Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-31-2023, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,118 posts, read 13,571,060 times
Reputation: 9998

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
I mentioned in another thread how 100 billion years from now, the universe will be so spread out (galaxies), any creature doing science in that day will believe there was no Big Bang. They would accept through science their galaxy is all there is. So a lot of critical observation would be lost to them, and they would draw a wholescale different origin speculation from the one we have today. If that is true for them in that day, how do we know there is not already critical observation missing for us? So critical, that we are drawing an absolute wrong conclusion about our past and reality? This is something I cannot accept!!!!!!!!
I read a science fiction story recently in which the protagonist made first contact with a race of sentient beings. They were five-legged, crab-like creatures who had no visual equipment and communicated and to an extent "saw" via a highly developed sense of hearing. As a result of this they launched a crew into space with no awareness of cosmic radiation. The entire crew wasted away and died of cancer-like illness except for one of them, who happened to have his quarters in an inadvertently shielded location. The sickness and death of the crew was a complete mystery until the human explained the mechanism. There were also other blind spots because of this, such as a failure to understand time dilation effects in high speed travel, which made navigation confusing for them.

So yes, any observer has certain limitations. This is self-evident and no one denies it. But that does not mean we should not make use of the faculties and capabilities we have to understand the natural world as best we can. I could turn your hypothetical around and say that if you transplanted those people of the distant future into our universe they would arrive at about the same conclusions concerning it as we have.

That our knowledge is incomplete does not mean that we should question properly vetted and validated understanding when it conflicts with legends or assumptions held by some people for traditional reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
All that said, I don't see scientists doing a whole lot in promoting the truths science has revealed to us to the common masses. They are too busy with their own clique to challenge those in power. I don't see them successfully reaching out to the young impressionable minds in the streets and those passing by in our schools. They are not at the ground level, willing to suffer for the sake of those who would accept the possibilities science could bring. In other words, science isn't having that much true impact that most religions are having in changing the minds of people. Only with science, our technology is increasing.
There is some truth to this, but I don't know what your'e really asking for. Should I as a software architect be "promoting" different binary-tree algorithms to the "masses"? Because I kind of doubt they're interested.

That said, science can and should do more ... in fact I think philosophers can and should do more; our children need to understand critical thinking skills and how to spot logical fallacies for example. It would help all around.

Last edited by mordant; 12-31-2023 at 12:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2023, 12:43 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 1,471,481 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I read a science fiction story recently in which the protagonist made first contact with a race of sentient beings. They were five-legged, crab-like creatures who had no visual equipment and communicated and to an extent "saw" via a highly developed sense of hearing. As a result of this they launched a crew into space with no awareness of cosmic radiation. The entire crew wasted away and died of cancer-like illness except for one of them, who happened to have his quarters in an inadvertently shielded location. The sickness and death of the crew was a complete mystery until the human explained the mechanism. There were also other blind spots because of this, such as a failure to understand time dilation effects in high speed travel, which made navigation confusing for them.

So yes, any observer has certain limitations. This is self-evident and no one denies it. But that does not mean we should not make use of the faculties and capabilities we have to understand the natural world as best we can. I could turn your hypothetical around and say that if you transplanted those people of the distant future into our universe they would arrive at about the same conclusions concerning it as we have.

That our knowledge is incomplete does not mean that we should question properly vetted and validated understanding when it conflicts with legends or assumptions held by some people for traditional reasons.

In terms of time travel, they would come to our conclusions about the universe. Yet what if we took the time machine back 5 billion years from our present time. Would we arrive to a young solar system that is forming? Or, would we arrive at God's front doorstep? Yes, we should make use of what we observe and can know. (As you mentioned about cosmic radiation) Yet even though we see a universe that seems billions of years old, and differing observations agree with that conclusion, it may not actually be that way concerning the past. There are some observations that seemingly go against the scientific consensus. Take for instance the assumed age of what we dub the "Methuselah Star". Some astronomers pin its age to be 14 billion years+. Making it older than the universe. There are also other stars with an apparent age of 13.8 billion+.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
There is some truth to this, but I don't know what your'e really asking for. Should I as a software architect be "promoting" different binary-tree algorithms to the "masses"? Because I kind of doubt they're interested.

Science can and should do more ... in fact I think philosophers can and should do more; our children need to understand critical thinking skills and how to spot ogical fallacies for example. It would help all around.

If it is what's necessary for humanity to finally get it's act together, then by all means present it. People won't get it at first, but if they see the results it brings, they will receive it over time. And if they reject what you tell them and crucify you, then forgive them because they don't know what they are doing.


All that said, if science is the true answer for a pathway leading to a better society, which for me I would measure it in cooperation, I'm not seeing the fruits of it from scientists as a whole. I don't see Michio Kaku in these streets! Yet we have street preachers. If you live in the Bible Belt, there is a church on every corner. In other parts of the world you have Synagouges, Mosques, Temples, etc. Where are the science workshops on these corners, apprenticeships? If most scientists stick to their own, then science itself can't be the truth that leads to a better world for humanity. Even with the technological advancements and knowledge, people still act like scum. Between the two, science and religion, religion does a better job at attempting to better society as a whole. (At least in terms of outreach of its message)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2023, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,118 posts, read 13,571,060 times
Reputation: 9998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
... if science is the true answer for a pathway leading to a better society, which for me I would measure it in cooperation, I'm not seeing the fruits of it from scientists as a whole. I don't see Michio Kaku in these streets! Yet we have street preachers. If you live in the Bible Belt, there is a church on every corner. In other parts of the world you have Synagouges, Mosques, Temples, etc. Where are the science workshops on these corners, apprenticeships? If most scientists stick to their own, then science itself can't be the truth that leads to a better world for humanity. Even with the technological advancements and knowledge, people still act like scum. Between the two, science and religion, religion does a better job at attempting to better society as a whole. (At least in terms of outreach of its message)
Oh I think religion has a checkered / mixed record of improving society. It is ubiquitous, as you say, but that says nothing about its usefulness. I am not one who sees religion as a pure harm, but neither do I see it as either an unmitigated good, or as the best way to improve society.

Meanwhile, science makes no pretense to moral or ethical instruction. It is just a way to find things out; as such it doesn't need a temple on every corner. These days, facts can be found online or in any library. A lot of educational resources are even free, but you have to value the information enough to seek it out.

Critical thinking and logical fallacy detection and empathy and other virtues such as wisdom, temperance, justice and courage are the province of philosophy, and our thinking concerning these virtues was already well developed hundreds of years BC, and further refined since.

The thing about religion is that it is antithetical to reason; religious faith (affording belief without a requirement of evidence to support it) is presented as the virtue; reason is the enemy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2024, 11:42 AM
 
29,566 posts, read 9,786,724 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
If I were to summarize the main takeaway from these truths, is that science is our best bet at not only learning about reality, but also through science we can find our common ground as a people. That we can be peaceful toward each other by knowing who we are and how we came to be. Of course you mentioned the limitations of science and how its possibly (even likely) we will never know everything through it.

Its my belief not only is it possible/likely we will never know everything through science, but that we can't even begin to know the ultimate truth of all reality through science. I see it is as way more limiting then scientists see it. I mentioned in another thread how 100 billion years from now, the universe will be so spread out (galaxies), any creature doing science in that day will believe there was no Big Bang. They would accept through science their galaxy is all there is. So a lot of critical observation would be lost to them, and they would draw a wholescale different origin speculation from the one we have today. If that is true for them in that day, how do we know there is not already critical observation missing for us? So critical, that we are drawing an absolute wrong conclusion about our past and reality? This is something I cannot accept!!!!!!!!

All that said, I don't see scientists doing a whole lot in promoting the truths science has revealed to us to the common masses. They are too busy with their own clique to challenge those in power. I don't see them successfully reaching out to the young impressionable minds in the streets and those passing by in our schools. They are not at the ground level, willing to suffer for the sake of those who would accept the possibilities science could bring. In other words, science isn't having that much true impact that most religions are having in changing the minds of people. Only with science, our technology is increasing.
"Believe it or not..." I am just now noticing you did as promised to visit this thread. Not only that but added an interesting comment as well. Thanks for our interest. Though we have some fundamental differences of opinion for some reasons I can guess. Other reasons I can't be all that sure about, I'll just comment about what you write about science and scientists.

I sure don't "put all my eggs" in the science bucket, but I dare say if we all considered what all we can confirm as either true, false or unknown is a more objective manner, like the scientific method promotes, the world would be a better more peaceful place in my opinion. As for what scientists do or don't do, they are not typically known to be spokespeople or messengers for the "common masses." They do the research, do their best to answer the questions they are trying to answer, and they pass along that information through the usual channels. For world leaders to do with for the "common masses" as they will.

Take all the information related to climate change provided by scientists for example. Then we follow in the news what the world leaders are able to do or not do with that information. The "common masses" are a tough crowd in any case. Even for the most persuasive of world leaders. Sad but true.

Thanks again!

Sincerely,

LM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2024, 11:46 AM
 
29,566 posts, read 9,786,724 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I read a science fiction story recently in which the protagonist made first contact with a race of sentient beings. They were five-legged, crab-like creatures who had no visual equipment and communicated and to an extent "saw" via a highly developed sense of hearing. As a result of this they launched a crew into space with no awareness of cosmic radiation. The entire crew wasted away and died of cancer-like illness except for one of them, who happened to have his quarters in an inadvertently shielded location. The sickness and death of the crew was a complete mystery until the human explained the mechanism. There were also other blind spots because of this, such as a failure to understand time dilation effects in high speed travel, which made navigation confusing for them.

So yes, any observer has certain limitations. This is self-evident and no one denies it. But that does not mean we should not make use of the faculties and capabilities we have to understand the natural world as best we can. I could turn your hypothetical around and say that if you transplanted those people of the distant future into our universe they would arrive at about the same conclusions concerning it as we have.

That our knowledge is incomplete does not mean that we should question properly vetted and validated understanding when it conflicts with legends or assumptions held by some people for traditional reasons.

There is some truth to this, but I don't know what your'e really asking for. Should I as a software architect be "promoting" different binary-tree algorithms to the "masses"? Because I kind of doubt they're interested.

That said, science can and should do more ... in fact I think philosophers can and should do more; our children need to understand critical thinking skills and how to spot logical fallacies for example. It would help all around.
Did you see this recent whale of a story?

"Whales and extraterrestrial intelligence"

https://www.earth.com/news/scientist...e-named-twain/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2024, 11:49 AM
 
29,566 posts, read 9,786,724 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
In terms of time travel, they would come to our conclusions about the universe. Yet what if we took the time machine back 5 billion years from our present time. Would we arrive to a young solar system that is forming? Or, would we arrive at God's front doorstep? Yes, we should make use of what we observe and can know. (As you mentioned about cosmic radiation) Yet even though we see a universe that seems billions of years old, and differing observations agree with that conclusion, it may not actually be that way concerning the past. There are some observations that seemingly go against the scientific consensus. Take for instance the assumed age of what we dub the "Methuselah Star". Some astronomers pin its age to be 14 billion years+. Making it older than the universe. There are also other stars with an apparent age of 13.8 billion+.

If it is what's necessary for humanity to finally get it's act together, then by all means present it. People won't get it at first, but if they see the results it brings, they will receive it over time. And if they reject what you tell them and crucify you, then forgive them because they don't know what they are doing.

All that said, if science is the true answer for a pathway leading to a better society, which for me I would measure it in cooperation, I'm not seeing the fruits of it from scientists as a whole. I don't see Michio Kaku in these streets! Yet we have street preachers. If you live in the Bible Belt, there is a church on every corner. In other parts of the world you have Synagouges, Mosques, Temples, etc. Where are the science workshops on these corners, apprenticeships? If most scientists stick to their own, then science itself can't be the truth that leads to a better world for humanity. Even with the technological advancements and knowledge, people still act like scum. Between the two, science and religion, religion does a better job at attempting to better society as a whole. (At least in terms of outreach of its message)
I think you might be making a mistake by blaming scientists for whether progress as a whole is made toward becoming a better society. They are not to blame far as I can conclude. They provide hope is all. A better way to understand all that goes on around us and to help dispel all the myths that have caused harm over the course of human history and that are still causing harm for too many people. Scientists are not miracle workers in any case. They also can't be blamed for what some people have done with what scientists have taught us about the power of some sources of energy that have been misused, mishandled or abused. They are not the deciders...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2024, 11:51 AM
 
29,566 posts, read 9,786,724 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Oh I think religion has a checkered / mixed record of improving society. It is ubiquitous, as you say, but that says nothing about its usefulness. I am not one who sees religion as a pure harm, but neither do I see it as either an unmitigated good, or as the best way to improve society.

Meanwhile, science makes no pretense to moral or ethical instruction. It is just a way to find things out; as such it doesn't need a temple on every corner. These days, facts can be found online or in any library. A lot of educational resources are even free, but you have to value the information enough to seek it out.

Critical thinking and logical fallacy detection and empathy and other virtues such as wisdom, temperance, justice and courage are the province of philosophy, and our thinking concerning these virtues was already well developed hundreds of years BC, and further refined since.

The thing about religion is that it is antithetical to reason; religious faith (affording belief without a requirement of evidence to support it) is presented as the virtue; reason is the enemy.
"Checkered / mixed record" to say the least, and best I say the least now, because it's time for me to sign off from this forum again today. Been awhile since I've done so from this thread. Thanks for your comments too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2024, 02:40 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 1,471,481 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I think you might be making a mistake by blaming scientists for whether progress as a whole is made toward becoming a better society. They are not to blame far as I can conclude. They provide hope is all. A better way to understand all that goes on around us and to help dispel all the myths that have caused harm over the course of human history and that are still causing harm for too many people. Scientists are not miracle workers in any case. They also can't be blamed for what some people have done with what scientists have taught us about the power of some sources of energy that have been misused, mishandled or abused. They are not the deciders...

Interestingly let me ask you this. Should scientists take up more of a messenger role and teach and share what they studied to the masses? Most world leaders are either corrupt or become corrupt, and there is no real desire to see the up lifting of the common folk. Since science deals in the search for the truth of our existence, it should be a responsibility to share it with those to affect change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2024, 08:52 AM
 
29,566 posts, read 9,786,724 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
Interestingly let me ask you this. Should scientists take up more of a messenger role and teach and share what they studied to the masses? Most world leaders are either corrupt or become corrupt, and there is no real desire to see the up lifting of the common folk. Since science deals in the search for the truth of our existence, it should be a responsibility to share it with those to affect change.
There are scientists who "take up more of a messenger role." Neil deGrasse Tyson is one for example, but obviously the training and experience scientists generally get as scientists don't typically hone those skills. To be a scientist requires a good deal of time devoted to research and all the rest scientists do to. To be a messenger and/or to develop a platform from which to reach "the masses" requires a fair amount of time too. Only a few can manage to do both, and it is hard to tell to what extent "the masses" cares to pay attention to them in any case, but it doesn't seem like much. The everyday lay person is typically more concerned with putting food on the table, making enough money to pay the bills and whether their favorite team is going to win the next game.

Can't blame scientists for this either...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
51,040 posts, read 24,537,935 times
Reputation: 33052
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
There are scientists who "take up more of a messenger role." Neil deGrasse Tyson is one for example, but obviously the training and experience scientists generally get as scientists don't typically hone those skills. To be a scientist requires a good deal of time devoted to research and all the rest scientists do to. To be a messenger and/or to develop a platform from which to reach "the masses" requires a fair amount of time too. Only a few can manage to do both, and it is hard to tell to what extent "the masses" cares to pay attention to them in any case, but it doesn't seem like much. The everyday lay person is typically more concerned with putting food on the table, making enough money to pay the bills and whether their favorite team is going to win the next game.

Can't blame scientists for this either...
And here's a good example of that.

If I have a health issue, before I go to the doctor I read up on the situation as much as possible. Just the other day I had a doctor say they were surprised about how much I knew about the situation...that the vast majority of their patients just come in and ask what pill they can take.

What we're talking about, in my view, is a lack of 'audience'. The documents about all the areas of scientific research that are current (and past) are pretty much available on the world wide web. And mostly only other scientists read them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top