Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

There is humor in the bible.
God did some funny things to people, as well as what we think to be cruel.

Some of my retinal cells are stimulated, and I claim to see roses.All of our perception is inference from the known to the unknown. We cannot know anything, except by such inference. This isn't just science, it is everything in our interaction with the world.Science, much like everyday life, depends on inference to the best explanation (often called abduction).

I don't know what you do for a living, but maybe some people may think that way, Ido not. And that is what makes me seprate from the rest, hopefully boosting me into the top 10% of my field.Many times there can be a cause to a specific problem, that is unseen, or not happening in fron tof you. A poor mechanic would place a "band aid" on it, it is my desire to find the root cause of the trouble. Through:
Observation
Hypothesis
Experiment
Analysis
DissemninationProblems can happen that may never even existed before. Especially new equipment, or custominstallations. So I have to be the one to "discover" the problem. Which makes me scietific. I may not be a biologists, but that is not the only scietific field there is. Or do you need to go to college to completely understand the "scietific method" For some of us, we are born with that kind of common sense, a logical way of thinking. Going to school would only increase these God given gifts. but for some, they may never get it, no matter how much school you go through. And I think what you picture as science is very narrow minded. Do you think that only people who go to college are exclusive to using the scietific method?

This is what I have been saying, only you put it more eloquently.
This is also what I believe makes science biased.

WEll Put!!!I do not get all hung up on the second coming, or choose to fear/scare people into believing. That is completely wrong.If the truth that Jesus tried to teach us about, and sent to us is indeed the truth, then it must hold up to all the tests. The bible teaches not to tell people they are going to hell, that is an exclusive privilage for God only.The bible also tells us that no-one knows the dates but the father. So I live my life like he is coming tomorrow, or 1000 years from now. Mike, oxygen and Carbon dioxide are not science. It is, what is. It is part of the observable truth. The truth I refer to is several things. answers to questions like, why are we here, what is our purpose, does God exist, what is oxygen, what is all supposed to mean, what is the answer to life the universe and everything? 42 I am with you on that one. Yes, I think all this stuff to, and I don't really have a qualified answer, but to say that everything has a purpose. I will not judged those other religions, except but for myself. I do not see truth in some of those teachings. But it may work for others. God knows their hearts, so what do I have to worry about. God knows I am seeking him, and it is my desire to follow him, without hurting others, so we will find out when I die.Also, no matter how hard we try to be not religious, or traditional, it is impossible. probably for the same reasons we can't be "sin free" There is tradition is being non-traditional, something my church tries to do. We try to be led by the Spirit of God, and the main guidlines is to Love God, and love others, a difficult venture.*edit*
If we do those things, then peer pressure is a non-issue. where there is true love, there is no peer pressure. Is there love in science?This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 11-20-2005 12:07 PM

quote:

---

Science, much like everyday life, depends on inference to the best explanation (often called abduction).

​

This is what I have been saying, only you put it more eloquently.
This is also what I believe makes science biased.

---

I'm sorry that you didn't get it.I was trying to point out that your thesis reduces everything to an absurdity. If science is biased, then you are biased. If science is unreliable, then everything you do is also unreliable. If what you believe about science is correct, then that applies to everyday life too. You might just as well commit suicide right now.I am not recommending suicide. I am pointing out that your reasoning is utterly absurd.

I don't disagree with your post that much.Is the answer to everything 42? Yes but through science we found them out. So science establishes facts about the real world. Religion doesn't do this. Agree? That's why science is a floating measure of what is.

I absolutly got what you said.
And if you think my reasoning is utter absurd, then your mind is closed.Tell me, is there science without an intelligent mind to carry it out?Biased, and based only on what we know. Not absurd, reality.

I do not completely agree with you. you are trying to point out how science and religion differ. you make a good point, but that is not an absolute.Lets lust clear one thing up, because we seem to be blurring the line between religion, and truth, or God, so just keep that in mind.Science establishes facts about the real world. You would say they are all objective facts. But since those facts can change as soon as we find out something different, or find out we are wrong about something, are they really objective?I am not talking simple observable things that we take for granted, and yes they may even be more complicated than we ever imagined, because the further we look, the further we see.So having said that, and I think I am getting deep here, but isn't love a fact? Does science observe this? We try to analyze love. I have heard some amazing description of what love is from scientific minds in here, and let me tell you, they were dry, and cold, and if I told my wife that, I would be sleeping on the couch.However, religion, or truth, or what Jesus tries to teach us, is about love and truth. An observable fact. We just really don't pocess the ability to measure it scientifically, we may never be able to.In other words, its out there, whatever it is, love, truth, God, and many more things that stem from that. Religion is the study of it, and mans best interpretation. But even religion is floating, because it is an interpretation, and it is not God. New religions pop up all the time, because one person, or groups of people think the can measure who and what God is better than the next guy.Just because you can't see God, (some people do) or feel him, doesn't mean he is not there, and it is not measurable. religion can be a method of testing to see if he is there. Many people here have tried many religions in search of him, and the truth.Now that I feel as though I know God, I see God in everything, oxygen, gravity, the stars, you, and all the people in this forum. I have combined God, and science together. Something that doesn't really make sense to most here in this forum.Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming to know it all, and I could very well be dead wrong about everything I am saying. But I have to put it out there, and see what comes back. I don't expect people to say, hey your right!, but I expect people to absorb what I am saying, and maybe one day it would make sense. If it is the truth, then the truth will shine through, and be known. If it is not, then I am wrong, and no harm done.

No, but your understanding of "science" disagrees with that of most scientists. With our ordinary understanding of "science", it involves a scientist. I guess you can infer that involves an intelligent mind, but only if you use the kind of inference that you were bashing in Message 259.

My understanding of science, and how I apply it is perfect.To many people in here treat the word science, like a noun. It is not a noun, it is a verb. That means it is limited to who is doing it, what we know at the current time, and who is funding it, unless you are doing it for free, which is probably the most scincerely motivated science.I apply what we learn in science to the best of my abilities on a daily basis. One exapmle is freon. I could be like 90% of other HVAC companies out there, and just add freon to a leaking system, or I could use the knowledged gain from the studies on our atmosphere, and do whatever it takes to stop the leak, something that most HVAC companies would not do. They only wish to return every year and add more freon, to make more money.This little story represents so much in the end user, and outcome of how science affects our lives. Is science biased?Dictionary.com has the meaning of the word biased as this:
To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.Does science always go in a righteous direction? Or is powered by money, war, greed? How is the knowledge that we chase after applied?People in here say that knowledge byitself, which represents science does not do any harm. I disagree, and hold oursleves accountable for everything. Forget the meaning of a word, or a definition. WTF are we doing to this planet? We have the ability to stop it, but money and greed would never let it happen.Do I blame science? Yes, I do, because science is limited to those doing it, and those applying it.If I hear the gravity comparison in this forum one more time, I think I will flip out. Gravity does not = science.Is there good things about science? Absolutly, just like there is good things about guns.Is science going to save us, or kill us?Do you believe in evolution? If you do, then I think there is a distinct possibilty that we are going to evolve ourselves right off the planet.Evolution relies on mutations, and selection right? Well while we pump ourselves full of unatural chemicals, our bodies will then evolve around that, and if science can't keep up, then it may all come crumbling down in our faces. We will evolve into being an unnatural species on this planet, relying on our own abilities, which are BTW limited.If that day comes, you better hope that we were designed, and God knew it was going to happen, and he designed protection for us into our bodies.Do I have the answers? nope, but this is some of the stuff that goes through my mind. If you have difficulty understanding me, then ask, I will try to explain it better. I ask that you read through this post twice before you reply, read through it slowly, and ask yourself where I am coming from, really.

We are really way off-topic here. I've avoided responding to some of your posts in this thread because it had drifted off topic.I'll respond this once, but probably not again unless we open a new topic for the discussion. If you want to continue this discussion, you might want to open a suitable "Proposed New Topic". Sorry to break the news, but "science" is a noun. Still, there is something to what you say. For science isn't purely passive. Although science is considered by some to be a system of beliefs, it is really more of a system of methodologies. So it has to do with action, even if the word itself is a noun. I have a question on freon. I was under the impression that it was being phased out, to be replaced by other refrigerants. As someone working in that area, maybe you can update me on that.By the way, I am glad to see your concern for the atmosphere. "Righteous" is not a technical term, and is the wrong question to ask about science.I think we need to distinguish between science, and the applications of science (often engineering). Most of the abuse of science, what you might consider unrighteous, is in the application rather than in the science itself. And many scientists are concerned about such misuse when it occurs. I agree with those who say science normally does no harm. But some of the applications of science are harmful, and I think that is what you are talking about. I am as concerned as you. But let's not blame the scientists. The "doing" is being done by businesses and politicians. Worse still, many people who claim to be deeply religious Christians are involved in the insane raping of the planet. Sorry to tell you, but it is pretty likely to come up again (and again, and again, ...) Scientists can only do their best and provide the best advice that they can. Regrettably politicians and businesses, driven by greed, will refuse to take their advice until it is too late, or almost too late. I accept the theory of evolution, while perhaps occasionally criticizing it in its current form. But I don't "believe in evolution". A scientific theory is not something to believe in. It is something to understand, and to use as a guide where appropriate. I am not a biologist, so evolution is not central to my work although I have found it a useful guide.I think "evolve ourselves off the planet," while colorful, is the wrong way to describe the situation. Yes, our species could go extinct if we continue in our path of destruction, but that wouldn't be a case of evolving ourselves off the planet. Those are important parts of the "mechanism" (I think "mechanism" is a poor term here, but it is what people often use). I now see why you used "evolve ourselves right off the planet." But I don't expect it to happen that way. What I see as more likely, is that we will damage the environment to such an extent that it can no longer produce the food we need to feed the world's population. And then there might be wars, as people fight over who gets to use the dwindling resources. It is hard to predict the eventual outcome, but for sure we are heading toward danger. One of my concerns is that there are Christians in high places who ignore these problems. They believe that the second coming will occur in the nick of time to rescue us from all of the destruction that we cause to the planet.I believe that they are seriously mistaken. I see it as our responsibilty to take care of nature, to replenish the earth.

I have been thinking about starting a new topic about it, probably after I get through my discussion with arach. I think it is going to be a good one, and I intend to get deep. Thank you for at least acknowledging that there is something to what I say, that is all I am trying to get across, I am not dealing with absolutes here.The dictionary describes science as an action, so I don't see how it can be considered a noun. It is not being phased out. Only certain types, the ones deemed most harmful to our atmosphere. They are being replaced by blends of freon that are not as harmful to the atmosphere. The problem with that is that they still are harmful, and these blends can induce people to leak even more freon into the air because of the complexity in dealing with them.For instance, if you have a leak, because of the blend one half the blend will evaporate at a different rate than the other due to their boiling points, and then you have to remove the mix, and replace it with new. This is very time consuming, and expensive for the customer. People don't want to hear all this, they just want cheap prices. So in trying to do things right, I have to take the time, and charge more. I may loose jobs to others who will just dump the freon in the air, and get it over quickly, but these hacks are putting themselves at risk of legal action, and killing the earth, all for a buck. Yes, I agree. But if research is wrongly motivated, then I blame science. Then people will say, well its not sciences fault, science is not biased.I repeat, science is only as good as those doing it. I wish I could figure out the exact percentages. Every product on my desk is a result of science. It will all wind up in the trash and pollute the earth at some point. So much around us, in factories, transportation, etc is results of our science.But then there are people who go out in the ocean, and study the deep, or myself who can sit up all night for hours on end, and gaze at the stars, or bird watchers, etc. These things don't really harm us, and are educational, and represent a positive thing. Except maybe for the gas engine that powers the research vehicle, lol. I blame everyone, including myself. But I do not blame God. Then I need a java script that will prompt an automated response, and then they can become contestants in a game show or something. Its more than a path of destruction. It deserves its own thread. More than changing our enviroment. We are changing the way our bodies adapt to the enviroment. Then one day there could be a change, and then it would be like dropping us on Mars without a suit to keep us alive. (maybe exgerated a little, but you get my point.) That is an awesome statement. I say woe are they.
That can be another topic again.I think we will cause our own second coming. We will "set the earth on fire", and all that gloom and doom in the bible.Thats one of the things that makes me believe in the bible, and its end times prophecies. I can see all that happening. But I refuse to get hung up on it, and make it some sort of priority in my life, or use it as a tool to scare people into believing.And by no means should we use that as an exuse to screw up the earth. I believe God left us responsible for the earth, and we will have to answer for our wrong doings. Including those high up the Christian chutes and ladders.