(September 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I want to be more specific in my previous claim: It's not necessarily that I think science is currently omniscient. It's that I think a lot of people believe it is GOING to be omniscient. But with quantum mechanics I truly believe we have faced a dead end barring an entire paradigm shift in science that will have to involve, as I said before, a try at a unified theory. I could go into more detail, but it'll just give me a headache.

Who thinks that?

(watch out, guy just said quantum...quantum everybody -run for cover!)

(September 3, 2012 at 3:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I want to be more specific in my previous claim: It's not necessarily that I think science is currently omniscient. It's that I think a lot of people believe it is GOING to be omniscient. But with quantum mechanics I truly believe we have faced a dead end barring an entire paradigm shift in science that will have to involve, as I said before, a try at a unified theory. I could go into more detail, but it'll just give me a headache.

Who thinks that?

(watch out, guy just said quantum...quantum everybody -run for cover!)

You tell me. What are the foundations for your worldview?

IOW "I just like to make claims and then bury them under requests of others"

(September 3, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: IOW "I just like to make claims and then bury them under requests of others"

You're such a wuss, Rhythm. You bring absolutely nothing to the table other than petty small-talk and potshots. I've never seen you make a single good, solid intelligent post. I've never seen you intellectually engaged in what it means to be an atheist. You don't seem to be doing this to help the community. You seem to be doing this because you have no friends away from the computer.

If you disagree with me, say so. Bring something to the table.

My guess is you won't. Ever. You'll forever be this petty little troll with his internet friends and nothing more. Do you know just how pathetic it is to bully intelligent atheists on the internet? It's already hard enough for us in real life and you have to do it here too?

You're just another perpetrator of prejudice.

Snfl, oh, you're so right..I've been so unkind, let me add something meaningful.


PS: Tone down the martyr card, it's a give-away.

You're just embarrassing yourself, rhythm. Don't make it worse.

Oh, we can do better than that Rhythm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hztzcLvxT58?rel=0

(Edit: Darn Youtubers and their pesky "embedding disabled on request"! Here's a better one that actually works...)

(September 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 5:31 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Nobody was under that assumption. Not one person here has made the claim of infallibility or omnipotence. Science is always a work in progress that uses the information and evidence we have to work with at the time. No-one here has made the claims you are accusing us of. Scientists would be the first people to say we need to learn more. Theories are formulated through what little information they have and then tested for validity. None of them are approached with absolute certainty. The highest degree of certainty a scientist can ever have is sigma 7 which is a degree of 99.9999981% certainty. That would be applied to the most basic and proven things like gravity. Theories are not dogmatic statements. They are ideas formulated with what evidence and information we have to be tested and tested and tested.
What someone did was make a claim that science uses metaphysical assumptions and then provided mathematics as a rather stupid answer.

Mathematics lest we forget being a system of logic that is used in economics, computers, maps, sending people into space or just adding up how much this weeks groceries are going to cost.
The evidence supporting it as a valid system is in abundance and the evidence against it is nil. It has real world results that can be replicated time and time again. It is very clearly not an assumption let alone a metaphysical one. The day it has no evidence supporting it or even evidence against it will be the day that argument has any weight whatsoever.
If you're going to carry on this "discussion" please don't lie your bollocks off about its origins.


"Too cool for religion"? Yeah, thats the reason we don't buy into the whole man in the sky thing. Well done. Yeah, science is *totally* like a religion. I remember just the other day in that laboratory where Professor Hawking was preaching to us from his stand and we all sat on pews nodding like a novelty car toy. He was telling us we didn't need things like evidence or reasoning because God was going to take care of u- oh WAIT. I almost forgot that science creates theories subject to change based on what information and evidence they have as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.
Silly me. :-)

Oh, by the way;
the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

You obviously needed help of some kind but I couldn't find a suitable carer so this will have to do.

The simple question is this:

Is it necessarily true, that science will one day be omniscient, given enough time?

This is the question. Because this is what your scientism boils down to. That science will one day be omniscient, give you omnipotence and lead to some utopia.

I don't see how scientism is any different from a religion, that believes a messiah will one day become omniscient and omnipotent and lead you to heaven. How is religion different from scientism?

All I'm telling you is you need to be skeptical of the omniscience of science.

What? No, no it isn't true. No-one ever claimed it was. Everything is in a constant state of flux. Its impossible to know anything with absolute certainty let alone everything. I'm not even sure why you needed to ask, the answer would seem rather obvious.

"Omniscience of science"? "Scientism"? "Utopia"? Who on earth have you been talking to thats been teaching you this utter tripe? Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural". Its a method to learn more about the world we live in and one that has proven the most effective. Thats all it is. Until another one that proves more effective is presented thats the one we should use as its yielded the most accurate results using reproducible methods.

As far as I know it isn't possible to be omnipotent but do let me know if you have evidence to the contrary won't you?

---

(September 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: IOW "I just like to make claims and then bury them under requests of others"

You're such a wuss, Rhythm. You bring absolutely nothing to the table other than petty small-talk and potshots. I've never seen you make a single good, solid intelligent post. I've never seen you intellectually engaged in what it means to be an atheist. You don't seem to be doing this to help the community. You seem to be doing this because you have no friends away from the computer.

If you disagree with me, say so. Bring something to the table.

My guess is you won't. Ever. You'll forever be this petty little troll with his internet friends and nothing more. Do you know just how pathetic it is to bully intelligent atheists on the internet? It's already hard enough for us in real life and you have to do it here too?

You're just another perpetrator of prejudice.

Are you kidding me? You're the most prejudiced motherfucker I've seen in a long time. You come here thinking everyones some kind of sci-fi freak who believes that science will eventually create a utopian universe in which everyone is omnipotent, immortal and will never want for anything again.
I mean, the naivety is mind boggling.

If you want to ask him a question fine, ask him after you've answered his otherwise you're just dodging it and that shit don't fly here.

"You tell me". Fucking hell, the sheer intellectual laziness makes Sarah Palin look like Aristotle. I mean it just completely voids what little credibility you had left.
Give him an example of an individual claiming with certainty that science will attain omniscience or retract your statement due to lack of evidence. That simple.

(September 3, 2012 at 6:02 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The simple question is this:

Is it necessarily true, that science will one day be omniscient, given enough time?

This is the question. Because this is what your scientism boils down to. That science will one day be omniscient, give you omnipotence and lead to some utopia.

I don't see how scientism is any different from a religion, that believes a messiah will one day become omniscient and omnipotent and lead you to heaven. How is religion different from scientism?

All I'm telling you is you need to be skeptical of the omniscience of science.

What? No, no it isn't true. No-one ever claimed it was. Everything is in a constant state of flux. Its impossible to know anything with absolute certainty let alone everything. I'm not even sure why you needed to ask, the answer would seem rather obvious.

"Omniscience of science"? "Scientism"? "Utopia"? Who on earth have you been talking to thats been teaching you this utter tripe? Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural". Its a method to learn more about the world we live in and one that has proven the most effective. Thats all it is. Until another one that proves more effective is presented thats the one we should use as its yielded the most accurate results using reproducible methods.

As far as I know it isn't possible to be omnipotent but do let me know if you have evidence to the contrary won't you?

I wouldn't even go as far as to place my faith in science as the best source of knowledge. Sure, it has led to great developments and nifty little gadgets. Nintendo? I mean come on, who doesn't love Nintendo?

But I think the greatest source of knowledge, the source that we ought to turn to instead of science is intuition.

I don't mean intuition as a part of science. I mean the practice of figuring things out about the world.

I know it sounds backwards. It sounds ludicrous. But there's more to it than that. Human intuition is by far the greatest contributor to the success of the species, its achievements eclipsing that of science by far.

Yeah, nintendo.........open heart surgery, vaccinations, mass sanitation and water purification, commercial agriculture, and the interwebs. Very short list. Gadgets are the least impressive bit.

Intuition? What about peoples intuition with regard to your POE status? Should we all go with that? Intuition is unreliable, unreplicatable, and insufficient. If intuition were such a peach you're going to have a hard time explaining the first 190-40 thousand years of our existence here (and that's ignoring whatever beta our predecessors had).