Origin of Earth

[Dr.Who]

You presuppose belief, I have none.

Can you make any of the statements you have made on this thread without belief?

 

[Dr.Who]

I would take exception to real science needing faith, I believe that is exactly what it's purpose is to overcome. Finding clues to targeted problems, using them to make concrete discoveries to better help our society. Constantly questioning these same discoveries and the clues that led to them instead of making dogma to be strictly followed under threat of eternal damnation-no, science is different than faiths.

It has purpose? What is its purpose? Is it teleological or is it merely reactive? is there a reason that people attempt to answer questions or does the question itself compel a mechanical search for the answer like a cue ball compels a another pool ball to move?

I am glad you are a part of our forum. I hope that I can learn from you and that you too are open to learning from us.

 

[clarkatticus]

I believe all religion or faiths started out as science, an attempt to apply rational answers to pressing questions, eventually forming a rigid framework not to be assailed by threat of everlasting damnation or some such eventuality, much like some science today. Yet true science trudges on, going over the data, tests and theories, looking for better answer. In it's defence, many religions preach self awareness and personal improvement-generally within the limitations of their dogma, though. When I say I don't have beliefs, I simply mean in a diety or intelligent design. I think there are rational answers to some questions, but no answers to the metaphysical ones I outlined, at least not with the present science. My motivation for life is the smile from my grandson when he sees an old three stooges movie, the imagery I get from a well written paragraph, or the knowledge gained from an experience-I cannot explain it any better than this, I am sorry.

 

[numinus]

I believe all religion or faiths started out as science, an attempt to apply rational answers to pressing questions, eventually forming a rigid framework not to be assailed by threat of everlasting damnation or some such eventuality, much like some science today. Yet true science trudges on, going over the data, tests and theories, looking for better answer.

You mean theology, not religion.

All formal inquiries start from philosophy. Science itself, was called natural philosophy (in direct reference to aristotlean philosophy) during the age of enlightenment.

Philosophy has many branches -- the more common branches being metaphysics (the nature of existence), political philosophy (the study of human political associations), ethics (the nature of good and evil) and aesthetics (the nature of beauty).

So you see, science, or natural philosophy, is just an inquiry on a particular aspect of existence -- that of the material, common-sense world. It cannot make sweeping judgments regarding the ontological truth of all forms of existence simply because certain aspects of existence are beyond the scope of its methodology.

Some scientific inquiries, like psychology and the nature of behavior and the human mind, would seem indistinguishable to philosophical inquiries. Nitzche's nihilism has more practical applications in psychology than in metaphysics, wouldn't you agree?

In it's defence, many religions preach self awareness and personal improvement-generally within the limitations of their dogma, though. When I say I don't have beliefs, I simply mean in a diety or intelligent design. I think there are rational answers to some questions, but no answers to the metaphysical ones I outlined, at least not with the present science.

This is perhaps one of the important distinctions of religion from theology. There are religions today -- the radical fundamentalist movements -- christian, islamic or jewish -- that have morphed into an indistinguishable mass from the theology it purports to be based. It is this kind of thinking that has no place in humankind.

My motivation for life is the smile from my grandson when he sees an old three stooges movie, the imagery I get from a well written paragraph, or the knowledge gained from an experience-I cannot explain it any better than this, I am sorry.

That is philosophy. Whether such things motivate you to learn deeper truths or not depends on you.

 

[Dr.Who]

I believe all religion or faiths started out as science, an attempt to apply rational answers to pressing questions, eventually forming a rigid framework not to be assailed by threat of everlasting damnation or some such eventuality, much like some science today. Yet true science trudges on, going over the data, tests and theories, looking for better answer. In it's defence, many religions preach self awareness and personal improvement-generally within the limitations of their dogma, though. When I say I don't have beliefs, I simply mean in a diety or intelligent design. I think there are rational answers to some questions, but no answers to the metaphysical ones I outlined, at least not with the present science. My motivation for life is the smile from my grandson when he sees an old three stooges movie, the imagery I get from a well written paragraph, or the knowledge gained from an experience-I cannot explain it any better than this, I am sorry.

It is nice to learn more about what you think.

Can you answer this question? No it is not a trick question intended to trap you. Yes, it is a question that I expect that when we explore it will lead you to think more like me (or me more like you).

Do you know the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning? Which provides proof and which is based on biased and human observations? On which is the foundation of science built? (hint: the foundation of science is a set of beliefs called axioms and the philosophy underlying them)

 

[clarkatticus]

It is nice to learn more about what you think.

Can you answer this question? No it is not a trick question intended to trap you. Yes, it is a question that I expect that when we explore it will lead you to think more like me (or me more like you).

Do you know the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning? Which provides proof and which is based on biased and human observations? On which is the foundation of science built? (hint: the foundation of science is a set of beliefs called axioms and the philosophy underlying them)

Humans use both inductive and deductive reasoning on a daily basis. If you think I use mathmatics to postulate my theories on life you will find I do not care about the theories on life as they have no bearing on my life. I live, I die, I turn to dirt. Left brain thinkers are deductive in general, right brain thinkers inductive. I test out as a combined brain thinker, with an I.Q. in the top 2-3%, depending on the test. In everyday situations we are forced for expediency's sake to us inductive reasoning, should we trust that dog not to bite me? It's a golden retriever and they usually like me so I trust it not to bite me. Deductive reasoning is left to my 401K allocations, tax returns and large purchases, and, sadly, relationships. Previously I used inductive reasoning for relatinships, ie. she's latina, I'm in love---

 

[Dr.Who]

Humans use both inductive and deductive reasoning on a daily basis. If you think I use mathmatics to postulate my theories on life you will find I do not care about the theories on life as they have no bearing on my life. I live, I die, I turn to dirt. Left brain thinkers are deductive in general, right brain thinkers inductive. I test out as a combined brain thinker, with an I.Q. in the top 2-3%, depending on the test. In everyday situations we are forced for expediency's sake to us inductive reasoning, should we trust that dog not to bite me? It's a golden retriever and they usually like me so I trust it not to bite me. Deductive reasoning is left to my 401K allocations, tax returns and large purchases, and, sadly, relationships. Previously I used inductive reasoning for relatinships, ie. she's latina, I'm in love---

Your dog example is a good example of inductive reasoning.

Does inductive reasoning provide proof? Based on what you have written can I assume you agree with me that it does not?

On which type of reasoning are the axioms of science based, inductive or deductive?

 

[clarkatticus]

Your dog example is a good example of inductive reasoning.

Does inductive reasoning provide proof? Based on what you have written can I assume you agree with me that it does not?

On which type of reasoning are the axioms of science based, inductive or deductive?

This ain't class, Dr.- Deductive reasoning is science as I alluded to. As I said, both are used on a daily basis by all, including you, for daily decisions. But it a circular reasoning, axioms used by science change with the knowledge attained (the world is flat, no, it is a sphere, or, more recently, homosexuality is a perversion, no, it is a condition created at birth) So what was once deductive reasoning becomes inductive, read Hume.