Science is close-minded

[Moontanman]

I totally agree NJ.:eek:

 

Science is close-minded when those 'self-respecting' scientists (this forum puts forward as qualification) don't acknowledge that there are a ****-load of personal-gain-respecting scientists in their midst.

 

Sort of like a Muslim denying jihad is Islamic.

 

Religion is totally close minded to any world view that challenges it's dogma. The difference is that science can not only be persuaded to change the existence of science depends on challenge of it's ideas, religion only exists because it cannot allow challenge or allow it's self to change.

[Thunderbird]

Religion is totally close minded to any world view that challenges it's dogma. The difference is that science can not only be persuaded to change the existence of science depends on challenge of it's ideas, religion only exists because it cannot allow challenge or allow it's self to change.

 

That's the definition of fundamentalism,

 

true religion is not dogmatic, its a personal experience. One should seek to understand our own intrinsic nature, since this entails introspection it should be understood as such. Once we understand our nature we can then attempt to live with what we know.

It is easy to have a momentary knowing when we seek it from a group of individuals , but then to hold on to it as if were the living world , and not see it as what it actually is, just a agreed upon doctrin to be bought and sold negates our own personal evolution by killing the experience of being alive. What we should do is to seek insight’s though experiances constantly to make life a living reality.

 

I Don't Know

The emperor, who was a devout Buddhist, invited a great Zen master to the Palace in order to ask him questions about Buddhism.

"What is the highest truth of the holy Buddhist doctrine?" the emperor inquired.

"Vast emptiness... and not a trace of holiness," the master replied.

"If there is no holiness," the emperor said, "then who or what are you?"

"I do not know," the master replied.

[Moontanman]

That's the definition of fundamentalism,

 

true religion is not dogmatic, its a personal experience. One should seek to understand our own intrinsic nature, since this entails introspection it should be understood as such. Once we understand our nature we can then attempt to live with what we know.

It is easy to have a momentary knowing when we seek it from a group of individuals , but then to hold on to it as if were the living world , and not see it as what it actually is, just a agreed upon doctrin to be bought and sold negates our own personal evolution by killing the experience of being alive. What we should do is to seek insight’s though experiances constantly to make life a living reality.

 

While I don't disagree that all religions in your context are not close minded I don't think the poster I was answering would agree that Buddhism is religion in this context, obviously one mans religion is another mans blasphemy but I would say that Buddhism is no better, for all it's inclusiveness it still doesn't explain or provide any thing but a black hole for money and effort. Science is not only not close minded it provides a positive force in society that doesn't exclude any one who is willing to pursue or see the truth.

[Thunderbird]

While I don't disagree that all religions in your context are not close minded I don't think the poster I was answering would agree that Buddhism is religion in this context, obviously one mans religion is another mans blasphemy but I would say that Buddhism is no better, for all it's inclusiveness it still doesn't explain or provide any thing but a black hole for money and effort. Science is not only not close minded it provides a positive force in society that doesn't exclude any one who is willing to pursue or see the truth.

It has never cost me a dime. I think we are not reffering to the same thing.

[James Putnam]

I'll bite, because I want to see where you're going with this. :)

 

I think, from a scientific standpoint, that electric charge in terms of defining a positive and negative charge is a fact. I think it is accepted that some subatomic particles exhibit these characteristics, such that electrons are negatively charged and protons positively charged. The interaction of these charged particles can generate electromagnetic fields.

 

Through our knowledge of these facts, we are able to predict the behavior of electromagnetic energy, harness it, and utilize it in our daily lives.

 

If you acknowledge that a charge exists in certain particles, but really want to know if the cause of the charge associated with those particles is factual, I don't know the answer to that.

 

Thank you Reason. I will attempt to answer in one giant-step instead of inching toward it. The reason (with a small r :)) I raised this question in this thread is because of the comment that God does not belong in a discussion about whether or not science is close-minded. I limit my meaning of the name 'God' to representing the name of the original and continuing cause for the operation of this universe that gave birth to life and intelligence. Now I do not know what is this cause; however, more to the point, no one knows what is cause. The fundamental forces of theoretical physics are merely names that tell us nothing about the cause itself. All that we know is contained in our study of effects.

 

I see physics as being divided into to two main parts. There is empirical physics which is the study of effects. Then, there is theoretical physics which is used to substitute for our lack of knowledge about what are causes. It is a philosophy or a system of belief, but it is not representative of scientific fact. It is not even scientific knowledge. It is actually representative of lack of scientific knowledge. We do not know what are causes so we invent theory. It helps us to keep our thoughts orderly, but it is mythical.

 

When we study effects, we sometimes find that the many patterns appear to fall into groups. There are at least four groups of patterns that we are unable to see as being caused by a single cause, so it is concluded that they are due to different fundamental causes. We do not know this to be true. We only know that our level of knowledge makes this appear to be true. The result of this act is to introduce disunity into our analysis of the operation of the universe. The penalty we pay is that the fundamentals of physics theory are not based upon unity, but rather upon disunity. Higher level theory is no more correct than are the fundamentals upon which it is built. If we mess up the fundamentals, then we have gone astray right from the start.

 

Theoretical physics, in my opinion, is a facade. It is representative of a choice by many to interpret the operation of the universe in a materialistic manner. There is no scientific justification for this conclusion. We do not know what is cause. Any name for cause is equal. Naming cause as "intelligence" or "God" or "electric charge" or "mass", etc. does not do harm to scientific knowledge. What does harm is to insist that some must be ruled out as being unscientific while others are arbitrarily ruled to be scientific.

 

No one knows what causes changes of velocity. No one knows what causes differences in changes of velocity. All that we know is that there are patterns of changes of velocity that can be repeated and relied upon. It is our knowledge of the patterns and how to make use of them that has yielded technological advances.

 

The kind of advance that we have not been able to make is to begin to understand the cause of intelligent life. Any declaration that an unintelligent, lifeless universe can and did lead to intelligent life definitely deserves to be challenged. If it is declared by scientifically minded persons that such challenges are inherently invalid, then the answer to the question that is the purpose of this thread is that: Science is close-minded.

 

James

[Moontanman]

Thank you Reason. I will attempt to answer in one giant-step instead of inching toward it. The reason (with a small r :)) I raised this question in this thread is because of the comment that God does not belong in a discussion about whether or not science is close-minded. I limit my meaning of the name 'God' to representing the name of the original and continuing cause for the operation of this universe that gave birth to life and intelligence. Now I do not know what is this cause; however, more to the point, no one knows what is cause. The fundamental forces of theoretical physics are merely names that tell us nothing about the cause itself. All that we know is contained in our study of effects.

 

I see physics as being divided into to two main parts. There is empirical physics which is the study of effects. Then, there is theoretical physics which is used to substitute for our lack of knowledge about what are causes. It is a philosophy or a system of belief, but it is not representative of scientific fact. It is not even scientific knowledge. It is actually representative of lack of scientific knowledge. We do not know what are causes so we invent theory. It helps us to keep our thoughts orderly, but it is mythical.

 

When we study effects, we sometimes find that the many patterns appear to fall into groups. There are at least four groups of patterns that we are unable to see as being caused by a single cause, so it is concluded that they are due to different fundamental causes. We do not know this to be true. We only know that our level of knowledge makes this appear to be true. The result of this act is to introduce disunity into our analysis of the operation of the universe. The penalty we pay is that the fundamentals of physics theory are not based upon unity, but rather upon disunity. Higher level theory is no more correct than are the fundamentals upon which it is built. If we mess up the fundamentals, then we have gone astray right from the start.

 

Theoretical physics, in my opinion, is a facade. It is representative of a choice by many to interpret the operation of the universe in a materialistic manner. There is no scientific justification for this conclusion. We do not know what is cause. Any name for cause is equal. Naming cause as "intelligence" or "God" or "electric charge" or "mass", etc. does not do harm to scientific knowledge. What does harm is to insist that some must be ruled out as being unscientific while others are arbitrarily ruled to be scientific.

 

No one knows what causes changes of velocity. No one knows what causes differences in changes of velocity. All that we know is that there are patterns of changes of velocity that can be repeated and relied upon. It is our knowledge of the patterns and how to make use of them that has yielded technological advances.

 

The kind of advance that we have not been able to make is to begin to understand the cause of intelligent life. Any declaration that an unintelligent, lifeless universe can and did lead to intelligent life definitely deserves to be challenged. If it is declared by scientifically minded persons that such challenges are inherently invalid, then the answer to the question that is the purpose of this thread is that: Science is close-minded.

 

James

 

I totally disagree, naming anything as god causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject from being found. This one thing is more than enough to make labeling any thing as god a bad idea. If we had stuck to that the universe would still be seen a crystal shells with lights attached. And the Earth would still at the center of the solar system with the sun and the moon as well as the other planets revolving around it. Not to mention none of the other planets would be known to exist. If you want to believe god is responsible for everything go for it, but if that had been the mind set of everyone for the last thousand years we wouldn't have electricity, refrigeration, steam engines, or anything else other than mud buildings, disease, filth, corrupt kings and popes, and squalor. I like the idea of science being able to question reality. god should stick to souls and leave the real world alone.

[James Putnam]

I totally disagree, naming anything as god causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject from being found. This one thing is more than enough to make labeling any thing as god a bad idea.

 

And, naming anything as electric charge or mass or spacetime causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject being found. We cannot move forward and learn the true natural properties of the universe so long as the materialistic belief system maintains a stranglehold on what is permitted to be declared as being scientific.

 

If we had stuck to that the universe would still be seen a crystal shells with lights attached. And the Earth would still at the center of the solar system with the sun and the moon as well as the other planets revolving around it. Not to mention none of the other planets would be known to exist. If you want to believe god is responsible for everything go for it, but if that had been the mind set of everyone for the last thousand years we wouldn't have electricity, refrigeration, steam engines, or anything else other than mud buildings, disease, filth, corrupt kings and popes, and squalor. I like the idea of science being able to question reality. god should stick to souls and leave the real world alone.

 

The above declaration is not helpful in a scientific discussion. It appears to me that you prefer discussing religion instead of cause. I am speaking about scientific knowledge, not dogmatic religions. You may have a problem with the name god, and I have a problem with the name electric charge. So what. We both used names. What is the scientific basis for insisting on one name over another?

 

James

[Moontanman]

And, naming anything as electric charge or mass or spacetime causes it to become dogma and prevents any further knowledge about the subject being found. We cannot move forward and learn the true natural properties of the universe so long as the materialistic belief system maintains a stranglehold on what is permitted to be declared as being scientific.

 

 

 

The above declaration is not helpful in a scientific discussion. It appears to me that you prefer discussing religion instead of cause. I am speaking about scientific knowledge, not dogmatic religions. You may have a problem with the name god, and I have a problem with the name electric charge. So what. We both used names. What is the scientific basis for insisting on one name over another?

 

James

 

Electric charge is not dogma, if someone comes up with a better idea it will be used, god cannot be questioned freely, if someone questions god they are immediately shunned or ridiculed and their ideas are banned. It's that simple.

[freeztar]

James,

 

Let's say that we assume god as the cause of qualities of the universe we have measured such as mass, electric charge, etc.

How should science go about determining god/cause?

What experiments should be performed?

 

If you can answer those questions seriously, then the most massive of revolutions in science, and theology, shall occur.

 

Until then, science deals with that which is capable of being rigorously tested. It's not dismissive, it's logical.

[James Putnam]

Electric charge is not dogma, if someone comes up with a better idea it will be used, ...

 

Electric charge is dogmatic. It is only a name. It is a substitute for knowledge. It is a tool of a belief system. It is not a scientific discovery. No one knows what is cause. You may give cause any name you wish, but, by this act, you have not participated in advancing scientific understanding. A better idea would be something that could predict and explain the existence of intelligent life.

 

James

[James Putnam]

James,

 

Let's say that we assume god as the cause of qualities of the universe we have measured such as mass, electric charge, etc.

How should science go about determining god/cause?

What experiments should be performed?

 

The name you use does not matter. The advancement of empirical science will go on. The point is that no one knows what is cause. We will continue to learn the effects of the cause for the operation of the universe. The most important of these effects are life and intelligence. What is their cause?

 

If you can answer those questions seriously, then the most massive of revolutions in science, and theology, shall occur.

 

I do not know how to answer your challenge about god/cause. In other words, I do not know what is cause. What I do know is that: No one knows what is cause. Any name you may prefer is not an improvement over the use of the name 'God'. We are not prevented from advancing our knowledge of empirical science just because we do not understand the nature of cause. We are not prevented from using what we have learned just because we do not understand what is cause. What we are prevented from doing is creating, changing, or understanding cause. We have what we are given. Science should not be in the business of claiming any knowledge about what is cause. When it does this, it is being unscientific.

 

Until then, science deals with that which is capable of being rigorously tested. It's not dismissive, it's logical.

 

It is only empirical evidence that can be rigorously tested. Theory can be tested for how well its equations fit the patterns of empirical evidence. Its equations should fit well because they are designed to fit well. It is when scientists attach theoretical interpretations to quantities in the equations that the damage is done. It can be seen in disunity, indefinable properties, and invented units of measurement. It is these invented units of measurement that lock the distortions of theory into the equations that model empirical evidence. If these theoretical interpretations are declared to be scientific truth, then that is a dogmatic dismissive act.

 

It is true that the mathematical equations that model the patterns of empirical evidence are logical. Theories may have their own logic, but that logic is not a part of the logical discoveries of empirical knowledge. Theoretical logic is a demonstration of the fact that logic can be a part of mythology. It may not be a common occurence, but it is definitely possible. If scientist do not know what is cause, then when they speculate about their belief of what may be cause, then they should not demand that the rest of us are not being scientific if we are not convinced by speculation.

 

James

[freeztar]

Electric charge is dogmatic. It is only a name.

 

From wiki:

Electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction.

 

It's a property of some subatomic particles which determines the ER interaction.

 

It is a substitute for knowledge.

 

Nope. It's a reproducibly observed property, and hence it is within the scientific body of knowledge.

 

No one knows what is cause.

 

Well, the dictionary does:

("cause" as a noun)

 

1 a: a reason for an action or condition : motive b: something that brings about an effect or a result c: a person or thing that is the occasion of an action or state; especially : an agent that brings something about d: sufficient reason <discharged for cause>

 

Science can match with definitions 1a, 1b, and 1d (1c, not so much).

 

You may give cause any name you wish, but, by this act, you have not participated in advancing scientific understanding.

 

Indeed.

 

A better idea would be something that could predict and explain the existence of intelligent life.

There's a scientific theory called Evolution. It's quite compelling!

[freeztar]

The name you use does not matter. The advancement of empirical science will go on. The point is that no one knows what is cause. We will continue to learn the effects of the cause for the operation of the universe. The most important of these effects are life and intelligence. What is their cause?

 

Ah, ok...

 

No, we don't know what was the 'cause' of life. Science has very compelling theories that postulate this, though we will most likely never know (as in fact) the truth.

 

I do not know how to answer your challenge about god/cause. In other words, I do not know what is cause. What I do know is that: No one knows what is cause. Any name you may prefer is not an improvement over the use of the name 'God'. We are not prevented from advancing our knowledge of empirical science just because we do not understand the nature of cause. We are not prevented from using what we have learned just because we do not understand what is cause. What we are prevented from doing is creating, changing, or understanding cause. We have what we are given. Science should not be in the business of claiming any knowledge about what is cause. When it does this, it is being unscientific.

 

It is only empirical evidence that can be rigorously tested. Theory can be tested for how well its equations fit the patterns of empirical evidence. Its equations should fit well because they are designed to fit well. It is when scientists attach theoretical interpretations to quantities in the equations that the damage is done. It can be seen in disunity, indefinable properties, and invented units of measurement. It is these invented units of measurement that lock the distortions of theory into the equations that model empirical evidence. If these theoretical interpretations are declared to be scientific truth, then that is a dogmatic dismissive act.

Indeed. Science does not accept a theory until it is met with falsifiable experiments. Even then, it is never accepted as truth (or at least, should not be).

 

It may not be a common occurence, but it is definitely possible. If scientist do not know what is cause, then when they speculate about their belief of what may be cause, then they should not demand that the rest of us are not being scientific if we are not convinced by speculation.

I agree.

 

I'm curious, what makes you feel this way?

[REASON]

James,

 

First of all, electric charge is a name given to an effect, not a cause as you have so aptly noted. So to substitute the the term "God" in this instance would be improper based on your own argument. I'm not aware that there is a dogmatic scientific name applied to the cause of electric charge in subatomic particles. But suggesting that using the term "God" is as acceptable as any term, where there is no current explanation, is presumptuous in my estimation.

 

What's interesting to me about your position is that it seems to become impossible to ever scientifically define a base cause for anything. As soon as someone attempts to so so, it is immediately classified as dogmatic or restrictive from your point of view and is dismissible. At least it appears that way to me. I conceed that I may either be reading too much or not enough into your statements.

 

I think one of the important points that has been made relative to the idea of naming undefined aspects of nature is that using the term "God" carries with it a whole lot of historical baggage. While you may have a clear understanding of what you mean when you apply the word "God" to something, most people are going to think you are referring to something completely different that is more reminiscent of their dogmatic religious programming. Something you probably aren't intending. This only leads to a breakdown in communication. So if you feel it is inconsequential what terminology is used to convey undefined causation, why should anyone choose the term "God" with all of it's confusing implications?

 

No matter how far you go with defining root cause, stopping at God suggests an unwillingness seek further refinement in understanding. So from the stand point of science, it is simply impossible to arrive at the conclusion of God. This isn't being closed-minded, it's the nature of the method.

 

God can only exist as a concept. Is that not acceptable?

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Electric charge is dogmatic. It is only a name.

 

From wiki:

Electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction.

It's a property of some subatomic particles which determines the ER interaction.

 

This is an example of believing to have fundamental knowledge about cause. What wiki should be reporting is that: Electric charge is the name attached to a series of patterns that appear to have the same unknown cause. It appears, at present, to be unrelated to at least three other groups of patterns, none of which seem, at this time,to be due to a single cause that we are able to identify by experimentation.

 

It is a substitute for knowledge.

 

Nope. It's a reproducibly observed property, and hence it is within the scientific body of knowledge.

 

Yes the patterns ascribed to electric charge are reproducible. That is what makes them useful to us. However, reproduction is not sufficient evidence to declare its cause is correctly identified.

 

No one knows what is cause.

 

Well, the dictionary does:

("cause" as a noun)

 

 

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

1 a: a reason for an action or condition : motive b: something that brings about an effect or a result c: a person or thing that is the occasion of an action or state; especially : an agent that brings something about d: sufficient reason <discharged for cause>

 

Science can match with definitions 1a, 1b, and 1d (1c, not so much).

 

Yes there is a reason and a something or a thing or an agent. But, what is the reason? What is the something? What is the thing? Or: What is the agent? The attachment of a name does not answer these questions.

 

You may give cause any name you wish, but, by this act, you have not participated in advancing scientific understanding.

Indeed.

 

A better idea would be something that could predict and explain the existence of intelligent life.

 

There's a scientific theory called Evolution. It's quite compelling!

 

We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life?

 

James

[Moontanman]

This is an example of believing to have fundamental knowledge about cause. What wiki should be reporting is that: Electric charge is the name attached to a series of patterns that appear to have the same unknown cause. It appears, at present, to be unrelated to at least three other groups of patterns, none of which seem, at this time,to be due to a single cause that we are able to identify by experimentation.

 

 

 

Yes the patterns ascribed to electric charge are reproducible. That is what makes them useful to us. However, reproduction is not sufficient evidence to declare its cause is correctly identified.

 

 

 

Yes there is a reason and a something or a thing or an agent. But, what is the reason? What is the something? What is the thing? Or: What is the agent? The attachment of a name does not answer these questions.

 

 

 

 

 

We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life?

 

James

 

James, what is the point of your argument? Is it that you think god is the cause of everything or that you don't think science is the way to find anything out? Or is it that you think science makes claims it cannot back up?

[Moontanman]

This is an example of believing to have fundamental knowledge about cause. What wiki should be reporting is that: Electric charge is the name attached to a series of patterns that appear to have the same unknown cause. It appears, at present, to be unrelated to at least three other groups of patterns, none of which seem, at this time,to be due to a single cause that we are able to identify by experimentation.

 

You are asking why the electron has a charge? the best I can tell you is if it didn't you wouldn't be here to ask the question. The universe is put together with certain knowable laws. The interaction of these laws results in the universe we see and live in. The cause is the fundamental laws of the universe. No one knows why the universe has the laws we have, all we know for sure is if they were different in even a small way we wouldn't be here to question them. For me that is a very unsatisfying answer but it's all we got at this time. I'm not sure if "why we have these laws" is a knowable thing.

 

Yes the patterns ascribed to electric charge are reproducible. That is what makes them useful to us. However, reproduction is not sufficient evidence to declare its cause is correctly identified.

 

I have never heard any one claim to know the cause, what's your point?

 

 

Yes there is a reason and a something or a thing or an agent. But, what is the reason? What is the something? What is the thing? Or: What is the agent? The attachment of a name does not answer these questions.

 

Can you prove there is a reason other than it's the way the laws of the universe cause the basic parts of matter to behave? Does there need to be a more basic cause of the charge?

 

 

 

We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life?

 

James

 

First of all DNA has no direction or purpose. On top of that DNA or evolution or what ever has no purpose or direction to form intelligent life. Chemicals when exposed to excess energy will push toward complexity. Some molecules can be pushed to more complex forms than others. Carbon and it's compounds can be pushed by energy to complexities that allow reproduction. Reproduction doesn't mean DNA or even RNA but they are the end result of energy building ever more complex molecules. No purpose, no ultimate goal. You are asking the wrong questions from an assumption that is not valid. Read Peter D. Wards really great book "Life Not As WE Know It" for a very detailed explanation of the chemical processes involved. If you do you will realize you are assuming a question that is totally invalid and makes no sense at all.