The Ownership of Science

[slartibartfast]

This is a really fucking stupid question.  Science is simply a way of describing reality, in fact it is by far the best and most accurate one that humanity has found to date.

Agree. It's like doing a poll to say "Who should use Maths". It actually doesn't make any sense.

The problem I see is that even though theists will point to science, they don't use science empirically because they start with the outcome they are trying to substantiate, and then work backwards, cherry picking those pieces of science (or cherry picking those pieces of science that they perceive to be lacking) that support their argument. 

Science doesn't work that way. To truly "science" one needs to start with no preconceived expectations and iteratively follow the evidence, whilst inviting, and in fact expecting to pivot on previous findings when new evidence comes to light. 

I have found theists do not employ scientific method or approach, rather defining "Science" as "human knowledge about the world at a point in time" and then gleefully using arbitrary questions that today can't yet be answered as proof that there must be a creator or higher being to fill in those gaps. That is not science.

[Ahriman]

Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

How do you figure?

Because even if that quark shit is true, it has nothing to do with what happens to us on a spiritual level.

[slartibartfast]

Congratulations on proving your point. The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Life is reasonably well evolved for the universe. The current conditions are a very short-lived state between the super-heated quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang and a near eternity of slowly evaporating supermassive black holes.

Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

Ahri do you even understand Paleo's proposition? The Universe is approx. 13 billion years old ie. roughly 13 x 10^9. For a portion of the Universe's life it was completely incapable of supporting life, as no solid matter even existed. Currently we are in the Stelliferous era, meaning stars form, burn Hydrogen into heavier atoms, blow up and spew those into the cosmos to form more stars and planets. This phase however will not go on forever. 

The Universe is not just expanding and therefore cooling, but will also go through a number of significant transitions. 

When the Stelliferous Era ends, no new stars will form and the Degenerate Era will begin.
Eventually all Galaxies will cease to exist, eventually resulting in the decay of all protons, and therefore even atoms will cease to exist.

The Black Hole Era will take over at which point they are the only thing that remains (including the odd Neutrino blasting into nowhere).

At some point in time even the Black Holes will all evaporate, at which point complete heat death of the Universe will have occurred.

The timespan of the stelliferous era able to support life as we know it is unimaginably short compared to the other eras.

The point Paleo is making is that even our Universe's ability to support life is for a mere blip compared to its entire existence.

[LadyForCamus]

Congratulations on proving your point. The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Life is reasonably well evolved for the universe. The current conditions are a very short-lived state between the super-heated quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang and a near eternity of slowly evaporating supermassive black holes.

Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

Said the guy who admits his belief in a creator is irrational. 😂

[The Architect Of Fate]

Because even if that quark shit is true, it has nothing to do with what happens to us on a spiritual level.

No this is the Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

[arewethereyet]

Because even if that quark shit is true, it has nothing to do with what happens to us on a spiritual level.

No this is the Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

Consider the source.

[Ahriman]

Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

Ahri do you even understand Paleo's proposition? The Universe is approx. 13 billion years old ie. roughly 13 x 10^9. For a portion of the Universe's life it was completely incapable of supporting life, as no solid matter even existed. Currently we are in the Stelliferous era, meaning stars form, burn Hydrogen into heavier atoms, blow up and spew those into the cosmos to form more stars and planets. This phase however will not go on forever. 

The Universe is not just expanding and therefore cooling, but will also go through a number of significant transitions. 

When the Stelliferous Era ends, no new stars will form and the Degenerate Era will begin.
Eventually all Galaxies will cease to exist, eventually resulting in the decay of all protons, and therefore even atoms will cease to exist.

The Black Hole Era will take over at which point they are the only thing that remains (including the odd Neutrino blasting into nowhere).

At some point in time even the Black Holes will all evaporate, at which point complete heat death of the Universe will have occurred.

The timespan of the stelliferous era able to support life as we know it is unimaginably short compared to the other eras.

The point Paleo is making is that even our Universe's ability to support life is for a mere blip compared to its entire existence.

This is just one perspective. Not the only perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

I imagine that a person who considers a scientific viewpoint stupid probably doesn't "own science" or...really, have any use for it.

So there's another example.

[Silver]

Not all perspectives are deserving of attention.

[Ahriman]

Not all perspectives are deserving of attention.

What makes the scientific perspective more deserving of attention than any other?