what the people of the Enlightenment made it out to be. Sure it has bogged down into a rigid set of dogmas in the religions of the book but it has not always been like that and neither are those the only religions in the world. Besides that, if there is anything dogmatic it is science. Classic Religion also tried to improve itself, it tried to find new ways to come closer to god, to prove and understand stuff that we dont associate with anymore.

Scientific "dogma's" aren't holy in the way they are in religion. You might be ridiculed (i.e. not stoned to death) if you question science as such, but not if you question the premises behind accepted theories.
Science more or less means discovering facts and making up theories based on what we know and can observe, and by that process hoping to know the "truth". Young Earth Creationists are not ridiculed because they question the generally accepted age of the universe and the world, but for the reasons that they do. Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they "reject" science because I assume most of them happily follow scientific advice on nutrition and health issues, and so on.

Actually I think that most people who reject the theory evolution for example (since that's the most popular topic in science vs. religion discussions) would argue that the theory of evolution is bad science. Ot that the theory of intelligent design is at least as valid from a scientific perspective. There are plenty of people who question the way science currently works or the results that it produces, but not science as such.

Science is more than that, it has become a way of life, with its own morals and customs.

?
I understand what you're saying here...just not how you could say this

[The Stranger]

Scientific "dogma's" aren't holy in the way they are in religion. You might be ridiculed (i.e. not stoned to death) if you question science as such, but not if you question the premises behind accepted theories.

as if every religion will kill you if you do not agree.

Science more or less means discovering facts and making up theories based on what we know and can observe, and by that process hoping to know the "truth". Young Earth Creationists are not ridiculed because they question the generally accepted age of the universe and the world, but for the reasons that they do. Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they "reject" science because I assume most of them happily follow scientific advice on nutrition and health issues, and so on.

the point is, we do not know when we "know" something. science has shown that. We only "know" what we don't know, and then still only from a certain point of view. so what if the foundations of science are fundamentally wrong. we can't know. scientists claim causality, a christian claims the hand of god, neither can prove either exists or does not exist. they can only prove, the existance of their own startingpoint (i.e. causality or god) by already taking those things into account when formulating the evidence that is supposed to support it.

Actually I think that most people who reject the theory evolution for example (since that's the most popular topic in science vs. religion discussions) would argue that the theory of evolution is bad science. Ot that the theory of intelligent design is at least as valid from a scientific perspective. There are plenty of people who question the way science currently works or the results that it produces, but not science as such.

sounds like you are backing my point there, not sure if it was intended... is it an ambush? :P

?
I understand what you're saying here...just not how you could say this

why couldnt i say it? i place no value upon that remark. i dont claim it to be bad or good or whatever. my formulation might have been a bit unlucky, but you say you know what i mean.