Posts Tagged ‘Scientific Method’

Is”Scientific Method/s” invalid in Religion?

October 31, 2017

Thread: “Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 23: 

———-wrote:
[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims.

That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea.

Paarsurrey wrote:

OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so “evidence” here means that could be “observed” physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science:

The University of California, Berkeley
snapshot

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

misconceptions
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So, it is meaningless to ask for “evidence”, “proof” based on “observation” in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please?
Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please?

Regards

*science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.Sc

Post 25: 

Quote:
Originally addressed to friend D———n- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

Paarsurrey wrote:

To add further:

So we in religions don’t substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don’t belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?

Regards

Advertisements

“Science has limits”

October 24, 2017

Thread: “When science does not work What are some examples? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

Post 38: 
When science does not work 
Paarsurrey wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t notice this thread earlier. Friend Rufus21 has brought my attention to this thread vide his Post 101: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:56 am in the thread :”Scientific search for what is God.” Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion:
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=890658#890658

I am neither against science nor against religion. I believe both are essential for human development and progress.
Science with the grace of One-True-God has done marvelous things in its domain since the discovery of “Scientific Method” which I understand changes with the discipline of science and the problem/issue in hand due to the nature of the discipline it is being applied to. To start with it was applied in “Physics” properly and formally. Its father/mother is Mathematics and it Grandfather/mother is Philosophy where it is not applied altogether, or not to much extent. Right, please?
Regards

Further reading/research:

snapshot
Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.
misconceptions
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.Read more about it.
  • Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
  • Science doesn’t make moral judgments
  • Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
  • Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
  • Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

The University of California, Berkeley (also referred to as UC BerkeleyBerkeley, and Cal [7]) is a public research university located in BerkeleyCalifornia.[8] Founded in 1868, Berkeley is one of the ten research universities affiliated with the University of California system and is ranked as one of the world’s leading research universities and the top public university in the United States.[9][10][11][12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley

Past experience has shown that mathematical models of nature have tremendous advantages over the earlier, more appealing, models that use analogies to familiar everyday phenomena of our direct sensory experience. Mathematical models are less burdened with emotional baggage, being “pure” and abstract. Mathematics provides seemingly infinite adaptability and flexibility as a modeling structure. If some natural phenomena can’t be modeled by known mathematics, we invent new forms of mathematics to deal with them.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/method.htm

http://www.kangaroo.com.pk/blogs/mathematics-mother-of-all-sciences

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?

 

Scientific Method is useless in religion?

October 20, 2016

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientific-method-is-useless-in-religion.191797/

Yesterday at 3:23 PM#1

Paarsurrey wrote:

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please

Regards

Yesterday at 4:40 PM#9

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one.
Comparative study of religions is simply a method . One could say it is an art or equally one could describe it to be science in general terms being rational. For sure it is not a discipline of Science.
Regards

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

October 19, 2016
#268366 13 min ago
hpcaban wrote:
<quoted text>

In science ONLY? Meaning logical, fact based research has no place in our thinking? Please! Religion, based on faith, is no science either!

Paarsurrey wrote:
Every tool is useful if applied at the proper place and purpose. Those who made this tool called “Scientific Method” were sensible people. They named it where it was to be used usefully that is in science and not in religion. If one will try to use it in religions one is bound to fail. This tool was never made to be used in Religion. It will be like using a hammer for pulling a nail from a door, that will break the door. Right? Please

Atheism is a faith based non-religion, it has got nothing to do with science. Atheism is just confusion. Please

Regards

The mute scientific method!

April 6, 2016
Post #175

paarsurrey

I never said that religion is in subordination to science. I always say that religion and science are in different domains, they don’t necessarily contradict one another. Science deals the material and physical domains, religion deals in moral and spiritual domains.
The science deals the temporary, religion deals the lasting truth.
Science deals the relative, religion deals the absolute truth.
Science did not create any word or any iota/atom in the universe, it only borrowed words and symbols or integers without which it would have been mute and have been incapacitated to do anything.
Right?
Regards

ReligiousForums.com

Thread: “Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?”

Post:  #175

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-muhammad-the-greatest-moral-example.185227/page-9#post-4702742

Scientific Method: God

December 4, 2015
Post #397
Paarsurrey wrote:

Can science disprove the existence of God?

It is not a question that relates to “scientific method”, scientific method is incapacitated. Right?Please
Regards

ben d likes this.
Post #354
Paarsurrey wrote:

Please read my post #397 in this connection.
Regards

ben d likes this.

Belief in magic not in science

June 1, 2014

http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/new-atheism-is-bad-science/#comment-4308

paarsurrey
May 22nd, 2014 at 1:40 pm
@boxingpythagoras : May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41 am

“[However, I’ve sometimes heard the word “scientism” applied to the claim that the Scientific Method is the best method yet discovered for discerning and disseminating an understanding of the way in which reality operates. I would wholeheartedly disagree with classifying this claim as “pseudoscience.”]”

Within the physical and material realms; I agree that scientific method is useful as a tool; out of this it is of no use; and those who try to fit it everywhere definitely believe in magic not in science.
Even science does not claim it.

Regards