Sorry, but there is no point in discussing with you as you obviously prefer to disregard everything that has happened during and after postmodernistic philosophy.Originally Posted by (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @ April 07 2004,02:11)Give me an example of something that cannot be found out through scientific means that is true or exists.Originally Posted by (brgnorway @ April 06 2004,23:56)Myself I am an atheist! However:
I'm a bit tired of people a dogmatically preaching about science over religion. The points made are always consisting of arguments embedded in a "rational scientific way" - and many of you fall for it without thinking criticaly about what science really is!
In a historic perspective science have largely surpased religion as an explanatory ideology over religion in our western society. People easily accept scientific explanations and the way they do it resembles early naive positivism. Yet they don't know what science really is! Is science truth? Is science a pattern of truth waiting to be uncovered? Is it universal or is it relative in any way?
The answer is a huge NO! Science is not truth and it can never be! Science is only a process which establishes paradigms - and the nature of science is that paradigms are paradigms only as long as they are not "falsified" or proven unguilty by a new paradigm. So science is not true, it's not a static "something" - but relative and dynamic. Still, some people believe in it like it's the only rational thing to do - even if science fails to give us "all the answers" .
To those of you preaching the final truth of science - maybe you should go and read up on Paul Feyerabend and really understand that science is not only problematic because of failing correlations between "the real world" and the percepted or represented, but please do also discover that science is also all about politicoeconomy and the effects of the lack of resources. Paul Feyerabend is a good starting point.
Yes, science is not an ideology. ***No, there is nothing that exists which cannot be discovered by thinking and experimenting on it in a rational manner.
Any other 'way of knowing' is not as good. ***Period.
Read 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins) to find out why this argument of yours is jibberish.
There is no need for religion.
ummm. No. ***I certainly don't, and I'll bet denoir, Kuja and the rest of the people here who think somewhat rationally do not.Originally Posted by [bQuote[/b] ]The funny thing is that when most of us praise the medical science etc. we still crave for alternative treatment rejected by all "sane" medical communities.
Alternative medicine does not work. ***If it worked, it'd just be medicine. ***Any treatment that results in people getting better without merely being a placebo (placebos are slightly more effective than nothing at all for some reason) will become medicine. ***
Name a need that involves religion. ***A need that you think I'd have.Originally Posted by [bQuote[/b] ]However, in a functionalistic perspective one could very well say that science is our the new black - it has become our religion - yet it doesn't fulfill our needs!
That is not what science is for. ***You are demonstrating a very naive miscomprehension of science (or should I say, this guy in your book you quoted that from).
If you have a need, science can help you find the best way to fulfil it. ***It is not a tool for fulfilling needs, though - its just the best way to find things out.
Maybe you should have lived before the Great War when everything was progress and dandy.
Have a great life and long live positivism!