Science!
..Choice!..
...Peace!...
....Dreams!....
....Justice!....
.....Courage!.....
.......Evolution!........
..........Rationalism!...........
....................Moderation!....................
.................................Forethought!....................................
.......................................and................................................
Obama!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
Hehe, it would awesome if I had a centre-allign formatting tag as well. :)
And my, your teenage strong brood of 522 teenage kids create such loudly deafening and opinionated babble. Thank goodness you are quite a generous cool parent. LOL ;-)
First, I love your use of the size tag. Barely anyone takes advantage of that feature.
Religion - If I never heard about it again it would be awesome. I find it ironic that estrip is pretty much my only exposure to it. Religious people would probably say it was a sign - that my own creation is speaking back to me in religious terms. I just think its irritating like a teenager that talks back to its parent.
With that bit I was talking more about day to day necessities then scientific practice, starting to get tangential to the original question.
@(e:Jim): "I have no problem creating a personally preferred/privileged frame of reference, as a by product of my existence limited in space and time. To me that's a situational necessity, but allowed to persist only to reasonable limits as such."
I don't have a problem with creating such a frame as well, but I have a big problem when scientists ignore this frame of reference, conveniently forget about limits and start to generalize the results of a few such limited experiments to everyone and every scenario. *That* is bad science.
Generalizing without recognizing limitations and not being cognizant of pitfalls in such a generalization is equal to being dogmatic, married to your hypotheses and practicing scientific fundamentalism (equivalent to religious fundamentalism or even extremism).
I personally want to release a fatwa against such scientists. Or may be a well-directed jihad might be better? Hmm...
hmm. Those thoughts will have to come later. I promised Janelle I would watch law and order with her.
some quick thoughts, and then maybe a longer response will follow.
Of course we are friendly--that's well established.
Also, no doubt that Science produces wonder--I've experienced as much.
Now for the things that require more thought . . .
Sadly, not every scientist requires "thinking for oneself" (although it should) Some teachers of science simply want the old orthodoxy repeated.
The proclamations of a person of faith should also be held to a standard. No, I do not use the scientific method every week (as that would be science) but there are other measures of truth that are considered.
Good liturature isn't less good or less life changing because it isn't subject to independant observation. It resonates with experience, and with the established body of knowledge, or it doesn't. It makes people better, or it makes people worse.
And a priest/minister/rabbi that does not take a scripture and proclaim it in such a way that it builds a healthy community can and should be criticized, and often is.
Nice thoughts, (e:drew). Two additional comments.
"Both are a way of life (or should be) both can reveal truth, or conceal it--when it is practiced wrongly."
I couldn't agree more. There is good science as well as bad and one rotten science experiment at the base can topple the whole pyramid of sound experiments built on top of it.
"For the spiritual world, for meaning, for purpose--for those questions, I find science lacking. (I know science gives answers, but they don't resonate with me or inspire)"
And here, I have to disagree a bit. What is inspiration? Is inspiration not 50% hope and 50% wonder? Science provides both in more generous doses than any other discipline. What is purpose? What is the purpose of what? Of us being here? Or being what we are? Or us doing anything "worthwhile"? I think practicing good science aids humanity in many many ways, touches lives through healing and small comforts, shapes lives by understanding a bit more of our being everyday, brings purpose to the pursuit of a happy contended life, defines contentment in terms of service to others, helps us examine disparities and come up with solutions, examine evolution and yet impose our strong inherent need for equality by erasing the unequal and sometimes brutal effects of evolution in populations. Thus, depending on how you look at it science can be as resonant and inspiring as you want it to be just as social science can be as rigorous and real as you make it. :D
And disagree in a vehemently friendly way (just to be clear).
Ah, I disagree of course, Drew.
Lack of reproducibility makes me very suspicious. It's hard for me to take specific religious claims seriously when they require preferred frames of reference in a general sense. That foundational distrust means I can't derive any satisfaction from religion.
I have no problem creating a personally preferred/privileged frame of reference, as a by product of my existence limited in space and time. To me that's a situational necessity, but allowed to persist only to reasonable limits as such.
And so there's my horror at any hint of special or revealed truth in a nutshell.
I have to agree with Jim word for word. :)
Also, science requires you to think for yourself and practicing it well requires that you try and critique what is believed every time you think of something new. A scientist, unlike a priest is not received well (and may in fact be denied funding or booed off the stage), if s/he preaches without experimental/observational evidence and logic to back up his/her statements in a sound fashion.
Good faith, like good science, involves constant examination and constant re-evaluation.
Like science, religion tends have rituals, habits, disciplines. These can become a healthy way of life, or mindless superstition and dogma.
Both are a way of life (or should be) both can reveal truth, or conceal it--when it is practiced wrongly.
I love science (well, I studied a social science, so the "real" scientists might disagree) to understand the truth of the natural world, there is no better method.
For the spiritual world, for meaning, for purpose--for those questions, I find science lacking. (I know science gives answers, but they don't resonate with me or inspire)
Heidi, my take:
Scientific claims can be verified independently. The scientific method aims to increase accuracy and precision in understanding the world. Things which are science could conceivably be rediscovered were the world to fall into a dark age and we forgot all current knowledge.
Religion is that which will never arise the same way twice. Religion and faith are about things that can't be assessed outside of the context of their own claims and culture. If we all forgot about Jesus today, tomorrow he'd be gone for good. Unless he came back for a second time of course :)
Some science is messy and imprecise - we model weather with only the ability to understand some of the patterns and systems that occur, and global warming is tough to explain with concise equations, but it is possible to picture an outside alien taking notes and coming up with similar theories.
The great thing about science is that it encourages you to throw out that which has been disproved. Religious texts have crufty old stuff that ends up just conveniently ignored, treated as literature, or in the worst case sneaks up and snares the unlucky innocent village herbalist.
Oh yeah, I also have rituals like compulsive journal feed checking and scheduling at least one meeting a week with my advisor during which I babble on and on about everything new in whatever I read that week till she throws me out of her office*. LOL
---------
I treat science not only like a religion but almost as a life partner. Haha. I live and breathe it, practise it, preach it, am married to it, think about it constantly, read about it, speak about it, build shrines to it - as in small mounds of books with notes on them, worship it, have super-strong faith in its potential and last but not least, push it on people and also try to convert them. All criteria satisfied. Except one, maybe. Science* does not make its followers blind and close-minded. :)
------------
Yea, SCIENCE!!
Someone has accused me of treating science like a religion, having faith in it like Christians have faith in Jesus. Thoughts?