Believe in science & ethics
-
What exactly did I say about Gazelle? I hope you are not going to lie about that too when you tell us what exactly what I said about Gazelle and how it is relevant.Originally posted by soul_rage:Interesting, after what you said about Gazelle, your behavior is somewhat like him.
Calling others stupid (whether is it at me or others is irrelevant) is not insulting others?
For your questions, I have already replied in the previous posting, so I am puzzled why you keep harping on and on.
Or are you doing something Gazelle loves to do, diverting attention away from your mistakes, which you are not gracious enough to admit?
I asked to you to answer a couple of simple questions and instead of answering you talk about Gazelle.
Don't think you can escape/hide and run from answering the following questions:
BTW why did you feel the need to "encouraging everyone to remember that science is not 100% foolproof"? Were you fooled into thinking that science is 100% foolproof? Why were you so foolish as to believe that any human enterprise can be 100% foolproof? This is so basic. You should not think that just because you were fooled, others similarly are. Not everyone are fools.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and so what is it that you proposed to replace the "NOT 100% foolproof science"?
If you cannot then what's the point of telling people that? (that it is not foolproof)
and try invalidating this:
Even though it is not "NOT 100% foolproof " you have to trust scientific findings instead of the delusions in your own head simply because it is better than the delusions in your head. -
sigh... why do you not understand simple English?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You did not add the words ALL in those sentences? Liar (in that case, not that you are always lying)
Case 1:
If I QUOTED your statement, and ADDED a word "ALL", then yes, its something I should not do, and I will accept that graciously.
Case 2:
This is what I did, I am saying "You are saying", and wrote down my understanding of what you said. That is DIFFERENT, and is not an addition of the word "ALL", coz its my understanding of your statement.
If you had taken GP (General Paper), you will understand the difference. Do you or do you NOT understand the difference between a quotation and an understanding of a statement?
If you don't understand Cases 1 and 2, there is nothing else further to discuss with you, coz its useless to talk if you don't understand the simple parts of English -
And I think its enough.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:BTW why did you feel the need to "encouraging everyone to remember that science is not 100% foolproof"? Were you fooled into thinking that science is 100% foolproof? Why were you so foolish as to believe that any human enterprise can be 100% foolproof? This is so basic. You should not think that just because you were fooled, others similarly are. Not everyone are fools.
You have not added anything of use into the discussion except to go about like a mad man shouting.
I have already answered your questions in my previous postings. If you can't find it just like Gazelle always cannot find things he doesn't want to see, then so be it.
For a person who cannot understand simple English fully, its really sad to see you go about insisting you are right. If you are not gracious enough to admit it that you have made the statement implying "All humans are stupid", then there's nothing much left to speak with your kind.
By the way, your postings are slowly changing to try to mask your initial weaknesses. Am glad to see Darwin's evolution happening to you, at least that's a consolation -
Gosh you made two long post of rubbish without answering the questions put to you.
You need not be so ashamed that you have no answer to the questions, it is better to admit your stupidity than to try to mask it. -
U go ahead to beleive your 6th sense, i believe few persons would follow you.The majority of the ppl believe science & scientific principles.Originally posted by soul_rage:good that you accept this.
All I want to say is, always keep an open mind. Science is a good tool to explain many things in this universe, but its too limited to be considered the holy grail. If one insists on always having a scientific explanation before accepting that a certain thing exists, then he would be depending too much on his 5 senses, and closing off his 6th sense, which is the most powerful sense of all.
Remember the korean scientist whom fabricated data on cloning. If he was not caught, then this would have been the 'truth' for as long as he was not caught. -
- edited -Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Gosh you made two long post of rubbish without answering the questions put to you.
You need not be so ashamed that you have no answer to the questions, it is better to admit your stupidity than to try to mask it.
after thinking about it, there's no need to argue with you any further.
Yes, I am stupid as with all others. You are the smartest guy of all
There's no need to argue so much. After all, each of us live our own lives -
Few people would follow is true.Originally posted by PRP:U go ahead to beleive your 6th sense, i believe few persons would follow you.The majority of the ppl believe science & scientific principles.
Just as in Singapore, few people dare venture out overseas. Few people dare vote against the PAP. Few people dare to live the dream.
Its how we are all brought up. To live in the box and not question it. No one should be blamed. After all, even our leaders lead by example by showing that only money matters, nothing else.
There's no need to argue any further over this. Obviously at the end of the day, what's the point over all of these? Few of us would admit defeat or agree with the other (at least I am proud to say that I dare to agree with others if they make a point) -
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. -Albert Einstein
A theory is something nobody believes, except the person who made it. An experiment is something everybody believes, except the person who made it. -Albert Einstein -
More sayings by Einstein....but do not always take them at face-value because he is known to be a person with a whimsical sense of humour...Originally posted by (human):I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. -Albert Einstein
A theory is something nobody believes, except the person who made it. An experiment is something everybody believes, except the person who made it. -Albert Einstein
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
- Albert Einstein
I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it.
- Albert Einstein
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein
It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
- Albert Einstein
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein -
What Einstein has to say about mysticism and the supernatural....
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
Albert Einstein
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.
Albert Einstein
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
Albert Einstein
To Einstein, an unquestioning belief in "supernatural answers" is simplistic and "a symptom of weakness and confusion" -
according to some christian sayings, end of the world is when people start to speak the same language. if this is true, we are less than 5 years away because the US military will invent a device to translate in realtime between languages. the motivations for this invention is the need to communicate with the iraqis. -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
If Science cannot provide answers to a certain thing or phenomenon, is that considered supernatural or superstition?
[b]What Einstein has to say about mysticism and the supernatural....
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
Albert Einstein
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.
Albert Einstein
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
Albert Einstein
To Einstein, an unquestioning belief in "supernatural answers" is simplistic and "a symptom of weakness and confusion" [/b] -
It goes into the large list of many other things science cannot explain.Originally posted by soul_rage:If Science cannot provide answers to a certain thing or phenomenon, is that considered supernatural or superstition?
------
Science is merely how mankind, with its extreme egoism, explains and structure nature.
Just like how we are supposed to have souls, while other living beings do not, and how we're supposed to "live forever".
Egoism, really. -
That's my question to the group here who believes intensely in Science.Originally posted by binarynwitz:It goes into the large list of many other things science cannot explain.
------
Science is merely how mankind, with its extreme egoism, explains and structure nature.
Just like how we are supposed to have souls, while other living beings do not, and how we're supposed to "live forever".
Egoism, really.
Are they saying that anything that Science cannot explain = superstition, rubbish, lies, unreal, supernatural? -
How does one determine if it is an illusion, a delusion or a fact? Evidence, proof... if you cannot provide the evidence and proof, then you have nothing to say.
Otherwise anyone can say anything they want and if enough people believe them, it becomes a fact? Consider that the whole world believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Consider he fact that people used to believe that a Goddess resides in the moon.
After so many hundreds of years of the scientific method, we still have people that accept as truth things without evidence and proof. -
If science can't explain certan phenomenon,then just humbly accept that human being still can't understand it.Originally posted by soul_rage:That's my question to the group here who believes intensely in Science.
Are they saying that anything that Science cannot explain = superstition, rubbish, lies, unreal, supernatural?
Superstition is of course unscientific belief.If one wants to believe it,he might believe wrong thing.For u,u want ppl to doubt on science.Then do u want ppl to believe in superstion, 6th sense? -
science: it is human's understanding of nature.
what is mass?
What is time?
what is space?
we seek the answers by using theoretical constructions and experiments to prove.
most of our noble prize winners made their discoveries by chance.
what is science's limitations? science itself is human's creations. its limitations is human's own limitations.
Do you trust humans' understanding of the universe?
We are living on earth. the fact that we have our forests, sea and blue sky make us forget that the real nature out there in the universe is all too violent. Our science is mainly based on human's understanding of earth's nature. But earth's nature is not representative of the universe at large. The universe is much more violent. in other words, one can expect human's science starts to break down once it is placed to test in the true rigors of the universe which is true.
there is much more out there which we dont understand. we only think we are intelligent beings. -
if our science is so good and reliable, then why is our mother earth dying from man-made pollution etc ? -
nope, again I din say thatOriginally posted by PRP:If science can't explain certan phenomenon,then just humbly accept that human being still can't understand it.
Superstition is of course unscientific belief.If one wants to believe it,he might believe wrong thing.For u,u want ppl to doubt on science.Then do u want ppl to believe in superstion, 6th sense?
I just ask a question
What do you term anything (a phenomenon, dark matter in the universe, black hole, strange happenings in a house that is unexplained) that cannot be explained by Science?
Coz it seems to me that you and Andrew have the mentality that anything that cannot be explained by Science is a superstition.
Don't argue that Science can explain black holes or dark matter. We only know these things exist, but we cannot explain fully what entails in the black hole or what exactly is dark matter. -
there was a recent article by an astronomer, who was saying that Science can only explain about 2% of things in the universe.Originally posted by Daddy!!:science: it is human's understanding of nature.
what is mass?
What is time?
what is space?
we seek the answers by using theoretical constructions and experiments to prove.
most of our noble prize winners made their discoveries by chance.
what is science's limitations? science itself is human's creations. its limitations is human's own limitations.
Do you trust humans' understanding of the universe?
We are living on earth. the fact that we have our forests, sea and blue sky make us forget that the real nature out there in the universe is all too violent. Our science is mainly based on human's understanding of earth's nature. But earth's nature is not representative of the universe at large. The universe is much more violent. in other words, one can expect human's science starts to break down once it is placed to test in the true rigors of the universe which is true.
there is much more out there which we dont understand. we only think we are intelligent beings.
And these die-hard supporters of Science insist that if Science cannot explain something (98%), its not true. -
To the delusional:
Don't think you can escape/hide and run from answering the following questions:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and so what is it that you proposed to replace the "NOT 100% foolproof science"?
If you cannot then what's the point of telling people that? (that it is not foolproof)
and try invalidating this:
Even though it is not "NOT 100% foolproof " you have to trust scientific findings instead of the delusions in your own head simply because it is better than the delusions in your head. -
Consider Galileo since you want to bring up the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:How does one determine if it is an illusion, a delusion or a fact? Evidence, proof... if you cannot provide the evidence and proof, then you have nothing to say.
Otherwise anyone can say anything they want and if enough people believe them, it becomes a fact? Consider that the whole world believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Consider he fact that people used to believe that a Goddess resides in the moon.
After so many hundreds of years of the scientific method, we still have people that accept as truth things without evidence and proof.
Suppose you are a scientific person during his time, and for that entire period, you believe that the sun revolves around the earth is A FACT. Would you have believed Galileo's theory then, when he wasn't able to provide enough proof of his theory? -
There was no "scientific method" during his time. It would be quite impossible to find someone similar to a "modern scientific person". At the most, you can find "philosophers".Originally posted by soul_rage:Consider Galileo since you want to bring up the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Suppose you are a scientific person during his time, and for that entire period, you believe that the sun revolves around the earth is A FACT. Would you have believed Galileo's theory then, when he wasn't able to provide enough proof of his theory?
As for the Galileo's case, who says he wasn't able to provide enough proof?
BTW No decent scientific person will ever say that anything is a FACT
The will only say that the evidence shows that "... , ..." The proof is "... , ..."
In the Galileo example, a modern scientific person will ask Galileo to produce his evidence / proof that the earth revolves around the sun. They would then study Galileo's proof and evidence and come to the conclusion that indeed, Galileo provides convincing evidence and proof that the earth revolves around the sun.
You are using your own delusional mind to try to tell us what a "scientific person" is and "is not" and how a scientific minded person thinks.
For you to go back to the dark ages and believe in the delusions and illusions in your head (believing in things when there is no evidence for it / believing in things where people sought and did not find any evidence for) is just lame, to put it mildly. -
Nay, you are arguing on hindsight. You cannot use "Modern scientific person" becoz there is no such person in that time. It's like you asking people from the year 3030 to come back to 2007 now to ask you to provide scientific standards OF THEIR TIME to convince them. Your argument is at best, flawedOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:There was no "scientific method" during his time. It would be quite impossible to find someone similar to a "modern scientific person". At the most, you can find "philosophers".
As for the Galileo's case, who says he wasn't able to provide enough proof?
BTW No decent scientific person will ever say that anything is a FACT
The will only say that the evidence shows that "... , ..." The proof is "... , ..."
In the Galileo example, a modern scientific person will ask Galileo to produce his evidence / proof that the earth revolves around the sun. They would then study Galileo's proof and evidence and come to the conclusion that indeed, Galileo provides convincing evidence and proof that the earth revolves around the sun.
You are using your own delusional mind to try to tell us what a "scientific person" is and "is not" and how a scientific minded person thinks.
For you to go back to the dark ages and believe in the delusions and illusions in your head (believing in things when there is no evidence for it / believing in things where people sought and did not find any evidence for) is just lame, to put it mildly.
The fact remains that Galileo provided a theory, and he just wasn't able to convince the MASS OF THAT TIME of his theory. And thus, it remained then as just a theory, nothing else. On hindsight, you now say he provides convincing proof
It's just like you in this current era. You belong to the Mass population of this time, and you wouldn't believe anyone who doesn't provide sufficient scientific proof to convince you. Ghost hunters use EM radiation and hot and cold spots to determine the existence of supernatural presence, but you wouldn't believe that coz they aren't convincing enough to you -