Archive for the ‘science’ Category

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 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

 

 

“Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card

July 30, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”A Suggestion: A Science sub-forum”

Post #10

 Red Economist said:

Paarsurrey wrote:

I liked following points in your post:

  • “Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card.
  • “where’s your proof”
  • Science is Atheism’s sacred cow
  • Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particularly after Darwin)
  • science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another

You are a keen observer.
Regards

”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?

July 27, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

post #1

paarsurrey started the thread:”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?”

For any claim and reason on behalf of science, please quote from:

  • A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
  • From a text book of science
  • Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Post #12
 Thief Wrote:
Thief

The title is correct as is.
Proving is not required….see Webster’s

paarsurrey liked the above post.
Post #26
Thief

Thief

The point is clear…..
God created the universe….such is faith.
Science seeks to know how…..

“pompous wanky ‘science’ fanboy”

July 24, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1
paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :
 Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.

Regards

In response following posts are a must read

Post #65 by LegionOnomaMoi Well-Known Member
LegionOnomaMoi
Post #69#71, and #73 by our friend Augustus
Augustus

science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications-One must differentiate between

July 24, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1
paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :
 Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.

Regards

Post #62
Augustus

Augustus wrote

I assume you are highly familiar with academic journals if you can see through my paper thin charade so easily. My ‘juvenile renunciation’ certainly deserves a rapid chastisement from a more learned individual, one so wise in the ways of science. Consider me humbled :pensive:

Augustus

Augustus wrote

What’s wrong with many ‘rationalists’ (apart from the fact that they vastly overstate their own rationality), is that they feel the need to get caught up in wanky ‘science’ fanboyism. “Oh no! Somebody has tainted the honour of science by claiming it isn’t the omnipotent and omniscient god that I believe it is, stand back whilst I give the scoundrel who defamed her a stern verbal rebuke!”.

The problem is people like you can’t actually differentiate between science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications, etc. and get themselves into a fankle when anything with some connection to ‘science’ is criticised in any way.

Automatically you jump to the conclusion that this person is either an imbecile or some science-hating Taliban fundamentalist type who wants to ban books and insist the world is flat. “Oh No! Augustus is trying to ‘asassinate’ science. He must be stopped!”.

The biggest danger with playing the pompous, wanky fanboy card though is that you end up looking like a bit of a trumpet if you are wrong.

The points I made are frequently raised by more enlightened people involved with sciences and academia and have been mentioned in scientific journals and discussion for a long time. You can read up on it if you want to know more, it’s an interesting, but worrying, topic.

Now, as a ‘truly rank amateur’, a ‘truly rank amateur’ that has ‘evidently never read an academic journal in my life’ ‘let alone understood one’, how long do you think it would take me to find support for what I said from within an actual scientific journal? [Hint: I already did it, took me about 6 seconds].

Now I wouldn’t want to patronise someone as knowledgable as yourself by posting a link. I assume you will be able to find one far more easily than a truly rank juvenile amateur such as myself. Please let me know if you enjoyed the read though and if your views have changed as a result of it.

If you can’t find anything though and would like a helping hand all you need to do is ask: “Hi Augustus. Sorry, it seems I was wrong in saying you were a ‘sad but amusing truly rank juvenile amateur who speaks manufactured crap’. It has come to my attention that you have read at least 1 academic journal article. Would you be kind enough to share with me the article so I can understand why my pompous, wanky fanboyism was misguided? Thanks in advance. Jojom xx”

Just to remind you of my claims:

In many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most published material is wrong… frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor maths, deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

Happy hunting! :kissingheart:

paarsurrey liked the above post.

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

July 24, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1
paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :

Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Post #32
Augustus wrote in response:
Augustus

I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when ‘science talks gibberish’ it is because the reader doesn’t understand. The ‘science’ is right, it’s just the reader that is wrong.

Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.

When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

In terms of language though, scientists aren’t half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication. Can’t remember who it was but someone said something along the lines of ‘the value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realises the layman doesn’t know what they are talking about’.

You like this.

Science can say nothing about existence of God.

May 28, 2015

Please view and comment on my post at <www.religiousforums.com><thread Science can say nothing about existence of God.>. One may like to join an interesting discussion by clicking on the post # below.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

ben d likes this.

Mocking and belittling not a good or a moral humane behavior of the Atheists

January 14, 2014

Following comments were exchanged between paarsurrey and others @

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/01/creationist-ken-ham-versus-the-truth/#comment-1200352067

paarsurrey to Wetzel:

I think mocking and belittling is not a good or a moral humane behavior on the part of the scientists, if they do it.

The truthful revealed religions represented by the stalwarts like Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have never opposed the scientists or the science. If anyone of them have; somebody please quote from them.

These stalwarts and their Revealed Word was to guide the human beings in the ethical,moral and spiritual realms and they confined themselves to these realms.

The scientific and material endeavors have been left free for human inquiry and investigations as these are in the secular realm.

xscd @ paarsurrey

Could you please translate your comments into simple English, or condense your basic point(s) into a comprehensible and succinct summary statement? Thank you.

If you’re saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive, there would be a lot of people who would disagree with you. Many religious people believe in evolution and God simultaneously, and regard the creation myth of the Bible’s Genesis and other creation myths as just that.

paarsurrey @ xscd

The Truthful Revealed Religion is the Word of the One-True-God; and the science having its basis in the nature is the Work of the One-True-God (Allah Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Ishawara) . since the Word and Work belong to the same personage; if truthfully understood, both are not and cannot be contradictory.

I think it would help.

English is not my mother language; if I have not been able to express it fully; one may ask me another question, please.

Thanks

xscd @ paarsurrey

Thank you. That additional response clarified your position.