Believe in science & ethics
-
I think this is a very dangerous statement to make.Originally posted by PRP:About Galileo,he believed in science but the Church didn't.
Are you telling me that the Church does not believe in Science AT ALL?
Decades ago, when someone raised the idea of traveling to space, others laugh at his ridiculous notion.
Thomas Edison would never have successfully invented the light bulb if he had given up his attempts after 1000+ times.
Those were the limitations of Science THEN.
What makes you think that what Science cannot prove now, means they do not exist?
I have already given a definition of Science, and it is human-driven. As such, Science can ALWAYS be wrong. So why don't you talk about your own opinions, instead of repeatedly asking for others? -
I have said that a finding or an opinion which is wrong is not science.Originally posted by soul_rage:I think this is a very dangerous statement to make.
Are you telling me that the Church does not believe in Science AT ALL?
Decades ago, when someone raised the idea of traveling to space, others laugh at his ridiculous notion.
Thomas Edison would never have successfully invented the light bulb if he had given up his attempts after 1000+ times.
Those were the limitations of Science THEN.
What makes you think that what Science cannot prove now, means they do not exist?
I have already given a definition of Science, and it is human-driven. As such, Science can ALWAYS be wrong. So why don't you talk about your own opinions, instead of repeatedly asking for others?
Just because there are wrong scientific finding or opinion,u don't believe in science?What do u think about those scientific discoveries or theories which are right? -
Relativity is one otherwise, we would be causing a blackhole to appear.Originally posted by PRP:I have said that a finding or an opinion which is wrong is not science.
Just because there are wrong scientific finding or opinion,u don't believe in science?What do u think about those scientific discoveries or theories which are right? -
and how do you know a finding or opinion is wrong when you still do not know its wrong yet?Originally posted by PRP:I have said that a finding or an opinion which is wrong is not science.
Just because there are wrong scientific finding or opinion,u don't believe in science?What do u think about those scientific discoveries or theories which are right?
A bit of a chicken and egg issue isn't it?
Science has always been about trial and research and trial and research. What's correct today, may not be correct several years later.
Beware of how you assume things, like for instance, your dangerous statement that the Church does not believe in Science. For example, I never did say I DO NOT believe in Science. The more correct approach I adopt is, I never believe BLINDLY in Science, I am always open to the idea that Science can be wrong.
Again, you have not replied to my question to you. What is YOUR definition of Science? As far as I am concerned, Science is HUMAN-DRIVEN, and therefore there's no such thing as Science exists before Man. Without Man, there is no Science, because no one can work on discoveries and research to produce all that we have now.
If Science cannot prove that Ghosts exist now, does it mean ghosts don't exist? -
Please elaborate. One-liners do not contribute to this threadOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Relativity is one otherwise, we would be causing a blackhole to appear.
And I am interested to understand why you bring blackholes into the picture, because I have an intense interest in blackholes -
Science is Man's way of explaining things. So I have to agree with you that without Man, there is No Science.Originally posted by soul_rage:Science has always been about trial and research and trial and research. What's correct today, may not be correct several years later.
Again, you have not replied to my question to you. What is YOUR definition of Science? As far as I am concerned, Science is HUMAN-DRIVEN, and therefore there's no such thing as Science exists before Man. Without Man, there is no Science, because no one can work on discoveries and research to produce all that we have now.
If Science cannot prove that Ghosts exist now, does it mean ghosts don't exist?
Also, one thing we have to keep in mind is that Science is fallible. There were periods of time where Science was thought to be so advanced that there was nothing left to discover. Now we know that that isn't true.
Science is a great way of explaining things. However, Science must always be treated with caution. -
We need to bring 2 main arguments into perspective, which I see is the gist of this thread on ScienceOriginally posted by Othello_Red:Science is Man's way of explaining things. So I have to agree with you that without Man, there is No Science.
Also, one thing we have to keep in mind is that Science is fallible. There were periods of time where Science was thought to be so advanced that there was nothing left to discover. Now we know that that isn't true.
Science is a great way of explaining things. However, Science must always be treated with caution.
1) Things that Today's Science can explain
2) Things that Today's Science cannot explain
Notice my use of the word "Today"
For (1), even if Science can explain NOW, we may find out that it is incorrect sometime down the road later, because Science is all about research and trials. Discoveries being announced to the world is done only after some intense trial and error has been performed (and subject to the commercial and pragmatic limitations of society), but that doesn't mean that it is 100% error-free. We all know there are many announced discoveries that were proven to be incorrect sometime later.
For (2), things that Science cannot explain, doesn't mean it cannot be done, or it doesn't exist. For example, ghosts. Who dare say with 100% certainty that ghosts do not exist because science cannot prove it? Also, many of the great researchers of the past had to struggle with their repeated failures, before finally being able to prove or perform something.
So if they had given up inventing the light bulb, for instance, would the believers of Today's Science then say that its not possible to create the light bulb?
Science is THE way to explain MANY things, but its important for one to keep an open mind in order to understand things beyond Science's explanation. -
The easiest way to show that long held scientific beliefs can be wrong, even after hundreds of years of testing is the theory of gravity.
Unbeknownst to most, the Newtonian theory of gravity we all learn in school is flawed. It was unchallenged for hundreds of years because the technology to discover those flaws was not developed yet.
If I'm not mistaken, the flaw in Newton's theory of gravity became glaringly obivous when blackholes were discovered. Einstein was the one who came up with a more complete theory then could explain that, and even then there are still things not covered under his theory. -
Simply said, as suns and stars die, they collapse into themselves. At a slower rate, they simply form pulsars but if they exceed chandradaskar's constant, they collapse so fast that they warp space-time, hence forming black holes. If we use fusion nuclear reactors which work similarly to nuclear reactions in stars and suns then get ready for a black hole to replace earth.Originally posted by soul_rage:Please elaborate. One-liners do not contribute to this thread
And I am interested to understand why you bring blackholes into the picture, because I have an intense interest in blackholes -
I know about the formation of black holes. But I highly doubt Earth will be replaced by a black hole. More likely, Earth will be destroyed when the sun's exterior explodes in its final stage.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Simply said, as suns and stars die, they collapse into themselves. At a slower rate, they simply form pulsars but if they exceed chandradaskar's constant, they collapse so fast that they warp space-time, hence forming black holes. If we use fusion nuclear reactors which work similarly to nuclear reactions in stars and suns then get ready for a black hole to replace earth.
What I am more interested about is
"Relativity is one otherwise, we would be causing a blackhole to appear."
I do not understand your statement "relativity is one otherwise" Otherwise what? The previous poster din make much sense, doesn't mean you must be like him. -
Science: Knowledge arranged in a system,esp knowledge obtained by observation and testing of facts. --from a dictionary
So any opinion or finding which is not a fact can't be included as science. -
What is a fact?Originally posted by PRP:Science: Knowledge arranged in a system,esp knowledge obtained by observation and testing of facts. --from a dictionary
So any opinion or finding which is not a fact can't be included as science.
How do you know for sure a fact is a fact?
A fact is an absolute truth. How do you know that what you know now is the absolute truth?
And thanks, you have confirmed from your own posting that Science is human-driven. Observations and testing are all performed by humans. Without humans, there is no Science.
So that already kill off someone here saying that Science has been here long before Man was here. -
What kind of nuclear reactors do we have? Theory of Relativity help predicted the dangers of fusion reactors...Originally posted by soul_rage:I know about the formation of black holes. But I highly doubt Earth will be replaced by a black hole. More likely, Earth will be destroyed when the sun's exterior explodes in its final stage.
What I am more interested about is
"Relativity is one otherwise, we would be causing a blackhole to appear."
I do not understand your statement "relativity is one otherwise" Otherwise what? The previous poster din make much sense, doesn't mean you must be like him. -
Er.. What??!Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:What kind of nuclear reactors do we have? Theory of Relativity help predicted the dangers of fusion reactors...
Relativity predicts the dangers of fusion reactors?!?!?
I would be more worried about containing the plasma, and some of the high velocity neutrons which are capable of irradiating the containment vessel, than worry about relativity.
In fact, it is the fusion in the stars that is keeping the stars from collapsing. -
Irradating the containment vessel? The vessel may be consumed by the reaction itself.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Er.. What??!
Relativity predicts the dangers of fusion reactors?!?!?
I would be more worried about containing the plasma, and some of the high velocity neutrons which are capable of irradiating the containment vessel, than worry about relativity.
In fact, it is the fusion in the stars that is keeping the stars from collapsing. -
That only happens only if the electromagnetic fields which contain the plasma fail. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely they will escape the containment fields.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Irradating the containment vessel? The vessel may be consumed by the reaction itself. -
I think Newton's theroy of gravity is still fundamentally correct.Secondary students learn it nowadays,don't they?Originally posted by Othello_Red:The easiest way to show that long held scientific beliefs can be wrong, even after hundreds of years of testing is the theory of gravity.
Unbeknownst to most, the Newtonian theory of gravity we all learn in school is flawed. It was unchallenged for hundreds of years because the technology to discover those flaws was not developed yet.
If I'm not mistaken, the flaw in Newton's theory of gravity became glaringly obivous when blackholes were discovered. Einstein was the one who came up with a more complete theory then could explain that, and even then there are still things not covered under his theory. -
Soul_rage,
Science is correct & believable.Not all human being can be trusted.We can't trust every person but science is meant to be true.
Would my above opinion end our debate? -
To be more precise, Newton's Theory of Gravity is an approximation at smaller dimensions and lower velocities. At larger spatial dimensions and relativistic speeds, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity comes to the fore.Originally posted by PRP:I think Newton's theroy of gravity is still fundamentally correct.Secondary students learn it nowadays,don't they? -
Leave it to the physics experts.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:To be more precise, Newton's Theory of Gravity is an approximation at smaller dimensions and lower velocities. At larger spatial dimensions and relativistic speeds, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity comes to the fore.
I barely scrapped through.
Biology used to be my forte, but I haven't been keeping up with developments lately. -
Pls answer: Is Newton's Theory of Gravity still true?Do secodary school students learn and use the theory?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:To be more precise, Newton's Theory of Gravity is an approximation at smaller dimensions and lower velocities. At larger spatial dimensions and relativistic speeds, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity comes to the fore. -
It's true within certain limits. Calculating the gravitational attraction between two masses is ok enough, but when you are talking about precision, relativity has to be used.Originally posted by PRP:Pls answer: Is Newton's Theory of Gravity still true?Do secodary school students learn and use the theory?
It's fine enough to teach students this, but when you get to more precise calculations, you have to use relativity.
In any case, you certainly cannot teach relativity to kids. The math is hedious. I only so far scratched a little of the surface. -
Not in Arts?Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Yeah. For me I believe in Science.
-
Science MAY BE correct & believable.Originally posted by PRP:Soul_rage,
Science is correct & believable.Not all human being can be trusted.We can't trust every person but science is meant to be true.
Would my above opinion end our debate?
IF you can't trust people, and people are the drivers of science, how can you say Science is correct with so much absoluteness?
If you are such a firm believer of Science, then you should not forget the basics of logic Mathematics
1) Your statement says Science is 100% CORRECT
2) Not all human beings can be trusted
3) Science is HUMAN-DRIVEN
4) Since NOT ALL human beings can be trusted, THEREFORE Science CANNOT be 100% CORRECT and BELIEVABLE
Therefore your statement 1) cannot hold true. -
And of course, the ambient environment around has the appropiate energy levels for the reaction to continue.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:That only happens only if the electromagnetic fields which contain the plasma fail. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely they will escape the containment fields.