× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
g
3
3
2
J
2
p
2
m
2
h
2
s
2
r
2
d
2
l
2
a
2
New Topic  
exegesisme exegesisme
wrote...
Posts: 60
Rep: 2 0
8 years ago
Science is not Truth​

By Exegesisme

Science is not truth, and also can not be seen as truth. Science is a good way to look for truth, but itself is not truth. If we believe science is truth, we will stop at where we believe, and with an attitude against all sorts of new knowledge, for they are not science.

We should notice this phenomenon, any existed scientific knowledge is not new, and any new knowledge before scientific prove is not scientifical. Therefore, we should keep this idea, truth is out of our touch, we can only touch the images of truth. Science is the way of approaching truth, but can never achieve the truth. Scientifical knowledge is useful in finite domain, but is not truth.

We can respect science, but we can only worship truth.     
Read 491 times
13 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago Edited: 8 years ago, bio_man
Science is fact based on collected data. Results obtained from the collection of this data will remain consistent anywhere it is tested on our planet. If you disregard this consistency, then you're denying truth, and therefore are living a delusional existence
exegesisme Author
wrote...
8 years ago
consistent

When you say that science is fact..., how do you understand theoretical science in this way?
When you say...it is tested on our planet, how do you understand what is tested beyond our planet?
When you link consistency with truth, how do you think so many accidents everywhere?
When you say...living a delusional existence, how do you think as you see the Sun moves from east to west?
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago
When you say that science is fact..., how do you understand theoretical science in this way?

Theoretical science isn't "empirical" or "experimental". Any conclusions that come from an actual study that follows the scientific method falls into actual science.

When you say...it is tested on our planet, how do you understand what is tested beyond our planet?

Because the physics on other planets are different, i.e. gravitational force, atmospheric conditions. What matters is how it works here on Earth.

When you link consistency with truth, how do you think so many accidents everywhere?

I remember that for every action there is a reaction.

When you say...living a delusional existence, how do you think as you see the Sun moves from east to west?

The Earth is rotating.
exegesisme Author
wrote...
8 years ago Edited: 8 years ago, exegesisme
When you say that science is fact..., how do you understand theoretical science in this way?
Theoretical science isn't "empirical" or "experimental". Any conclusions that come from an actual study that follows the scientific method falls into actual science.
When you say...it is tested on our planet, how do you understand what is tested beyond our planet?
Because the physics on other planets are different, i.e. gravitational force, atmospheric conditions. What matters is how it works here on Earth.
When you link consistency with truth, how do you think so many accidents everywhere?
I remember that for every action there is a reaction.
When you say...living a delusional existence, how do you think as you see the Sun moves from east to west?
The Earth is rotating.
So,
1, in your mind only actual science is science.
2, your view about physics is different from the view of Einstein‘s.
3, your claim is only in ideal condition, not in actual condition.
4, so, delusional sensation is meaningful to actual existence.
In summary, your first claim is in contradiction with your third claim.
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago
1, in your mind only actual science is science.

Must follow the scientific method.



2, your view about physics is different from the view of Einstein‘s.

Physics changes based on the size of matter. As matter gets smaller and smaller, quantum physics is born

3, your claim is only in ideal condition, not in actual condition.

Science is all about two groups: the experimental group and the control group. I don't know how this contradicts my first statement

exegesisme Author
wrote...
8 years ago Edited: 8 years ago, exegesisme
Ok, let me tell you in detail,
1, in your mind only actual science is science.
Your idea of science is very limited, I hope you open your mind for science.
2, your view about physics is different from the view of Einstein‘s.
Einstein believes physics should be the same everywhere in the same universe, your idea is physics on earth is different from beyond earth. If you think the living condition on earth is different from beyond earth, I agree.
3, your claim is only in ideal condition, not in actual condition.
Linking an action with a reaction is right only in ideal condition, in actual condition, an action may link with many reactions, or many actions with one reaction.
4, so, delusional sensation is meaningful to actual existence.
Delusional sensations are very meaningful to actual existence if they are understood properly, and even a key for a new science. So, never look down upon delusional being.

In summary, your first claim is in contradiction with your third claim.
for science in your mind is only actual, so the conclusion from ideal condition should be kept a distance from your idea of science.
Post Merge: 8 years ago

Quote
Science is all about two groups: the experimental group and the control group. I don't know how this contradicts my first statement

Your claim about science here is farther limited. What you said is only about the biological experiment, is not for general scientific principle.
I suggest you read something about science more than biology, and do not use the word science replace the word biology.
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago
Hi again, sorry for the late reply, I've been busy lately, but I'm back to argue lol

1, in your mind only actual science is science.
Your idea of science is very limited, I hope you open your mind for science.

The way I see it is that anything that can be proven with data and results consistently 95% percent of the time is considered fact. In other words, any claims made with 95% certainty is considered factual. 

Just to clarify, when you refer to Einstein physics, what are you talking about exactly?

Albert Einstein may be most famous for his mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, but his work also laid down the foundation for modern quantum mechanics.

His analysis of the "spookiness" of quantum mechanics opened up a whole range of applications including quantum teleportation and quantum cryptography, but he wasn't completely convinced by the theory of quantum mechanics – and that story is as fascinating as the theory he attempted to nail down.

Quantum mechanics is downright bizarre. It implies that a particle, such as an electron, can pass through two holes at the same time.

More famously, German physicist Erwin Schrödinger's equations proved that a cat could end up in a peculiar sort of quantum state, being neither dead nor alive.

None of this impressed Einstein. He believed quantum mechanics was correct, but desperately wanted to find a way to "complete" quantum mechanics so it made sense.

At the time, most quantum physicists adopted the "shut up and calculate" philosophy: get on with the job, and don't worry about philosophical issues – just get the predictions.

Source: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html#jCp

You made this statement Downwards Arrow

Linking an action with a reaction is right only in ideal condition, in actual condition, an action may link with many reactions, or many actions with one reaction.

Why would this be a problem?
exegesisme Author
wrote...
8 years ago Edited: 8 years ago, exegesisme
I just tell you that you made a wrong pair, and continue your false understanding of science.
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago
I just tell you that you made a wrong pair, and continue your false understanding of science.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you can't prove it.
exegesisme Author
wrote...
8 years ago
I just tell you that you made a wrong pair, and continue your false understanding of science.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you can't prove it.

Do you need I put all material together from above, or you study them by your own?
I suggest you study them by your own, and I would like to show them to you if you still do not know where the issues are, and want me to show them to you. 
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago
I provided an answer to all your questions. This is one of my favorite quotes:

exegesisme Author
wrote...
7 years ago
The scholar talk can not cover your shame.
wrote...
Educator
7 years ago
I'm not ashamed.
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  864 People Browsing
 190 Signed Up Today
Related Images
  
 726
  
 203
  
 550
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 370