Scienctific knowledge lies outside of the human intellect...

1. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 16 years ago

   until it is accepted as fact or theory.
   It is important to remember that the  theories of science were once unheard of and not a part of the current accepted knowledge base. Every discovery was developed by someone thinking "outside of the box". So what is this "outside  of the box" thinking? but thinking connected to, intune with, the realms of Spirit. The Mind of God/Infinite Intelligence? outside of the human intellect.
   
   Weren't all scientific "facts" once unaccepted notions of Spirit/Infinite Intelligence?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Silent Assassinposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I believe that "outside of the box" thinking is a result of a few people who have a dogged determination coupled with an extreme belief system. Although not always outwardly apparent, they are brave enough to challenge long held views with a passion. whether this comes from an personal ego trip or a spiritual calling is hard to answer although there have been some who have claimed this.
      It has been said that the simplest answer to something is usually right, and I think that it can be said that a lot of long held views were a result of blind ignorance or whipped up into a phantasmal paradox.

      replyreport
2. 89

   Paragliderposted 16 years ago

   In the 20th Century, largely through the brilliant work of Karl Popper, it came to be understood that scientific knowledge is based on falsifiability, not on proof.
   
   To be classed as scientific, a theory has to be put forward in such a way that it makes definite predictions that can be tested.
   
   As the set of consequences of a theory is infinite, it is impossible to test every prediction.
   
   However, if a single prediction is shown by experiment to be false, the theory itself must be false and should be rejected, revised or replaced.
   
   Scientific knowledge, by this criterion, is "that which is testable and which has not yet failed a test".
   
   In layman's terms, it's "our best guess so far".

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well if dynamite is the "best guess so far" that scientists have for loggers who are trying to log trees to make wood for our houses, then that is a pretty damn good "guess" to me.
      
      As far as falsifiability, in order for something to be proven it has to be by nature falsifiable otherwise the proof, pragmatically speaking serves no purpose whatsoever.
      
      If you are convinced A+B=C and cannot imagine a scenario where A+B could NOT = C then essentially evidence (which proof is constituted of) would not matter to you at all, because your in a box (someone played a mindgame with you and won or you played a mindgame withyourself and oft repeated it enough thus reenforcing the self deception).

      replyreport
3. 0

   Graceful Guardianposted 16 years ago

   we will always need to understand things so we will always chase knowledge/science,to have better understanding.

   replyreport
4. 0

   ColdWarBabyposted 15 years ago

   You can choose science or faith.  You can be indecisive and choose neither.  In each case, you HAVE made a choice.  In order to choose anything you MUST accept the existence of free will; that’s what choosing is.
   
   The next thing you need to do is decide what to base your belief system on.  Again, this is a CHOICE for which only you can be held accountable. 
   You can make some effort and choose an extremely complex system requiring independent thought and thoroughly studied FACTS which have been researched, tested, tested and tested again and found to be correct, by a vast majority, within the limitations of reality.  In this reality based world one is required to form opinions and make decisions based on available information which can lead either to great success or drastic failure for which individuals must accept responsibility.
   
   Or, you can take the easy way out and select a mythology that requires no explanation or validation and, in fact, actually discourages any effort at learning or awareness and relies entirely on blind faith and the leadership of a “chosen” group of priests or acolytes who simply dictate all aspects of life.  In this faith based fantasy world one is required only to be faithful and obey the high priests.  When things go wrong it’s simply an act of “god”.  When things go well it’s thanks to the guidance of the priesthood.  The only real choice needed is the one to have “faith”; all other decisions of consequence are made for you.
   
   Or, perhaps, just maybe, there is another option.  Could there a middle ground?  Is it possible that the quest for knowledge could be tempered by the admission that there are and always will be some things we just don’t know yet? 
   “THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING WE CAN EXPERIENCE IS THE MYSTERIOUS; IT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL TRUE ART AND SCIENCE.  HE TO WHOM THIS EMOTION IS A STRANGER, WHO CAN NO LONGER PAUSE TO WONDER AND STAND RAPT IN AWE, IS AS GOOD AS DEAD: HIS EYES ARE CLOSED.”  Albert Einstein - Circa 1930.  Could it be that there are some secrets of the universe that we will never unlock? 
   
   Interestingly enough, it’s most often scientists and academics who embrace this third rationale.  Most people of reason agree that very little, if anything is “carved in stone”.  To those who think, absolutes are hard to come by.
   It is, most often, religious fundamentalists of every stripe that insist there is no alternative to their particular deity and believe that anyone who disagrees should be slain without hesitation.  Their certainty is absolute.  Thinking is not an option.
   One parting bit of advice: anyone who knows their way is absolutely the only way should be avoided like the plague.  Just a suggestion.

   replyreport