What’s the future of Modern science, expandin or gettin extinct ?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by geek, Sep 19, 2013.

  1. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Your statement is compelling evidence that the supernatural does exist, but that people like you sweep it under the rug. You are intellectually dishonest.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    ", expandin (bein ever popular) or more like other extinct religions of the past " This is the part that caught my eye, And science is not going to disappear but it will be part of daily technology ,as we are experiencing in our daily life .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Oblivion Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    If god exists then poeple generally agree that he is eternal and allpowerful. if that is so he must be outside of existence becuase to be sugective to time and the laws of this universe would limit him. and how do we with science, perceive that which cannot be percieved. in all the books of religion i've read not once has God shown himeself. If you are something without limit how do you get into a limited space?

    science is not a religion, it is mans attempt to decipher the world around them in a logical way.
    religion is our attempt to decipher the world around us in an illogical based way.
    I am not saying that religions aren't true, just that by religion's own merit most of them are the above only.

    science wont die and any who think it will is decieving themselves. Our whole society is based around technology today and the olny means of continuing advancement is through science. science is needed becuase all the problems its made can only be fixed by it, e.g. global warming.

    if you think that something didn't create the universe then explain to me how the universe came about. why it was all in a space smaller then a grape fruit. What caused it to explode and why the specific things needed in our universe for life to survive exist ( look in to dark matter).

    also if the scope of the universe doesn't make you inclined to wonder how it's possible and come about, Look at the multiverse theory then. just warning you it is mind blowing stuff. "to infinity and beyond"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534


    I think it is more a situation, that people invoke a deity when science is unable to answer questions.....Yes, it is rather illogical.
    When we began to climb down out of the trees, we understood nothing about the Universe around us.....We subsequently saw Gods in Mountains, Rivers, the Sun and the Moon....Then science came along.......We are now at a stage where even the Catholic church has seen the need to admit that Evolution and the BB most probably did occur and are factual, but since science cannot as yet tell us the why and the how of Evolution and the BB, the church invoke God as the cause.
    The Father of the BB could be said to be George La-Maitre a Belgian Jesuit priest.




    100% true!!!!






    The whole of cosmology/Astronomy/Astrophysics is mind blowing awesome stuff.
    Being a layman, I don't pretend to understand it all, but being a stubborn old bastard, what I don't understand, I will make every effort to find answers and reasons. In that respect, I am like a dog with a bone, and I won't let go until an answer is forthcoming that I can begin to understand.
    As mentioned at this time science cannot as yet give us the why and how of the BB and Evolution....but unlike those that immediatley chose to then invoke a deity, science is still looking for more valid, supportable scientific answers.
    Remember how stone age man invoked the deity of their choice in mountains, rivers, Sun and the Moon?
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The last frontier of science will be the human mind. The human mind is the most important tool of science, yet so little is known about mind and consciousness that one cannot be sure if this most important tool of science is properly calibrated for truthful science.

    As an analogy, say you found an analytical tool, such as a scale, that measures weight. Before you run any tests, you will need to calibrate the instrument so the readings are accurate. If you just used the scale, the lack of calibration could bias your data and conclusions. The human mind is also a tool for observation, analysis and correlation, yet it is never calibrated to make sure we collectively don't see what we want to see. Global warming is not used anymore but rather now it is climate change. This calibration was tweaked so the mind now concludes differently.
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Yea I remember Lucy Dr. Leky's kid , perhaps she had a broken toe ? My wife a Philippiana her toe is more outward and my or my sisters toes are more inward , So her ancestors come from Africa, and we are descendent from Neanderthal. I know Lucy is the grandmother
     
  12. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Scifums has its share of nonsense threads, but this meets all the criteria of wingdinghood.

    Science is simply a term we use to describe our natural surroundings.

    What's with the OP post remark science is only about 250 years old?

    Why so many serious responses to a thread that makes zero sense from a member who has made two posts. Maybe he owns a real science forum and likes to interject nonsense on this one, idk.

    So how is science supposed to become extinct? A circle will always be a circle. Sunshine will exist even if our planet fades away.

    It is just interesting how such a goofy OP can inspire real answers.
     
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You don't seem to know much about science, which casts suspicion on the veracity of everything you say subsequently.

    It appears that they don't have Wikipedia in your country, because a quick glance turns up many people who contributed to the codification of the scientific method long before the mid-18th century.
    • William of Ockham was a logician and one of the first true physicists, working around 1300. He is famous for Occam's Razor, a powerful tool that lies at the base of the scientific method. It is often stated wrong; but a correct paraphrase is: "Test the simplest solution first. If it doesn't work you'll still have plenty of time and other resources to test the more complicated solutions."
    • Galileo discovered that the universe is not geocentric (everything does not revolve around the Earth) around 1600. This was a mortal blow to the religious model of the universe and he was persecuted by the church for it.
    • Isaac Newton worked in the 17th century. He codified the laws of motion and universal gravitation.
    • Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz also worked in the 17th century. He is responsible for much of the foundations of calculus, probability theory and even computer science (e.g., the binary numbering system).
    I'm not sure I'd go that far. Who are we to insist that he doesn't believe in the truth of what he says?

    A lot of young people come here. Discussions like this one help them understand science and scholarship.

    Not to describe them, but to understand them, and ultimately to predict them. As I've written many times on these boards, the fundamental premise that underlies the scientific method is:
    The natural universe is a closed system [i.e., not subject to the whims of fantastic creatures and amazing forces that emerge from an invisible, illogical supernatural universe at random intervals, for the express purpose of screwing up the behavior of the natural universe], whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observations of its present and past behavior.​

    I'm pretty sure there's no monument in Europe with a plaque reading, "In this hamlet, on May 24, 1207, Sir Ludwig Brainyguy established the discipline of science." So it's not easy to give a starting date. The scientific method seems to have accrued most of its key principles by, very roughly, 500 years ago. But many important advances happened later, and as I noted above, William of Ockham made many contributions to science a couple of centuries earlier.

    Furthermore, although the Ancient Greeks did not have the scientific method, they had a good attitude and they managed to make some important discoveries. They played a major part in the development of mathematics, without which science could not exist. This is astounding, considering that they had neither a positional notational system for numbers nor a symbol for zero.

    We're all scholars and a scholar can't stand bullshit. We see it as our duty to clean it up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And as I've said before, the process helps educate our many young members. They're seeing science in action.
     
  14. Oblivion Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    15,689
    The future of science .....becomes modern
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,489
    No you don't.
     

Share This Page