does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2013, 06:31 AM
does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(22-07-2013 03:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-07-2013 02:18 PM)I and I Wrote:  Science implies that there is a truth or meaning beyond the current known world, this is why it looks for more meaning and truths constantly to explain the world around them.

This is why science is best known for being a tad less shittier than religion and is very similar to religion in its notion of an absolute truth/meaning.

So science, which is predicated on the notion that it doesn't know everything, is very similar to religion, which is predicated on the notion that it does.

Okay then.

No, religion states that ultimate truth is already found and science believes it is not found yet.

Both operate on the notion that there is some ultimate truth out there somewhere. Science also denies it operates on that premise but the act of science implies that they are looking for some truth beyond the current understanding of things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 07:55 AM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2013 07:59 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
Let me read that back to you:
1. Science is engaged in a search for facts/truths/valid hypotheses that are not currently known
2. Ultimate truth, if it in any sense exists is a fact/truth/valid hypothesis not currently known
Therefore
3. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth

and
1. Anyone engaged in a search for ultimate truth is shit
2. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth
Therefore
3. All scientists are shit

Is that a valid synthesis of your reasoning?

Some scientists are looking for a "theory of everything" which would provide a unified theoretical understanding of all known forces and may lead to new discoveries... but if they found such a theory I don't know how you would call that "ultimate truth". I don't even know what you could mean by "ultimate truth". Even with our existing knowledge of quantum physics we can't use that knowledge to predict the behaviour of any large systems. A theory of everything would be nice and unifications of different theories have occurred before but finding it would not yield ultimate truth in any sense that I'm aware of.

Most scientists are not engaged in a search for the theory of everything. They are working in their own specific fields making new discoveries that are even less related to "ultimate truth" than the theory of everything would be. Scientists work in many diverse areas from medical laboratories, to space exploration, to monitoring climate, to finding ways to increase food supply.

I really don't know what you mean by ultimate truth. Do you mean infinitely truthful? Do you mean a truth from which all facts derive and from which all unknown facts can be extrapolated and predicted? The term sounds like philosophical weasel words designed to sound significant but not having any useful meaning.

As for your reasoning, I think you'll find a few flaws as I have synthesised it above... for example:
* Searching for new valid hypotheses is a valid search independent of any search for "ultimate truth". For example, searching for knowledge about how to cure diseases would be considered by most to be a valid cause.
* Whatever your "ultimate truth" might be, I don't understand the equivalence between a search for your truth and being a piece of shit. You'll have to explain that one to me.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
24-07-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(24-07-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  [S]cience believes [ultimate truth] is not found yet.

Citation needed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 04:48 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(24-07-2013 08:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  [S]cience believes [ultimate truth] is not found yet.

Citation needed.

I need a citation on what "needed" is, and why it is "needed" I am playing by your rules when dealing with you. Provide the citation or your post is pure bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 05:06 AM
does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(24-07-2013 07:55 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Let me read that back to you:
1. Science is engaged in a search for facts/truths/valid hypotheses that are not currently known
2. Ultimate truth, if it in any sense exists is a fact/truth/valid hypothesis not currently known
Therefore
3. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth

and
1. Anyone engaged in a search for ultimate truth is shit
2. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth
Therefore
3. All scientists are shit

Is that a valid synthesis of your reasoning?

Some scientists are looking for a "theory of everything" which would provide a unified theoretical understanding of all known forces and may lead to new discoveries... but if they found such a theory I don't know how you would call that "ultimate truth". I don't even know what you could mean by "ultimate truth". Even with our existing knowledge of quantum physics we can't use that knowledge to predict the behaviour of any large systems. A theory of everything would be nice and unifications of different theories have occurred before but finding it would not yield ultimate truth in any sense that I'm aware of.

Most scientists are not engaged in a search for the theory of everything. They are working in their own specific fields making new discoveries that are even less related to "ultimate truth" than the theory of everything would be. Scientists work in many diverse areas from medical laboratories, to space exploration, to monitoring climate, to finding ways to increase food supply.

I really don't know what you mean by ultimate truth. Do you mean infinitely truthful? Do you mean a truth from which all facts derive and from which all unknown facts can be extrapolated and predicted? The term sounds like philosophical weasel words designed to sound significant but not having any useful meaning.

As for your reasoning, I think you'll find a few flaws as I have synthesised it above... for example:
* Searching for new valid hypotheses is a valid search independent of any search for "ultimate truth". For example, searching for knowledge about how to cure diseases would be considered by most to be a valid cause.
* Whatever your "ultimate truth" might be, I don't understand the equivalence between a search for your truth and being a piece of shit. You'll have to explain that one to me.

People who don't answer yes or no to a yes or no answer is a bullshitter. Are you a bullshitter? Let's find out.

You questioned my phrase as to what I mean by ultimate truth, cool, semantics is fun. Hey you used the word "valid" what do you mean by valid?
Do you want to play semantics or discuss things? Yes or no.

You don't like the word "truth". Cool I will call it a tampon instead of truth, whatever word you want to use, feel free to use it.

Scientists look for tampons and discover better tampons than the previous tampons. Yes or no

If a person is looking for better tampons than the tampons before then this act is based on the idea that there is a better tampon out there to be discovered.
Yes or no

The act of science is based on the idea that there are better tampons than the currently known tampons, hence the curiosity for and search for better tampons. Yes or no

Yet science in theory is about empirical evidence, while at the same time basing its empirical research on non empirical idealistic notions of a better tampon.
Yes or no

Unless you believe scientist look for better tampons and don't believe there are better tampons out there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 05:12 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(25-07-2013 04:48 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 08:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed.

I need a citation on what "needed" is, and why it is "needed" I am playing by your rules when dealing with you. Provide the citation or your post is pure bullshit.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQynRDTxCao1z2KbgpTuaw...XLLWUWZSpt]

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 06:19 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(25-07-2013 05:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 07:55 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Let me read that back to you:
1. Science is engaged in a search for facts/truths/valid hypotheses that are not currently known
2. Ultimate truth, if it in any sense exists is a fact/truth/valid hypothesis not currently known
Therefore
3. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth

and
1. Anyone engaged in a search for ultimate truth is shit
2. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth
Therefore
3. All scientists are shit

Is that a valid synthesis of your reasoning?

Some scientists are looking for a "theory of everything" which would provide a unified theoretical understanding of all known forces and may lead to new discoveries... but if they found such a theory I don't know how you would call that "ultimate truth". I don't even know what you could mean by "ultimate truth". Even with our existing knowledge of quantum physics we can't use that knowledge to predict the behaviour of any large systems. A theory of everything would be nice and unifications of different theories have occurred before but finding it would not yield ultimate truth in any sense that I'm aware of.

Most scientists are not engaged in a search for the theory of everything. They are working in their own specific fields making new discoveries that are even less related to "ultimate truth" than the theory of everything would be. Scientists work in many diverse areas from medical laboratories, to space exploration, to monitoring climate, to finding ways to increase food supply.

I really don't know what you mean by ultimate truth. Do you mean infinitely truthful? Do you mean a truth from which all facts derive and from which all unknown facts can be extrapolated and predicted? The term sounds like philosophical weasel words designed to sound significant but not having any useful meaning.

As for your reasoning, I think you'll find a few flaws as I have synthesised it above... for example:
* Searching for new valid hypotheses is a valid search independent of any search for "ultimate truth". For example, searching for knowledge about how to cure diseases would be considered by most to be a valid cause.
* Whatever your "ultimate truth" might be, I don't understand the equivalence between a search for your truth and being a piece of shit. You'll have to explain that one to me.

People who don't answer yes or no to a yes or no answer is a bullshitter. Are you a bullshitter? Let's find out.

You questioned my phrase as to what I mean by ultimate truth, cool, semantics is fun. Hey you used the word "valid" what do you mean by valid?
Do you want to play semantics or discuss things? Yes or no.

You don't like the word "truth". Cool I will call it a tampon instead of truth, whatever word you want to use, feel free to use it.

Scientists look for tampons and discover better tampons than the previous tampons. Yes or no

If a person is looking for better tampons than the tampons before then this act is based on the idea that there is a better tampon out there to be discovered.
Yes or no

The act of science is based on the idea that there are better tampons than the currently known tampons, hence the curiosity for and search for better tampons. Yes or no

Yet science in theory is about empirical evidence, while at the same time basing its empirical research on non empirical idealistic notions of a better tampon.
Yes or no

Unless you believe scientist look for better tampons and don't believe there are better tampons out there?


OK, yes or no:
Have you stopped torturing small animals? Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 04:54 PM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
Science is the act of human, animals which are collections of molecules like everything else, looking for the facts about the universe we live in. Sure, there is a mystery about the way a collection of molecules such as our species can interpret meaning and consciousness throughout the world. This being said, it is no reason to throw out all the science, art, and literature we have compiled throughout the years. To me, finding out that we are a collection of molecules on a small spec of a planet called Earth is much more a case of humility than saying that we were made by a creator who had us in mind when he created the universe. When it comes down to it, we have to keep trying to progress from where we are and not always try and make final conclusions, but rather try harder for our next big discovery.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 12:44 AM
does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(25-07-2013 04:54 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Science is the act of human, animals which are collections of molecules like everything else, looking for the facts about the universe we live in. Sure, there is a mystery about the way a collection of molecules such as our species can interpret meaning and consciousness throughout the world. This being said, it is no reason to throw out all the science, art, and literature we have compiled throughout the years. To me, finding out that we are a collection of molecules on a small spec of a planet called Earth is much more a case of humility than saying that we were made by a creator who had us in mind when he created the universe. When it comes down to it, we have to keep trying to progress from where we are and not always try and make final conclusions, but rather try harder for our next big discovery.

Woo Woo
So....... We are just a collection of molecules AND there are grand answers that are out there for us to discover? Contradiction

How is human experience reduced to "just a collection of molecules". What Scientist has ever made such a claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 07:09 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(26-07-2013 12:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-07-2013 04:54 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Science is the act of human, animals which are collections of molecules like everything else, looking for the facts about the universe we live in. Sure, there is a mystery about the way a collection of molecules such as our species can interpret meaning and consciousness throughout the world. This being said, it is no reason to throw out all the science, art, and literature we have compiled throughout the years. To me, finding out that we are a collection of molecules on a small spec of a planet called Earth is much more a case of humility than saying that we were made by a creator who had us in mind when he created the universe. When it comes down to it, we have to keep trying to progress from where we are and not always try and make final conclusions, but rather try harder for our next big discovery.

Woo Woo
So....... We are just a collection of molecules AND there are grand answers that are out there for us to discover? Contradiction

How is human experience reduced to "just a collection of molecules". What Scientist has ever made such a claim?

We are highly ordered, highly unlikely, highly contingent survival machines made up of molecules, structures, cells, organs, ...

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: