Archive for April, 2017

Can we remove the dogma from science?

April 4, 2017

#1 paarsurrey

Please
Regards

OOOOO
https://www.quora.com/Has-science-become-too-dogmatic

 

Advertisements

Is eulogizing science out of proportion a symptom of scientism rather than science?

April 4, 2017

#1 paarsurrey

Is faith in science out of its limitations a symptom of scientism rather than science? Please
Regards

Muhammad smashed no idols physically. Did he? _________(2)

April 4, 2017

I wrote following post on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

Please click the post numbers to get to the discussion:

#730 paarsurrey

The Kaaba was owned:

  1. Equally by Muhammad and the Meccans who were all descendants of Abraham and Ishmael, who had built this worship house for worship of ONE God, Muhammad was even more entitled to it because he wanted to restore it to its original position. Abraham and Ishmael never put any idols in it. Rather than going to other temples and emptying them from the idols , Abraham thought it proper, for peace, to build a house of worship of his own where his progeny could worship ONE God. So, Muhammad had every right to empty it from the idols that were put later on in the house , for which he gave reasonable and brilliant arguments to the Meccans.

Please
Regards

Experiencing God

April 2, 2017

Paarsurrey posts on the above topic, please read the last post first, in the reverse order.

  1. paarsurrey

    Please elaborate. Regards

    Post by: paarsurrey, Yesterday at 11:32 AM in forum: General Religious Debates
  2. paarsurrey
  3. paarsurrey
  4. paarsurrey
  5. paarsurrey
  6. paarsurrey
  7. paarsurrey
  8. paarsurrey

Which God or no-god is Truthful?

April 2, 2017

What is wrong with smashing the idols?
sub-title: Which God or no-god is Truthfu

My most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts and posts from others, mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of the other persons whose posts I wrote my comments on. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#705 paarsurrey wrote:

What is wrong with smashing the idols?
sub-title: Which God or no-god is Truthful? (reference post #701 to #703 )

No-God cannot create anything from nothing. Right? Please
The truthful God is ascertained from the attributes of a religion (or no-religion) given in its scripture that are the verities or His attributes reflected in the nature, created by Him. Please
Regards

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?—-(2)

April 2, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#31

Paarsurrey wrote: #31

“a changing gravitational constant”

Is it because it helps the humans to have some perception of the Ever-Eternal-God, His Oneness does not change, is ever-constant , yet His attributes change all the time, so other things created by Him always keep changing/moving/orbiting, cannot stop unless He commands them to stop, and they finish? Please
Regards

Is faith the backbone of Science?

April 2, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

#3 l.……. wrote:

No. Science uses the scientific method of repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith. When a “scientific theory” is presented, scientists scramble to do their best to disprove it.

Paarsurrey comments: #20

“repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith.”

  1. Does repeated “experimentation and observation” make it immune from the errors or blunders?
  2. After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?
  3. Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?
  4. The word “repeated” shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the  exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.
  5. It is not a “battle” with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and  progress .
So, it is faith and faith alone in the “experimentation and observation” that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science “works”  and continues its endeavors. Please
Right? Please

Regards

OOOOOOOOOOOO

Search/Research:

*1 .

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?

April 1, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#2 S……….. said:

“In other words, is the method used by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge truly something that can be considered knowledge by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge?”

Of course not. 

Paarsurrey Comments:

  1. Does one mean that science is circular in reasoning? Please
  2. Those who gather knowledge do it on faith  of it being useful. Had they no faith they won’t have gathered it? Right? Please

#3 i…….. said:

Scientists do have values. Scientists value:

– logic and critical thinking
– evidence
– verifiability and repeatability
– discovering new things

If you don’t value those things, you probably won’t value science. BUT, you probably DO value those things, you just haven’t thought about it.

If you use any technology from cars to computers, then you value the things that science values, because none of those things are possible without those values.

#4 S.…….said in response:

Thus, if I like using my cell phone, I must believe in tectonic plate subduction?

Paarsurrey comments on #3 above:

  1. Science is under discussion please, not the scientists. Please
  2. Value of a thing is finite, and is limited by its scope that is clearly defined; it has no value out of its scope. It will be just irrelevant.

#5 l.……. wrote in response to #1 :

The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Paarsurrey comments:

  1. Please quote from a textbook of science that scientific method is not a philosophical method. If that would have been the case the science need not have had a discipline called “Philosophy of science”, in fact science was not a separate subject but was a branch of philosophy in the past.
  2. The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.
  3. Does one agree that science is limited to the “physical and natural” and has no value out of these realms?