Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
How does that conclusion follow?
Science V Religion
- Thread starter Icarus2
- Start date
- Status
How does that conclusion follow?
He's not your guy, buddy.
Your sig makes my eyes go funny....
He's not your buddy, friend.
He's not your friend, mate.
Im not sure what the OP question is, but it got me thinking...
There is a fundamental difference between religion and science:
Religion is based on a fixed set of rules, often based on interpretations of semi accurate translations of various ancient texts.
Science can never be classed as a religion in the traditional sense, as its 'philosopy' can, and does change, depending on whatever makes the most logical sense. For example if something major is discovered, its not uncommon for entire chunks of what was previously thought to be true, to be re-wrtiiten and re theorised.
There is a fundamental difference between religion and science:
Religion is based on a fixed set of rules, often based on interpretations of semi accurate translations of various ancient texts.
Science can never be classed as a religion in the traditional sense, as its 'philosopy' can, and does change, depending on whatever makes the most logical sense. For example if something major is discovered, its not uncommon for entire chunks of what was previously thought to be true, to be re-wrtiiten and re theorised.
lol, not its ok, ive seen some of what he wrote on other threads so i knew not to read this one (just read the funny replies) and i wanted to insert my own southpark reference, cause lets face it, deyderkarjabs!!!
A true scientist can never blindly adhere to science, or anything else for that matter... especially in the sense of how a person can blindly subscribe to religion - it's a bit of an oxymoron, as a scientist will always ask, how? why? what is the meaning?
This is why science cannot be classed as religion, it's a fundamentaly different outlook.
To claim to follow both, to me is hypocritical, it can be nothing else.
Last edited:
The scientific method doesn't deal with questions of 'how', 'why' or 'what is the meaning' though. Those are the realms of the area of philosophy known as scientific realism, and you don't have to follow scientific realism to be a scientist, indeed many believe that scientific realism requires too many assumptions compared to the alternative of instrumentalism, which is just as good for the purpose for which the scientific method was designed.
The scientific method was developed to predict observed behaviour, based on past observations, and to propose a mechanism to achieve that prediction. Anything else isn't 'true' science.
It isn't though, especially given how many people want to use science.
It is only hypocritical if you believe in scientific realism (because realism is untestable, as it is emperically identical to instrumentalism), as that acts to exclude all possible mechanisms except the one proposed via the scientific method. It is far from the only interpretation of science, and most certainly requires faith.
- Status