Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

[Jonesboy]

It isn't as though nature's objects are neatly divided into 1) scientific wonders, and, 2) ordinary non-scientific tat. No one would say that exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

So it's a little presumptious for science proselytes to speak of "the wonders of science". When will they stop? Or much more to the point, when did they start?

Science is a modern myth, a non-thing. The proselytes started the myth of Science and the wonders of science as a retort, a sort of parting slap in the face to some Church following a local, internal astronomical disagreement on where the Sun and Earth were placed in the Solar system.

As for the myth of Science, myth is right, for there was never a time when we didn't do things methodically. We see things directly, not through a magical lens of revelation and wonderment. The revelation is our own, not some "Science's", and always has been.

 

[Resume]

It isn't as though nature's objects are neatly divided into 1) scientific wonders, and, 2) ordinary non-scientific tat. No one would say that exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

So it's a little presumptious for science proselytes to speak of "the wonders of science". When will they stop? Or much more to the point, when did they start?

Science is a modern myth, a non-thing. The proselytes started the myth of Science and the wonders of science as a retort, a sort of parting slap in the face to some Church following a local, internal astronomical disagreement on where the Sun and Earth were placed in the Solar system.

As for the myth of Science, myth is right, for there was never a time when we didn't do things methodically. We see things directly, not through a magical lens of revelation and wonderment. The revelation is our own, not some "Science's", and always has been.

Have you read any Hume yet?

 

[Twiler]

Exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

 

[JudeBrando]

To the extent that science is the rigorous pursuit of the truth,

both regardless of and allowing for the assumptions, biases, prejudices, indoctrinations, agendas, philosophies, and the inescapable failures and shortcomings inherent to all people, including those called scientists in their imperfect pursuit of science,

to the extent that science is a rigorous pursuit of the truth,
then science is but men's most basic steps at understanding The Physical Evidences of God.


For the sake of argument, if nothing else, even you the atheist, would you not be willing to agree?

that if there really is a God, then it is fair to say that;

to the extent that science is the rigorous pursuit of the truth,
Science is man's basic understanding of the Physical Evidences of God.

 

[JudeBrando]

In other words,

to the extent that the common interest is the rigorous pursuit of the truth,

The Wonders of Science

are glimpses of

The Wonders of God.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

In other words,

to the extent that the common interest is the rigorous pursuit of the truth,

The Wonders of Science

are glimpses of

The Wonders of God.

If indeed there is a God.

But since the existence of God (any god) has not been proven, it is useless to see science as a glimpse of the wonders of god.

 

[Tatyana]

Post-modernism is a pile o' pants.

Conceptual pants.

 

[ferd burfle]

It isn't as though nature's objects are neatly divided into 1) scientific wonders, and, 2) ordinary non-scientific tat. No one would say that exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

So it's a little presumptious for science proselytes to speak of "the wonders of science". When will they stop? Or much more to the point, when did they start?

Science is a modern myth, a non-thing. The proselytes started the myth of Science and the wonders of science as a retort, a sort of parting slap in the face to some Church following a local, internal astronomical disagreement on where the Sun and Earth were placed in the Solar system.

As for the myth of Science, myth is right, for there was never a time when we didn't do things methodically. We see things directly, not through a magical lens of revelation and wonderment. The revelation is our own, not some "Science's", and always has been.

Jonesboy, have you ever taken a flight on an airplane, propeller or jet? If so, why is it you entrusted yourself to this form of transportation?

ferd

 

[Oualawouzou]

As for the myth of Science, myth is right, for there was never a time when we didn't do things methodically.

Medieval medicine.

Fun times.

 

[Dancing David]

It isn't as though nature's objects are neatly divided into 1) scientific wonders, and, 2) ordinary non-scientific tat. No one would say that exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

So it's a little presumptious for science proselytes to speak of "the wonders of science". When will they stop? Or much more to the point, when did they start?

Science is a modern myth, a non-thing. The proselytes started the myth of Science and the wonders of science as a retort, a sort of parting slap in the face to some Church following a local, internal astronomical disagreement on where the Sun and Earth were placed in the Solar system.

As for the myth of Science, myth is right, for there was never a time when we didn't do things methodically. We see things directly, not through a magical lens of revelation and wonderment. The revelation is our own, not some "Science's", and always has been.

Prosletyzing where exactly?

Some sort of refeerence?

I don't remember that once at college or high school, are you talking about entertainment TV?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

We see things directly, not through a magical lens of revelation and wonderment. The revelation is our own, not some "Science's", and always has been.

Speaking of seeing things directly, it was the lenses produced by science which permitted us to see microbes. Which led us to modern medicine and a tripling of average lifespan. And half our children no longer die before the age of 5. Did you know that in Puritan Massachusetts, the average marriage lasted 12 years? Not divorce, you understand - puerperal fever.

 

[dafydd]

In other words,

to the extent that the common interest is the rigorous pursuit of the truth,

The Wonders of Science

are glimpses of

The Wonders of God.reality

ftfy

 

[dafydd]

Speaking of seeing things directly, it was the lenses produced by science which permitted us to see microbes. Which led us to modern medicine and a tripling of average lifespan. And half our children no longer die before the age of 5. Did you know that in Puritan Massachusetts, the average marriage lasted 12 years? Not divorce, you understand - puerperal fever.

Why don't all the woos just go and live in the middle of nowhere with no modern conveniences? They are such hypocrites.

 

[steve s]

No one would say that exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

So it's a little presumptious for science proselytes to speak of "the wonders of science". When will they stop? Or much more to the point, when did they start?

It was science that showed us those things. No one had ever seen the Whirlpool galaxy or the Eagle nebula until scientists invented telescopes powerful enough to see those things. Nobody knew there were volcanoes and geysers on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn until scientists sent spacecraft to the outer planets. Astrologers and homeopaths didn't do those things. We know about them thanks to science.

Steve S

 

[Lowpro]

It was science that showed us those things. No one had ever seen the Whirlpool galaxy or the Eagle nebula until scientists invented telescopes powerful enough to see those things. Nobody knew there were volcanoes and geysers on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn until scientists sent spacecraft to the outer planets. Astrologers and homeopaths didn't do those things. We know about them thanks to science.

Steve S

Well to be fair, from what I understand of the OP is that he's saying "science didn't make them" (black holes, elementary particles etc) only that science has explained them. So can we call a black hole a "Wonder of Science" or is it more accurate to say that our understanding of black holes is a "wonder of science" and is that worth distinguishing. It's like saying that science has some action in these things, where science really just explicates them.

For black holes, we should call it a "Wonder of Gravity" as an example, that's more fair.

 

[Dancing David]

I would like to point out it is teh wonders of technology that sometimes drive science, that and dumb luck, like Becquerel.

the technology of photo graphic plates and dumb luck... 49 years later Trinity goes BOOM

 

[Lowpro]

In other words,

to the extent that the common interest is the rigorous pursuit of the truth,

The Wonders of Science

are glimpses of

The Wonders of God.

You could say that actually and you'd be just as right as saying "The Wonders of Thor/Odin/FSM" and I don't mean to derail you, but you're only waxing poetry you aren't making an assertion based on evidence. Because of that, the value of your statement is zero, unless you can actually back up "God" moreso than any other claim to the existence of the universe (If it means anything, science has explained the origins of the universe far better than the Bible so if we were ACTUALLY weighing it out, the better statement that is more correct is "The wonders of Science are explicating the wonders of the fundamental forces in the initiation of the Universe" no God(s) required)

But you've heard that already. I almost wish you were born in India, because I want to see if you'd fervently believe in another God, and make the same argument but with Brahma instead.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little scientists. Wicked, tricksy, false! We kill science, take the precious... and we be the master!

 

[JudeBrando]

You could say that actually and you'd be just as right as saying "The Wonders of Thor/Odin/FSM" and I don't mean to derail you, but you're only waxing poetry you aren't making an assertion based on evidence. Because of that, the value of your statement is zero, unless you can actually back up "God" moreso than any other claim to the existence of the universe (If it means anything, science has explained the origins of the universe far better than the Bible so if we were ACTUALLY weighing it out, the better statement that is more correct is "The wonders of Science are explicating the wonders of the fundamental forces in the initiation of the Universe" no God(s) required)

All this changes nothing I have said. Consider it or not.

But you've heard that already. I almost wish you were born in India, because I want to see if you'd fervently believe in another God, and make the same argument but with Brahma instead.

I like Ravi Zacharias. Check him out for yourself if you are willing.

http://www.rzim.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

Bunch of clips:


"Four questions to answer in life - Dr. Ravi Zacharias"

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh...

If a star goes supernova in a far far away galaxy and no one is around, does it make a sound?

If a star goes supernova 10LY from us right now its an event which will not actually exist/happen because we can´t see it, right?

If god screams when and where no one is around, does he/she/it make a sound?

What's the reason for the post-modern dichotomy fetish?