Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Samwik,
Kauffman is a strict materialist.

There is no doubt that materialism is a constraint. "Constraint" does not mean "bad." The Laws of Physics themselves are a constraints.

What kind of constraint is materialism? Materialism is the only thing that keeps us sane and grounded in reality. In ancient times, everything you could possibly study was "science." But "modern science" does not have that same meaning. Why? Because in the millennia of the practice of science, we've actually (well, some of us anyway) learned something about what works and what does not work - and moreover, we have a pretty good idea of WHY it doesn't work.

This is not to say that people can't go on and study whatever they want, but the religionists have a deep-seated, absolute NEED to call whatever it is they do by the name "science." A sure way of achieving their goal is to change the definition of science to something more similar to medieval "science." Why? Because there's something we're missing, something we're not explaining. something we can't explain with existing science.

The presumption is that they're offering something that actually CAN "explain things" - well, so long as we use the appropriate definition of "explain."


.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
We can study criminal behavior using science. One should not infer from this fact that criminal behavior is science.


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Good point. The same is true for religion.

Which is why I made the analogy in the first place.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I took several courses about the PSYCHOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. I am a strong advocate of approaching THEOLOGY--the scientific study of the god-hypothesis--in the same way. Since the 1960's I have been advocating PNEUMATOLOGY--the scientific study of what it means to be spiritual.


Psychology is an attempt to scientifically address the mind. None of the rest of stuff is science. Philosophy is not science (at least it is not "modern science"). Theology is not science. Pneumatology is not science. Those are all very interesting things to study (for some people). Theology is a branch of philosophy. Psychology is a branch of science. Science does not address "the spiritual" or "the religious" except insofar as those things are reflected in the brain. Brains are part of the physical universe. Spirits are not.



Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Thanks TFF,
Great reply. It took me days to work up something....

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The presumption is that they're offering something that actually CAN "explain things" - well, so long as we use the appropriate definition of "explain." Well I sure agree with this.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
What kind of constraint is materialism? Materialism is the only thing that keeps us sane and grounded in reality.

Eh? "What kind of constraint is materialism?"
It is a constraint that limits us to that 5% of reality that we currently observe, measure and test.
The other 95% of reality, the dark matter and dark energy of the universe, may not be strictly material in the way that we currently define a sane, material reality.

You say: "Materialism is the only thing that keeps us sane and grounded in reality." -TFF
I'd paraphrase that to: Materialism is the only thing that keeps us rational and grounded in reason.

But even that may still be too much of a limitation.
I think Kauffman would say something along the lines of emergent properties--such as life, love, and civilization--transcend the reasonable materialism of their rational component parts.
===

I'm not advocating that religions try to justify their paradigm by using science;
nor am I pushing for science to get all mystical, but....

I do think that both science and religion could benefit by adopting a more relativistic perspective--realizing that the same thing may be measured (valued) differently--depending on the frame of reference.
...and especially for the more complex emergent properties, either strict dogma or strict materialism may not be the best frame of reference.

How's that for a load of rhetoric, eh?

Cheers,
~ smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 17
L
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
L
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 17
Sorry to burst in out of nowhere, but I couldn't help noticing this strange discussion.

Every book on pseudoscience I've ever read kind of left religion in the prologue, since it kind of defines non-refutable. In other words, religion shouldn't have the word "science" associated with it in any way.

There's definitely enough bad science out there, such as ufology, mentalism, and Freudian analysis. Let's not get distracted.

--lylwik

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: lylwik
There's definitely enough bad science out there, such as ufology, mentalism, and Freudian analysis. Let's not get distracted.
--lylwik

Very Good Point!!!
It'd be best to stick to secular "bad science" on this thread.

...and welcome...
Come and join the fun--back in the megalithic era--
...or in the ECE (energy/climate era)--the immediate future.

Cheers!
~ smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I ordered this book, btw. Hopefully I can start reading it in the next few weeks.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5