Science and Superstition

[British Red]

, aspirin,

Do you mean the synthetic form of salicylic acid....the stuff found in willow bark?

Science discovered that?

Wow - I thought it was a natural substance

Oh ...I take issue with "All popes aren't good". Since there is never more than one pope at a time, that statement should be "all popes weren't good" surely? I agree.

I didn't by the way say that man made discoveries weren't good. Just this slavish organised religion known as "science"

 

[Graham_S]

I'd like to remind everyone that discussion of religion is not permitted on the board.
It's a breach of the forum rules that everyone agreed to when they signed up.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Graham_s
BCUK Mod Team.

 

[Prawnster]

Not at all, these are questions I presume that the intelligent believer has faced and answered satisfactorily for themselves. Alternatively if the PM has done their job and moved on then any worship, obedience to human created rules on their behalf or sanctions for breaking them seems even more irrelevant. But, if there is a personal PM interest in the meanest sparrow fall then you know the questions that must be tackled and may have. Ineffable plan is one answer if that helps.

I didn't say the questions were irrelevant in themselves nor did I say I hadn't personally answered them (some are easier than others).

I just think answers to specific questions about one branch of religion are taking the thread to Locktown.

I enjoy and am keenly interested in most things scientific but I'm also very secure in the faith that I have built up. As are many scientists.


Sent from my iToaster using Tapatalk

 

[mountainm]

Do you mean the synthetic form of salicylic acid....the stuff found in willow bark?

Science discovered that?

Wow - I thought it was a natural substance

Oh ...I take issue with "All popes aren't good". Since there is never more than one pope at a time, that statement should be "all popes weren't good" surely? I agree.

I didn't by the way say that man made discoveries weren't good. Just this slavish organised religion known as "science"

Experiments discover things, help us to understand how and why they work, we label this experimentation "science". Aspirin is one thing that was experimented with and then synthesised on a grand scale.

It is human to label things, makes communicating easier. What do you want to call it?

The rest is semantics.

 

[mountainm]

I'd like to remind everyone that discussion of religion is not permitted on the board.
It's a breach of the forum rules that everyone agreed to when they signed up.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Graham_s
BCUK Mod Team.

But we're discussing science.... which is OK given it's based on result driven data derived fron experimentation.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

that statement should be "all popes weren't good" surely? I agree.

Does that mean then " all popes were bad ".......I agree.

 

[Prawnster]

But we're discussing science.... which is OK given it's based on result driven data derived fron experimentation.

Not all of it is, as Red has pointed out. Some of it is based on unproven theory driven by personal ego and ambition.


Sent from my iToaster using Tapatalk

 

[blacktimberwolf]

What science is actually being discussed here ? because their isn't a science but sciences.

 

[mountainm]

Not all of it is, as Red has pointed out. Some of it is based on unproven theory driven by personal ego and ambition.


Sent from my iToaster using Tapatalk

No, that is humanity, it gets in the way all the time.

 

[Jaan]

I'd like to remind everyone that a scientific theory is not the same as a hypothesis. There's a difference.

 

[mountainm]

What science is actually being discussed here ? because their isn't a science but sciences.

there is only physics, the rest is applied physics and physics is basically applied mathmatics.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

there is only physics, the rest is applied physics and physics is basically applied mathmatics.

So you don't accept such things as chemistry or biology in your definition of science then ?

 

[British Red]

I haven't many any of them (popes that is) - so I cannot say - I don't generally accept other peoples opinions as fact - that is an act of faith. Much as I haven't personally verified many scientific experiments - so to accept them as true would be an act of faith

 

[mountainm]

So you dn't accept such things as chemistry or biology in your definition of science then ?

they are both described by physics...

 

[mountainm]

I haven't many any of them (popes that is) - so I cannot say - I don't generally accept other peoples opinions as fact - that is an act of faith. Much as I haven't personally verified many scientific experiments - so to accept them as true would be an act of faith

But you do have the option to replicate the experiment if desired, with instructions on how to do so. This will yield a result.

 

[pteron]

Do you mean the synthetic form of salicylic acid....the stuff found in willow bark?

Science discovered that?

Wow - I thought it was a natural substance

A mistake many bushcrafters make, including one that tried to teach the group I was in. Fortunately the group contained people with a scientific background and we put her straight.

Aspirin is acetylsalicilic acid. If you purify salicilic acid and take it you will have far more severe burns and bleeding than if you take aspirin.

A scientist noticed the pain killing action of salicilic acid and its side effects and synthesised a more benign form. I think that's pretty fine.

 

[British Red]

Indeed I do, but unless I do, then it is an act of faith

 

[Prawnster]

A theme seems to have developed among those in the 'Science' camp. When someone states that they don't buy into absolutely everything science has to say, then they are branded as unscientific in their views. The comments about turtles, elephants, a flat earth etc being examples of this.
This attitude, to me at least, seems very dogmatic and well....middle ages in its approach to differing opinion.
Does this not worry our scientific friends here? Do you unquestioningly accept everything scientists tell you? Because, shocking as this may be, science is almost always wrong. That's the nature of it, the quest for knowledge of the physical universe means you have to rip up the text books every couple of years. Which if course means that the science of right now is just as wrong as the science of 500 years ago.


Sent from my iToaster using Tapatalk

 

[mountainm]

Indeed I do, but unless I do, then it is an act of faith

I agree, I have faith that the scientists results are correct and that I'm not simply being told a story, yes. The fact that their are papers to back it up with published results and a means to challenge the act of faith and prove my convictions seal it for me.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

they are both described by physics...

Haven't you heard of the scientific revolution ?