Posts Tagged ‘physical’

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?

 

Science deals with specific physical or material matters; does not deal with abstract attributes like “beauty”

April 25, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/need-one-say-more/comment-page-1/#comment-14362

PAARSURREY says:
April 24, 2014 at 11:19 am

@ John Zande
A baby girl says
“According to religion I am:
-Broken
-Flawed
-Sinful
-Dumb
-Weak
-Nothing”
The truthful Religion does not say this.

If you think it is so; please quote from Quran.
Regards

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/need-one-say-more/comment-page-1/#comment-14364

PAARSURREY says:
April 24, 2014 at 11:31 am

@ John Zande
A baby girl says
“According to science I am:
-Full of wonder
-Smart
-a great learner
-Beautiful
-Potential for greatness!”

Please quote from a text book of science or a peer reviewed article in a journal of science. I think science deals with specific physical or material matters; does not deal with abstract attributes like “beauty or smartness” that are not quantifiable.
Regards

Science and Religion both essential for living normal life on the planet Earth

March 21, 2014

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13351

PAARSURREY says:
March 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm

@MYATHEISTLIFE says: March 21, 2014 at 6:29 am

“It occurs to me that this subject is about how the believer chooses their own morality over the dictated word of their deity. When there is a right and wrong way to interpret the text it is by definition not a perfect text and cannot be seen to contain perfect or objective morality.”

Interpretation is done by both Religion and the Science.
The experiments are made on the basis of the availability of certain data at a certain point of time and the results are interpreted and are accepted within a certain range of accuracy; and there is an implied condition always with the results “if other things remain unchanged” (since everything is moving, so other things don’t remain unchanged); the ultimate check of the results is with the Nature- the Work of God. If there is an anomaly detected subsequently in nature with the result of the experiments; then new hypothesis/theory is made and new experiments are made to remove the anomaly.
The same way in Religion; as we advance/change in time and place; the previous interpretation/understanding does not remain valid simply because our understanding, though previously it was thought to be correct; but due to the change of time and place an anomaly is detected; when more thought was applied on the original text of the Word revealed one gets to know the mistake of previous interpretation/understanding; it was not the fault of the Word of God, so to make a new and correct interpretation/understanding becomes necessary.

Science/Nature is the Work of God and religion is from the Word of God; both belong to the same source of One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara); both work in different domains for benefit of the humanity; both are complementary to one another and never contradict one another if correctly interpreted.

Science works in the physical and material domains; religion is for guidance of the humanity in the even more sophisticated and intricate issued of ethical, moral and spiritual realms; nevertheless both are essential for living normal life in this planet Earth, peacefully.

Let us see below what Wikipedia says on the usage of interpretation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Interpretation

Philosophy[edit]
• Interpretation (philosophy), the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration
• Interpretation (logic), an assignment of meaning to the symbols of a formal language
• De Interpretatione, a work by Aristotle
• Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation theory
• Exegesis, a critical explanation or interpretation of a text
Math, science and computing[edit]
• Interpretation (model theory), a technical notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure
• Interpreter (computing), a program (a virtual processor) that is able to execute instructions written in a high-level programming language
• Interpretation function, in mathematical logic a function that assigns functions and relations to the symbols of a signature
• Interpretation of quantum mechanics, a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature
• Interpreter pattern, a software engineering design pattern
• Left brain interpreter, the post-hoc construction of explanations by the brain’s left hemisphere
• Interpreted language, a programming language that avoidsit program compilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Finding claims and reasons for Truth: Atheists would first be on the run

March 20, 2014

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/comments/belief/#comment-8857

paarsurrey
MAR 20, 2014 @ 21:43:36

Hi everybody

One could be born in any religion or without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey to find the truth. The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.

Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.

I give here a principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world. I give below the principle and its explanation in his words:

“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”

“I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book.

As it is my purpose today to establish the merits of the Holy Quran and to demonstrate its excellence, it is incumbent upon me not to state anything which is not comprehended in the Quran and to set forth everything on the basis of its verses and in accord with their meaning and that which might be inferred from them, so that those attending the Conference should encounter no difficulty in carrying out a comparison between the teachings of different religions.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad adhered to this principle and answered the five important questions set by the moderators of the Conference:

1. The physical, moral and spiritual states of man
2. The state of man after death.
3. The object of man’s life and the means to its attainment.
4. The operation of the practical ordinances of the Law in this life and the next.
5. Sources of Divine knowledge.

One could access the following link to read the book available online freely:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics don’t have a book to follow. They extol science to find answers to all the questions in the world. Although the questions don’t fall within the scope of science and would overburden it; yet they are open to answer with the condition that they quote some standard text book of science for the claims to the answers as also to the reasons given specifying the relative discipline of science that legitimately deals with it.

Islam fulfills the above Criteria; other revealed religions would find either claims or reasons in their books; not both of them, I think.

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics would find none.

March 17, 2014

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/the-middle-eastern-christian-god-a-review-4/comment-page-1/#comment-13262

PAARSURREY says:
March 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm

@ John Zande
“The god of the Pentateuch (re-invented in the New Testament, then again revised in the Qur’an) is invisible and inaudible. It gives off no odour and has no perceptible taste. “Unquote

The Christian God (they wrongly name it Jesus) is not the One-True-God of Moses (OT); and definitely not of Quran. Quran’s God is not physical or spiritual; He is only attributive hence no human instrument could detect Him. Quran mention it:

[6:103] Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
[6:104] Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105] Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
[6:106] And thus do We vary the Signs that the truth may become established, but the result is that they say, ‘Thou hast learnt well;’ and We vary the Signs that We may explain it to a people who have knowledge.
[6:107] Follow that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord; there is no God but He; and turn aside from the idolaters.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=6&verse=103

Is it ethical or moral to explore God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him?

March 14, 2014

I have written a post on the following blog of uncleE; the viewers could add their valuable comments here even if they differ.

“Is there a God?”
“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/#comment-8827

paarsurrey
MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:58:01

@ unkleE :MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:15:54

“we shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.” Unquote

I think I agree with you here.

I further have to submit.

We are discussing here the existence of One-True-God, an Immortal Being . Science and the scientific method as a tool of exploration has come into the field only yesterday; and it only deals in the things physical and material.

The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

[39:65] Say, ‘Is it other gods than Allah that you bid me worship, O ye ignorant ones?’
[39:66] And verily it has been revealed to thee as unto those before thee: ‘If thou attribute partners to God, thy work shall surely go vain and thou shalt certainly be of the losers.’
[39:67] Aye, worship Allah and be among the thankful.
[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=39&verse=67

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True- God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

Why Christians want to put words into Jesus’ mouth? Jesus abhorred

March 4, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey’s comments on the following blog for your valuable opinion:

“Is there a God?”
“Welcome to atheists (and others)”

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/about/welcome-to-atheists-and-others/#comment-8733

paarsurrey
MAR 04, 2014 @ 16:51:30

I further have to add to my comments of MAR 03, 2014 @ 22:46:52:

A very clear testimony of Matthew:

Matthew 13:34

“Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable”

http://biblehub.com/matthew/13-34.htm

It is for this that I say that the Christians should believe the core teaching of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22:36-40

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40

It makes it very clear that Jesus never declared himself a god or son of god in literal and physical terms; and whatever Jesus mentioned elsewhere the Christians should take that as symbolic and in parables terms and interpret it in the light of these clear teachings. It is a common sense approach.

Had he been a god, in literal and physical sense, he would have told it in unequivocal and straightforward terms?

Whom he was afraid of that he could not declare his god-head himself? Why did he leave this the most important issue for others to announce posthumous?

Even a weak human being won’t make such a blunder.

Thanks

In response to Challenge of Sam Harris : Reason, passions and Morality

February 8, 2014

In response to Challenge of Sam Harris, I have sent the following essay:

Reason, passions and Morality

The topic of morality has little relevance with science; hence this topic has never been discussed in any text book of science as to its claim or the reasons in this regards. The question relates to religion as its nature suggests.

The true relationship between the human morals viz-a-viz natural human instincts has been discussed and explained in the book “Philosophy of Teachings of Islam” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) – the Promised Messiah. I will provide a summary of it below mostly in his words.

Natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities.

For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good-mannered. In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.

A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.

A human infant, as soon as it is born, seeks its mother’s breasts, and a chicken, as soon as it is hatched begins to pick up corn. In the same way the spawn of a leech behave like a leech, a baby serpent behaves like a serpent and a tiger cub behaves like a tiger. A human infant begins to exhibit human reactions as soon as it is born and those reactions become more and more remarkable as it begins to grow up. For instance, its weeping becomes louder, and its smiles become laughter, and its gaze becomes more concentrated.

At the age of a year or eighteen months it develops another natural trait: it begins to display its pleasure and displeasure through its movements and tries to strike someone or to give something to someone. All these motions are natural impulses. Similarly a barbarian who possesses little human sense is like such an infant and displays natural impulses in his words, actions and movements and is governed by his natural emotions.

Nothing proceeds from him in consequence of the exercise of his inner faculties. Whatever surges up from his inside under the operation of a natural impulse and as a reaction to external stimuli, becomes manifest. It is possible that his natural impulses that are exhibited as a reaction to an external stimulus may not all be vicious, and some might resemble good morals, but they are normally not the consequences of reasonable reflection and consideration, and even if they are to some degree so motivated they cannot be relied upon on account of the domination of natural impulses.
In short we cannot attribute true morals to a person who is subject to natural impulses like animals or infants or the insane, and who lives more or less like animals. The time of true morals, whether good or bad, begins when a person’s reason becomes mature and he is able to distinguish between good and bad and the degree of evil and goodness, and begins to feel sorry when he misses an opportunity of doing good and is remorseful when he has done some wrong. This is the second stage of his life which is designated by the Holy Quran the self that reproves.

True Courage: Of the natural conditions of man is that which resembles courage, as an infant sometimes seeks to thrust his hand into the fire on account of its natural condition of fearlessness. In that condition a person fearlessly confronts tigers and other wild beasts and issues forth alone to fight a large number of people. Such a one is considered very brave. But this is only a natural condition that is found even in savage animals and in dogs.

To be steadfast against every personal passion or against any calamity that attacks like an enemy and not to run away out of cowardice is true courage. Thus, there is a great difference between human courage and the courage of a wild beast. A wild animal is moved only in one direction when it is roused, but a man who possesses true courage chooses confrontation or non-resistance whichever might be appropriate to the occasion.
I give below a passage from the book:

“It is characteristic of the human self that it incites man to evil and is opposed to his attainment of perfection and to his moral state, and urges him towards undesirable and evil ways. Thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals. When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then these three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states.” Unquote

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

One may like to read answer to the “FIRST QUESTION- The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” from the above book to understand the topic of morality fully.

Reason and Passion: in religion

February 6, 2014

Reason and Passion: in religion and government
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/reason-and-passion-in-religion-and-government/

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/reason-and-passion-in-religion-and-government/#comment-123860

paarsurrey
02/06/2014 at 11:15 am

I think Sam Harris has not understood the true relationship between the human morals viz-a-viz natural human instincts; which has truly been explained in the book “Philosophy of Teachings of Islam”. Sam Harris should read the question and its answer given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the above named book. I think he will get convinced and save the prize money also. Sorry for Jonathan Haidt, he may lose.

I give below a passage from the book:

“It is characteristic of the human self that it incites man to evil and is opposed to his attainment of perfection and to his moral state, and urges him towards undesirable and evil ways. Thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals. When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then these three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states.” Unquote

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

One may like to read answer to the “FIRST QUESTION- The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” from the above book; about twenty pages in all.

Science is not designed to tackle everything in life

July 20, 2013

I commented on the blog < http://agnophilo.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/15-questions-for-evolutionists-response/#comments> and then a discussion ensued; the same is given here-under for the viewers of this blog.

 

  1. paarsurrey says:

    Science is not designed to tackle everything in life; scientific method is valid only for the things physical and spiritual; beyond that it is just blind.

    The one true God is neither physical nor spiritual; He is attributive.

  2. Thanks for putting this together. It really covers a lot of information without getting very complicated.

    I think scientists will eventually be able to create complex organisms from elements (inorganic material). I can’t predict how of course. I am just fairly sure that the creator created by natural laws and that He always will work in ways that make Him thus a mysterious supernatural force that is undetectable using what we have to work with to “see” and “hear” Him.