Change?

[The Stranger]

Actually not much has changed in the west. Sure we've gone from Chaos to God to Science. And sages have been replaced by priests who in turn have been replaced by scientists. The upperclass has shifted several times and revolutions happened, but in the end, the people, whoever that may be at any given time, still believe whatever they are being told.

when asked: How did they universe come into being? they respond with what they have been told: wether that is Chaos or God or Big Bang. They dont actually know what they are talking about.

And the stories get more fantastic over time too... I mean, from simple forces that collided, to the shaping hand of one all powerfull being to, expansion from nothing into vast space in just moments, dark energy and much more.

One person said he believed Christianity because its story was so absurd it had to be true. I guess he would say the same about the big bang theory if he had lived now.

I mean does anyone, and i'm including (all but) the brightest scientists, have a clue what happened? And what happened before that? They just answer with that is an obsolete question. Sounds a lot like a big fat "I DON'T KNOW!!!" to me.

The only thing that changed is that you can now question authority, resulting in no real authority at all. i doubt wether that is such a big improvement.

[Aemilius Paulus]

*Boom* Godin's Law:

The bigger the lie, the better - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; confirmed by Goebbels.




So are you expressing dissatisfaction with the current scientific establishment? May as well be like that Churchill quote on democracy. Science may have its shortcomings, but I sure as hell would rather let it preside over the society, rather than religion. And we could have the philosophers filling the moral void, just as in the ancient Greek times.

Hmm, so can you put forth a brief, concrete, debatable statement which reflects your views? I mean, I understand your post, but I am not certain what you advocate. If you are meaning to advocate any viewpoint at all, that is.

I simply hope you will not examine the validity of the Big Bang, because no-one here has any clue on how to evaluate the mathematical pros and cons of the theory in regards to how it fits within the current astrophysical model and such...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

That's defintely something that has never changed - there are always only a few intellectual elites when compared to the masses that know very little about the world and just take what the elites say for granted.

Whenever I have had any sort of discussion with someone in RL on politics/science/religion or whatever, pretty much everything they say would get torn apart in seconds on these forums, because they are so filled with logical fallacies/ad hominems/whatever. Some of the latest comments from RL include "Enoch Powell was right", "person x down the road lost some service because Muslim immigrants are taking all the money", "Scotland is for the Scots". Well, you get the idea...

[Furunculus]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

sounds familiar, certainly.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

Yep. The only problem is, is that the YEC-ites know nothing about even the most basic scientific principles when formulating their arguments. People never know anything. Even the most educated have trouble grasping the full implications of the government policies. We always operate in ignorance. Anyone who tells you that something is more simple than you think, anyone who explains something in a manner that makes a lot fo sense, is very likely to be a fraud.

Such is the fact of life. And so, the people choose the side which seems to be the most trustworthy. An appeal for the people to challenge science directly, as the YEC-ites are doing, is utter bollox, because all those challenges are grounded on ignorance of science. I would actually respect the YEC-ites is they followed the scientific method, if they used valid debating scientific techniques. Yet, if any YEC-ite were to be put in a situation where they would have to present their argument to a peer review panel, the would be laughed off - not because their hypothesis challenges the mainstream consensus, but because their argumentative methods are utterly simplistic, invalid, or plain deceptive and fallacious.

That's defintely something that has never changed - there are always only a few intellectual elites when compared to the masses that know very little about the world and just take what the elites say for granted.

Now you are thinking . Certainly true. Nothing regrettable either - people are not made to decide on their own - the vast, vast majority simply follows the lead. Including all of us.

Whenever I have had any sort of discussion with someone in RL on politics/science/religion or whatever, pretty much everything they say would get torn apart in seconds on these forums, because they are so filled with logical fallacies/ad hominems/whatever. Some of the latest comments from RL include "Enoch Powell was right", "person x down the road lost some service because Muslim immigrants are taking all the money", "Scotland is for the Scots". Well, you get the idea...

Yep, I was repeating this point of yours. But, you have no debatable points... You meant this to be so, huh?



The only reason why I respect YEC is because they stand by their beliefs, and fail to compromise their religion. Say whatever you wish about Christianity, but I doubt it is compatible with most sciences or, say, homosexuality. And no, I am not asking for a debate here, PVC

sounds familiar, certainly.

But you seem to usually speak out against people who do so. Why?

[Beskar]

Science is constantly changing, improving, correcting itself. It is the persuit of knowledge and exploration. You constantly ask questions and attempt to answer them through it.

Religion is dogmatic belief where they have the answers, and you don't ask any questions.

There is a massive difference between the two, so comparing them like that is completely futile and only shows ignorance.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yep, I was repeating this point of yours. But, you have no debatable points... You meant this to be so, huh?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to make an argument (since the OP didn't really either), so far this thread is more just about us saying how we see things.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you said in your post. Of course, the average person will never be an expert on everything, most of the time the reasonable thing to do is trust those above you, although everyone likes to put on their tin-foil hat from time to time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Science is constantly changing, improving, correcting itself. It is the persuit of knowledge and exploration. You constantly ask questions and attempt to answer them through it.

Religion is dogmatic belief where they have the answers, and you don't ask any questions.

There is a massive difference between the two, so comparing them like that is completely futile and only shows ignorance.

Pffft, what kind of leftist are you? You are supposed to criticise religion on the grounds of it being far too fluid and changing, evolving through a set number of stages which complement the development of society and the economy, all in a very deterministic fashion.

[Beskar]

Pffft, what kind of leftist are you? You are supposed to criticise religion on the grounds of it being far too fluid and changing, evolving through a set number of stages which complement the development of society and the economy, all in a very deterministic fashion.

?

Religion is stagnant and backwards, constantly trying to play 'catch-up' far too late, and any 'catch-up' is just delaying the inevitiable. It's main purpose is a means of illogical control of the elite on the masses. Religion is only benefitical in a society far-more backwards than it is, itself.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, religion does change enormously, but the changes are often denied, minimised, covered-up - in the sense that they are falsely justified, etc. However, this is change is rarely done for purely altruistic purposes - more for survival, if anything else. Science, on the other hand, changes for the sake of self-correction, for the sake of greater accuracy and veracity. Sure, there had been people who advocated pseudosciences, but there is always a bad bunch in every nest - and the pseudosciences were not quite accepted in the mainstream, not by a clear majority at the very least (this is speaking very broadly, gah...). And whether you like it or not, eugenics does make sense from a purely scientific viewpoint.

Religion, is dogmatic, as Beskar noted, and any change should be negative, according to the dogma itself, since everything had been revealed and dictated in the very beginning.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Actually not much has changed in the west. Sure we've gone from Chaos to God to Science. And sages have been replaced by priests who in turn have been replaced by scientists.

Ok, but what's your basis for saying not much has changed? What would qualify as a big change to you?

Regardless of the parallels you can draw from the past to the present, can you really argue that we haven't changed life for the better in a very significant way?

[gaelic cowboy]

Interesting topic this in a generic sort of way it could be argued we know less nowadays than we did say ten thousand years ago.

We used think thunder and lightning came from Thor now we know there is still loads of stuff we need to find out about thunder and lightning.

The ordinary 5/8 as we call em in Ireland never really worries too much about the big bang or the amount of angels on a pin head we trust the expert to know.

[PBI]

I will never understand why people so often undervalue or dismiss the massive material benefits science has brought to society. It has spared countless millions from disease, poverty and hunger and thanks to it we are living in a golden age of technological marvels our ancestors could scarcely have dreamed of. I honestly cannot think of a more powerful force for good in all of history.

So it hasn't yet come up with a consistent theory of life, the Universe and everything so simple anyone can instantly understand it without effort? Sorry, but the cold fact is that the Universe is an enormously complicated place. Why does anyone imagine for a second that it would be easy to understand?

Science is not some secretive cult where only the ideologically pure are granted access to the mystical secrets, anyone is free to study it; it just takes time and effort and an understanding that it will not all immediately become clear. Most people simply have more important things to do than invest years of their lives studying something they don't intend to make a career out of.

As to the idea that science has somehow "replaced" religion, I quite disagree. They exist to fulfill entirely separate roles; all science has done is to replace what was only ever a relatively minor, secondary purpose of religion: To explain the baffling range of seemingly bizarre and random natural phenomena that surround us. Does anyone imagine that religion serves no other purpose to those who believe in it?

[TinCow]

Global life expectancy at birth in 1900: 31 years
Global life expectancy at birth in 2005: 65.6 years
Cite

That's a nice change...

[naut]

You don't think anything has changed? That people just believe what they are told? Maybe so. But, I'll tell you what has changed, the method by which people have developed these big ideas. Instead of a bunch of Germanic pagans sitting round a fire celebrating the fertility of mother earth and exchanging stories about how they believe everything came to be. Or instead of the Canaanites worshipping Ba'al, Asherah, El and Yahweh because their ancestors dreamed them up. Or instead of Jews worshipping Yahweh, borrowed from their Canaanite neighbours, and believing in a heaven, borrowed from their Greek neighbours. These creative processes have been replaced, to some extent, by rigorous scientific method. Science isn't dreamed up on the spot, it's hypothesised then tested, then experimented, then discussed, then concluded. And if the conclusion isn't conclusive enough, then it's all done again. Even theories have basis in basic physics, otherwise they'd be disregarded out of hand by the rest of the scientific community.

And in this day and age it is your own fault if you are ignorant to the at least the basic principles of the Universe. You don't have an excuse any-more, the information is readily available almost anywhere for you.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I would not go so hard on The Stranger... I mean, from what I saw it as, he is not touching upon any specifics or the living standards, etc. I though he was speaking about the general collective spirit, the culture, the intellectual side. At least that is what I saw it as . I doubt he was simply discounting most of what science has done in practical applications. the only problem is, theory is the grandmother of invention and what seems theoretical today will soon find practical application to-morrow

[The Stranger]

*Boom* Godin's Law:

The bigger the lie, the better - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; confirmed by Goebbels.




So are you expressing dissatisfaction with the current scientific establishment? May as well be like that Churchill quote on democracy. Science may have its shortcomings, but I sure as hell would rather let it preside over the society, rather than religion. And we could have the philosophers filling the moral void, just as in the ancient Greek times.

Hmm, so can you put forth a brief, concrete, debatable statement which reflects your views? I mean, I understand your post, but I am not certain what you advocate. If you are meaning to advocate any viewpoint at all, that is.

I simply hope you will not examine the validity of the Big Bang, because no-one here has any clue on how to evaluate the mathematical pros and cons of the theory in regards to how it fits within the current astrophysical model and such...

science is the same as religion. they both aim for one objective truth and try to find proof for that truth, founding a large pyramid that is supposed to hold itself up on a very shaky foundation. Besides to say that philosophers are just there to fill the moral gap is an insult both to philosophy and ethics. what philosophy does is question foundations that have become so evident, so normal that no one even bothers to look at them critically. and if philosophers were just there to uphold the moral ethics of the system and no one would be available or able or allowed to question that system, we would find ourselves in a worse situation than ever before with any religion.

I simply hope you will not examine the validity of the Big Bang, because no-one here has any clue on how to evaluate the mathematical pros and cons of the theory in regards to how it fits within the current astrophysical model and such...

yet you are still convinced that thats at least roughly how the universe got created, and that can be said for most people. yet no one really has a clue.

[The Stranger]

Such is the fact of life. And so, the people choose the side which seems to be the most trustworthy.

i doubt they choose the most trustworthy one, they choose the one that is the most appealing, spectacular. or else they dont choose at all and just stick with what they have been taught. most of these people that believe in the laws of physics nowadays would have believed in the laws of god 500 years ago.

An appeal for the people to challenge science directly, as the YEC-ites are doing, is utter bollox, because all those challenges are grounded on ignorance of science

you are right here, you cannot critisize a system properly if you dont understand it. revolutions are always children of the tradition they rise up against.

I would actually respect the YEC-ites is they followed the scientific method, if they used valid debating scientific techniques

here i disagree. you do not tell a scientist that he has no right to say god doesnt exist to a christian because he is not using christian/theological methods. so you either should tell the scientist that, or not tell the YEC-ites the opposites. This is a huge problem, because since the introduction of the scientific method, every other method or way of looking at the world has been deemed inferior. The scientific method is not foolproof, neither is it the only way to produce a valid worldview.

[The Stranger]

Science is constantly changing, improving, correcting itself. It is the persuit of knowledge and exploration. You constantly ask questions and attempt to answer them through it.

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.

Religion is dogmatic belief where they have the answers, and you don't ask any questions.

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.

There is a massive difference between the two, so comparing them like that is completely futile and only shows ignorance.

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.

[The Stranger]

Ok, but what's your basis for saying not much has changed? What would qualify as a big change to you?

Regardless of the parallels you can draw from the past to the present, can you really argue that we haven't changed life for the better in a very significant way?

i'm not talking about that quality of life. i will not deny that that has changed tremendously (for better or worse, i dont care). i'm talking about the very way we think, the very bottom.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The world would be a nasty place without our scientific advancements, I'm not going to rant about how science is bad just because the world of internet debating makes it seem like it should be in direct contradiction to faith/religion.

Faith deals with morality and our understanding of humanity and life. Science deals with entirely different things, at the end of the day it is about understanding the mateiral world around us. Of course, they can overlap when it comes to the broader existential questions.

Science has reduced the importance of faith, simply because the advancements it has brought has meant that people no longer need to turn to God so much. Complementing th is has been the processes in the political sphere, which has caused the state to replace the social role of religion.

[The Stranger]

I will never understand why people so often undervalue or dismiss the massive material benefits science has brought to society. It has spared countless millions from disease, poverty and hunger and thanks to it we are living in a golden age of technological marvels our ancestors could scarcely have dreamed of. I honestly cannot think of a more powerful force for good in all of history.

again you completely miss the point. im not saying science is bad. im not denying any materialistic profits it has gained us.

So it hasn't yet come up with a consistent theory of life, the Universe and everything so simple anyone can instantly understand it without effort? Sorry, but the cold fact is that the Universe is an enormously complicated place. Why does anyone imagine for a second that it would be easy to understand?

why do you believe it is such a complicated space? have you ever been there? have you ever seen it? do you even have the slightest of notion of what is actually going on there? no. you trust people who wrote down a lot of stuff you dont understand in a lot of books. the fact that they deny god (atleast while working) and the fact they they can be critisized and improved upon is not a reason to assume its truth. Greek philosophers could be critisized and improved upon, yet we no longer believe their truths.

there is no guarantee at all that over a 1000 years this sysyem would still be around and our truth still be believed.

Science is not some secretive cult where only the ideologically pure are granted access to the mystical secrets, anyone is free to study it; it just takes time and effort and an understanding that it will not all immediately become clear. Most people simply have more important things to do than invest years of their lives studying something they don't intend to make a career out of.

everyone was allowed to study christianity, everone was allowed to study god. yes, you had to obey certain rules and there were certain methods, but i dont see why that is so much different from science. if you would suddenly deviate from normal procedures as a surgeon i believe many people would object. ofcourse after testing and a general approval and consent that new devation could become normal procedure, but same happened within the church.

As to the idea that science has somehow "replaced" religion, I quite disagree. They exist to fulfill entirely separate roles; all science has done is to replace what was only ever a relatively minor, secondary purpose of religion: To explain the baffling range of seemingly bizarre and random natural phenomena that surround us. Does anyone imagine that religion serves no other purpose to those who believe in it?

you are partially right. but science has also (wether intended or not) had a great impact on many other things that before were the domain (wether justified or not) of religion, ethics for example.

[The Stranger]

The world would be a nasty place without our scientific advancements, I'm not going to rant about how science is bad just because the world of internet debating makes it seem like it should be in direct contradiction to faith/religion.

Faith deals with morality and our understanding of humanity and life. Science deals with entirely different things, at the end of the day it is about understanding the mateiral world around us. Of course, they can overlap when it comes to the broader existential questions.

Science has reduced the importance of faith, simply because the advancements it has brought has meant that people no longer need to turn to God so much. Complementing th is has been the processes in the political sphere, which has caused the state to replace the social role of religion.

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

[The Stranger]

I would not go so hard on The Stranger... I mean, from what I saw it as, he is not touching upon any specifics or the living standards, etc. I though he was speaking about the general collective spirit, the culture, the intellectual side. At least that is what I saw it as . I doubt he was simply discounting most of what science has done in practical applications. the only problem is, theory is the grandmother of invention and what seems theoretical today will soon find practical application to-morrow

you saw correctly :)

science at the top may be questioned, and there it continues to grow... but no one is checking the foundations... no one is looking wether they are even there.

take causality for example, how can we explain that? is it truly so that one thing causes another? or is that the way we immanently look at things? if not, then can we look at it in a different perspective? is it possible for a human being to see one ball touch another and not think that one caused the other? and if not, is that so because it is truly and beyond question objectively TRUE and so that the one causes the other, or is it because we cannot see it different than that?

[The Stranger]

You don't think anything has changed? That people just believe what they are told? Maybe so. But, I'll tell you what has changed, the method by which people have developed these big ideas. Instead of a bunch of Germanic pagans sitting round a fire celebrating the fertility of mother earth and exchanging stories about how they believe everything came to be. Or instead of the Canaanites worshipping Ba'al, Asherah, El and Yahweh because their ancestors dreamed them up. Or instead of Jews worshipping Yahweh, borrowed from their Canaanite neighbours, and believing in a heaven, borrowed from their Greek neighbours. These creative processes have been replaced, to some extent, by rigorous scientific method.

do you have any proof that this method isnt wrong? can you prove without using science, that this method is right. do you believe there is just one objective truth (or many objective truth, but atleast that there is a notion of truth that can be known by humans objectively)? and if so, given the possibility of alien lifeforms, do you believe that would have the same method (given that they are "advanced" enough by our standards).

Science isn't dreamed up on the spot, it's hypothesised then tested, then experimented, then discussed, then concluded. And if the conclusion isn't conclusive enough, then it's all done again. Even theories have basis in basic physics, otherwise they'd be disregarded out of hand by the rest of the scientific community.

true, theories and methods within science (which we would describe as a scientific method) have been discussed, tested, discarded, concluded started again blabla... but not science itself, not the scientific method, which is partially discussing, testing, discarding, concluding, restarting until we come close to that notion of objective truth. BUT what if there is no such objective truth.

And in this day and age it is your own fault if you are ignorant to the at least the basic principles of the Universe. You don't have an excuse any-more, the information is readily available almost anywhere for you.

only if the information presented to me is correct and presented in a comprehensible form. which is debatable.

[The Stranger]

Global life expectancy at birth in 1900: 31 years
Global life expectancy at birth in 2005: 65.6 years
Cite

That's a nice change...

thats actually not a valid point... because 1900 is like the high days of science...

i know what you are getting at though... but thats still not what im talking about.

[ajaxfetish]

That's a pretty epic nonuple post broken by only one other poster, Stranger. I'd be concerned, except that you were addressing different responses in each one, and you'd need some serious use of subheadings to try to fit all that material into one post anyway.

Ajax

[Reenk Roink]

Actually not much has changed in the west. Sure we've gone from Chaos to God to Science. And sages have been replaced by priests who in turn have been replaced by scientists. The upperclass has shifted several times and revolutions happened, but in the end, the people, whoever that may be at any given time, still believe whatever they are being told.

I think you overestimate the influence of science. Thankfully, science's position in free society is still far from absolute, and is certainly nowhere near the influence of religion in the past. I'd venture to say worldwide, religion still trumps science in terms of influence, (if I can indulge in using the blanket terms religion and science like that for convenience). Thank god for that.

The implosion of the idea of logical positivism before it made any kind of permeation into widespread thought as well as Kuhn's attack against the linear view of scientific progress (despite the excesses of postmodernism that also resulted ) pretty much assure that the menace of 'science' never grabs influence it doesn't deserve.

And we could have the philosophers filling the moral void, just as in the ancient Greek times.

What fiction is this? The "philosophers" in Ancient Greek society had a marginal effect on the morality of the masses in that period, probably simply limited to a few young rich men who thought it fashionable to hang around my man Plato and that noob Aristotle. Need I remind you that Socrates was convicted of impiety (even if he may not have explicitly been impious)? Need I remind you that many of the Presocratic 'sophists' who entertained unorthodox naturalistic worldviews never caught on, were reviled in popular plays, and Plato sought to (wisely) distance himself (and Socrates) from them?

I'd say some of greek philosophy had (too much of) an influence on later societies, especially Catholic Europe, but it never enjoyed that in it's own time to such a degree at all. The traditional views prevailed.

I will never understand why people so often undervalue or dismiss the massive material benefits science has brought to society. It has spared countless millions from disease, poverty and hunger and thanks to it we are living in a golden age of technological marvels our ancestors could scarcely have dreamed of.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the results of science and I think they frankly are as irrelevant to the point at hand as the effects of religion. I believe the OP was thinking more along the lines of how he feels a scientific mindset has prevailed, whereby a commitment to the objective realism of scientific entities is made and a general idea of naturalism is held as the actual model of reality. These are the points under consideration, not whether religion has given us meaning or inquisitions, or science has given us computers or atom bombs.

As to the idea that science has somehow "replaced" religion, I quite disagree. They exist to fulfill entirely separate roles; all science has done is to replace what was only ever a relatively minor, secondary purpose of religion: To explain the baffling range of seemingly bizarre and random natural phenomena that surround us. Does anyone imagine that religion serves no other purpose to those who believe in it?

Great point, you've made it once it before if I recall. I do think there is a bit of overlap which does conflict in some cases, but it's minor as they primary focus of both is quite different. And for one who holds an instrumentalist (or any anti-realist conception) of scientific entities, with no ontological commitment to naturalism (heck, one can even get away without a methodological approach to inquiry), the best of both worlds is available in pure harmony.

The problem arises however, because of how people conflate different things in these kind of discussions. You can see it in this very thread, using my old example of creationism. You'll have people make the (and not to sound rude but...) bat**** retarded claims that creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable while evolutionary science is not, and when pressed, you can easily see the confusion in that instead of taking a quick glance and creationist claims such as the age of the earth with something to do with tree canopies and what not (tested and most likely falsified by the way), they will go attack it on metaphysical ground due to the creator present, at the same time oblivious to the own metaphysical principles.

The maddening inconsistency in these discussions about the 'worldviews' of the two, some go and attack the religious worldview and then go and 'defend' science with the results, probably blissfully unaware of how they are just talked about two separate things.

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

I don't really understand the point of trying to equate science and religion like this?

I mean of course there are other aspects to both science (process, research programs) and religion (ritual) which are huge parts, but they aren't really relevant at all, just as you yourself say the results aren't. What (at least I thought) you were trying to compare was religious and scientific worldviews...

There are ethics followed in science and results from science do influence morality, but science doesn't have morals in the way that religion does...

[naut]

The maddening inconsistency in these discussions about the 'worldviews' of the two, some go and attack the religious worldview and then go and 'defend' science with the results, probably blissfully unaware of how they are just talked about two separate things.

do you have any proof that this method isnt wrong? can you prove without using science, that this method is right. do you believe there is just one objective truth (or many objective truth, but atleast that there is a notion of truth that can be known by humans objectively)?
[...]
BUT what if there is no such objective truth.

Do you have any proof that this method is wrong?

It matters not one ounce whether it is right or wrong. The fact that it works is the reason it is still in use. Things don't survive multiple centuries if they are not useful and do not work. And why would you attempt to disprove science with anything other than science? If you are lucky may be able to disprove with a mystical method, but why would you? There's no point in doing so as they are completely different concepts.

If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself. There is objective truth. A objective descriptive truth would be, "I am 5 foot 11 inches", I am 5'11", this is objectively true. I'd argue this further, but it becomes a loop of semantics.

and if so, given the possibility of alien lifeforms, do you believe that would have the same method (given that they are "advanced" enough by our standards).

And?

true, theories and methods within science (which we would describe as a scientific method) have been discussed, tested, discarded, concluded started again blabla... but not science itself, not the scientific method, which is partially discussing, testing, discarding, concluding, restarting until we come close to that notion of objective truth.

Not true. The methods we used today have been refined from principals of experiments to a more elaborate and diligent process to eliminate human error and factor out bias, while maintaining and increasing reliability and accuracy and validity. And then a scientist discloses his experiments and publishes them and lets other people see them. And if the other people may try for themselves, or they may criticise the approach.

only if the information presented to me is correct and presented in a comprehensible form. which is debatable.

That's perfectly acceptable. We live in secular societies where you are allowed to study ideas, reject ideas, embrace ideas, formulate ideas, as and when they suit you. That is a change. You want to do that before the rise of science then you either become a monk and learn about god, or you challenge authority and die a heretic.

[The Stranger]

i only have a short time, so ill come back later for more.

but i want to make one thing clear.

I think there is a difference between practical religion (going to church or other traditions and such etc) and religion as a system (which becomes institutionalised, basically the idea of religion, the way it works etc) and also a difference between practical science (testing atombombs, finding antidotes for sickness etc) and science as a system (which as also become institutionalised)

I'm not comparing practical science with practical religion or systematic religion. i'm comparing systematic religion with systematic science...

Do you have any proof that this method is wrong?

It matters not one ounce whether it is right or wrong. The fact that it works is the reason it is still in use. Things don't survive multiple centuries if they are not useful and do not work. And why would you attempt to disprove science with anything other than science? If you are lucky may be able to disprove with a mystical method, but why would you? There's no point in doing so as they are completely different concepts.

ehm... i think religion has been in play and control far longer than science (as a controlling system). I doubt science will make it that far. but thats a bit besides the point, if objectivity is not the standard, but pragmatism is, than that challenges the very nature and foundation of science. and the mere fact that one system superceeded another doesnt mean it is a better system per se. When the roman empire changed from democracy into imperialist authocracy, its not automatically true that the empire was a better system. Same can be said about communist revolutions in china or russia.

If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself. There is objective truth. A objective descriptive truth would be, "I am 5 foot 11 inches", I am 5'11", this is objectively true. I'd argue this further, but it becomes a loop of semantics.

i'm aware of that. but that loop ends when you change it into "there is no objective truth which can be known beyond all doubt by humans with their present cognitive abilities."
i cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it, so its an impasse. it has been for a long time.

That's perfectly acceptable. We live in secular societies where you are allowed to study ideas, reject ideas, embrace ideas, formulate ideas, as and when they suit you. That is a change. You want to do that before the rise of science then you either become a monk and learn about god, or you challenge authority and die a heretic.

only in a very limited time on a very limited place on the globe.