Clearly you don’t understand how digital electronics work.
It’s magic. This is well known.
Known and documented.
Stones are inscribed and infused with anima. Sounds like magic.
traditional ecological knowledge has been orally peer reviewed for thousands of years, and it is becoming more integrated into the scientific method. there is a lot of spirituality and moral teachings in the oral history. That doesn’t make it less of a scientific approach. source: spending time in indigenous governed communities alongside government scientists
I disagree. I know plenty of people doing science who are religious. All the ones I know are credible and do good work. I mean even Einstein was religious.
even Einstein was religious.
No he wasn’t. When Einstein used the term god it was not as in a deity but a metaphor for how the universe works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_EinsteinThats like really just religion with extra steps.
Personally i prefer the term spiritual. But this concept of god as the way the universe is rather then a person has even been held by established catholics where god the persona is a symbol for the masses.
Many people forget that the centralized church in rome is an umbrella organisation for many different schools/philosophys/flavors/interpretations of Christianity.
For example the last pope was a jesuit. The first of this order to become pope and the main reason he did not wear the lavish clothes.
That’s why results have to be replicable. They’re credible to speak on their works which can be verified without biases or pretexts.
This is the strength of the scientific method. It’s using instrumental data, independent from the human.
No, he wasn’t
This is constantly being trotted out, but he was an atheist
The physicist who first theorized the big bang in 1931 : Georges Lemaitre, was a Catholic priest.
The founder of the science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic abbot.
I agree. There’s some weird stuff that nobody can explain. Some phenomenons may be science we haven’t discovered yet, and dismissing them all means they’ll never be investigated further.
But don’t be basing your day to day activities on them.
That’s not at all how a scientist looks at the unknown. There are plenty of things we can’t yet explain, and maybe we will not understand them in our lifetimes. But science rejects the notion that anything cannot be understood, or that supernatural explanations can handwave away discrepancies. Like, if you were doing an experiment, and you got anomalous results, so you concluded that a fairy probably changed reality for a moment, you aren’t really doing science anymore. Science requires the fundamental axiom that the universe is consistent and governed by natural laws. Failures of those natural laws to predict outcomes is not a violation of the natural laws of the universe, but instead represent incomplete or incorrect understanding of them.
Which is not to say that you’re wrong about people. Humans can simultaneously hold incongruous thoughts. Some scientists can and do hold supernatural beliefs, it’s just that when they do, they aren’t doing science. This isn’t like saying they aren’t true Scotsmen. It’s more like a baker who is baking bread with a chisel and a block of wood. Their profession is still baking, so they are still bakers, but carving a loaf of wood is not really baking, and the result is not really bread.
I never did like that one ep of House MD. Same reason I think DP9 was trash. You just don’t do that crap man.
Every good scientist believed in something supernatural at least once, then they tried to proof it (black holes f.e.). Atheism is unscientific. You can’t proof the non existence of god(s), therefore ruling out every possible of something supernatural is dumb.
How many dimensions are there again?
Has every scientist that believes in the string theory lost credibility?
Every good scientist believed in something supernatural at least once, then they tried to proof it (black holes f.e.).
Science deals with things that are natural.
If a black hole were assumed to be supernatural there’d be nothing to prove. The “then they tried to prove it” forces scientists to make theories which are falsifiable (ie in the natural world).
If there’s no test we can think of to disprove the idea, it’s not a scientific idea.
Atheism is unscientific. You can’t proof the non existence of god(s),
Theism is unscientific. You can’t prove the existence of god(s).
A-theism means absence of theism.
Atheists aren’t necessarily claiming to be able to prove god doesn’t exist, they’re saying they don’t believe in a particular theism.
therefore ruling out every possible of something supernatural is dumb.
Agreed. Gnostic atheism seems dumb to me too.
That’s why I’m agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in God, but I dont know if I’m right or not.
There could be a god, and seeing evidence of such I’d change my mind.
How many dimensions are there again?
We don’t know.
Depends what you mean by dimension as well. Spacetime seems to have 4, 3 space and 1 time.
Spacetime also appears to be an illusion. Whatever the answer is needs to be informed by quantum physical mechanisms we don’t fully understand yet.
Again, agnostic covers the “I don’t know part”.
Has every scientist that believes in the string theory lost credibility?
Basically yeah.
Checkout this video, Dr. Collier covers a lot of points I was feeling as well.
String theorists lied to everyone and massively overstated the evidence that it was true when it was still a young developing model.
Now that it’s become a dead-end it’s tough to take back those promises.
What’s with all the fighting over supernatural vs science lately? First of all, science is a process of discovery, not a thing. Scientists are the people discovering (or not).
Is this super natural?
No, we’re not referring to your beloved Atari Pong paddles – we’re talking about your brain. The EPOC uses a headset that actually picks up on your brain waves. These brain waves can tell the system what you want to do in your virtual reality. In other words, you think “lift,” and a virtual rock actually levitates on the screen.
Lately? You mean, like, since the dawn of recorded history? Because I suppose on a geological scale, you could call that “lately.”
Also, in response to the rest of your comment, what?
Is it supernatural to be able to read people’s minds with a video game?
In the example given, no. The science of it is well understood.
No. Absolutely not in the least, so long as it is actually occurring. An inability to understand a phenomenon doesn’t transform it into magic. The supernatural is mutually exclusive to what is real, and what is real is discovered and understood via science.
Potato-potato. Seriously, this is all just semantics at this point. Electricity is PFM and is in our bodies. We now know that the US government says there are aliens among us. Life is crazy and can’t be put into tidy little boxes that say science and non-science. Plus, I love mysteries, as well as probably most scientists do. That’s the fun discovery part.
There are not aliens among us, but if there were aliens among us, it would not be a supernatural phenomenon. I disagree completely that things can’t be put into science and non-science boxes. Science is when you look for the answers, and non-science is when you make them up. Let’s take UFOs for example.
There’s a blob in the sky. We don’t know what it is. It is flying. It has some mass. That is, by definition, an Unitentified Flying Object. It moves in ways that seem impossible, and then suddenly vanished.
Science is looking at the evidence and trying to form a testable hypothesis. Perhaps it was an optical illusion? If so, we could probably recreate the conditions and replicate the illusion. Perhaps it was a human craft that has capabilities that were previously unknown to us? If so, we could probably describe a theoretical mechanism that could move or disappear the same way. Can we prove it was a craft? Can we measure accurately its behavior? Are the instruments and witnesses reliable?
The best bit about all of this is that any of them could be true whether or not aliens exist. Once you decide that, since nothing on earth can explain it, there must be aliens with some sufficiently advanced technology, you have abandoned science altogether. Why not fairies or ghosts? Maybe it was a magician or a superhero with mutant powers? Once you abandon the feasible to assume the supernatural, you leave the door open to any supernatural explanation. Maybe the reason we haven’t found bigfoot is that he has an invisible flying vehicle that defies gravity.
Maybe aliens exist. Certainly I believe that life can exist on other planets. There may even be intelligent life capable of interstellar travel. I hope we find evidence of it someday.
It strains credulity to suggest that in all of spacetime, our sentient spacefaring species would overlap with another without any measurable evidence. The evidence we do have does not support the logical leap from Unidentified to Extraterrestrial.
There are conflicting reports:
UFOs are Real: What the Experts Said to Congress
What is hilarious about this to me, is no one cares. Regardless, ignore the alien stuff and let’s talk about reading other peoples thoughts by hoking up electrodes.
Some people seem to like using “science” as a counter religion. Instead of being smug about believing in a god, they’re just smug about how much they don’t believe in one.
It does nothing but divide people more and I’ve honestly started questioning whether it’s all good faith or some kind of psy-op to divide the left a bit more.
It’s not a psy-op, this has been going on for as long as I can remember. If anything, it’s regaining the traction it once had before the atheist community imploded with sexism and large taking heads fell out of favor.
Some people seem to like using “science” as a counter religion
But it is a counter to religion at the most fundamental level: The scientific method sets out to find answers and the religious have answers and don’t care to investigate. One is based on confidence (belief based on previous evidence) and the other in faith (belief without evidence). And I could go on. The two are irreconcilable unless you’re willing to suspend your beliefs when dealing with one or the other, which is precisely what religious scientists do.
It is not a “counter to religion”. Religion and science are both ways to find explanations for things, but they’re not a binary nor even on the same spectrum. They both have aspects to them with no parallel from the other. Science doesn’t define morality and religion doesn’t engineer buildings for example.
I said “counter religion” because people treat it like a stand in for religion. Science fundamentally doesn’t declare truth. Scientific theories can and have been wrong, yet some people act as though it’s unquestionable and anything not scientifically proven isn’t true. Those people also tend to really identify with believing they’re right, almost exactly like any smug religious person.
I do mean that science is a direct counter to religion and without having to treat it as a religion. But if anyone is treating science as a religion they don’t fundamentally understand science. The only way science can replace religion afaik is in the feeling of awe and wonder that it inspires. We have studies of that.
Science fundamentally doesn’t declare truth.
But it does, and it goes beyond that: it makes predictions. That’s the real power of science. Without having an accurate model of reality you can’t make an informed prediction, which means the majority of its proposals must be grounded in fundamental truths about the world. Also, don’t forget science is integrative unlike religion, meaning a lot of scientific principles in one area will inevitably pop up in other areas without conflict.
yet some people act as though it’s unquestionable and anything not scientifically proven isn’t true
I’ve yet to meet someone like that. Are you sure you’re not misinterpreting their stance? I can think of times when I was in that position and the other person thought I was being a scientific zealot simply because I wasn’t allowing them to use a weak justification for their point, which is fair if you’re claiming things without evidence.
My partner and I were just discussing that. What is the end game on this? They’re using people’s thoughts to control video games, that’s pretty fucking cool, but also something that is considered woo. I don’t really care in the end, but they sure are downvoting the shit out of it.
Edit: Before you’re downvotes start showering in, I agree with you that it’s probably meant to divide. I was sort of venting at you. Sorry about that.
