Scrutinising the subject, 'Science'

[Raghy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

raghy

it all depeds upons ones views ultimately,if you think science is progressive then it is so,if you think science is regressive then it is so.happiness is a state of mind,which vastly differs from one individual to another.every society has its own plus and minus,we endeavor to attain optimum satisfaction.

Sri.Nachi Naga,

My point view does not have relevance here. Sri.Saidevo said that science is not scrutinised enough; but, we don't have many science based threads in the forum, do we? So, I strated this thread and threw couple posts based on research. I am willing to find and post more subjects...but the scrutiny is not happening. So, I am cordially inviting the science sceptics to comment in this thread. That's all.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

raghy saar,

science is all about scrutiny.self-realisation is the foremost science.once a person is self-realised,he discovers everything.

 

[Iyest]

Folks,

It is less than 2 months since he joined this forum and here are some "civil" pronouncements he has made:

• These dudes are lacking in gray matter. That is all.
• What is really telling is your depth of ignorance and lack of comprehension.
• First let us shake off our stupidity
• Great speech.

Yes. Though only one of the quotes was directed at an individual, it cannot be justified by saying it was a response to a personal attack. I can certainly see how it may be considered condescending. Apologies for the same.

Yet he is so super sensitive to incivility in others that he sees it even when it is not there.

It is hard to pretend it is not there when the responses are entirely personal in the same post. Interesting how somebody so rooted in "science" can claim to know the depth of knowledge in others based on the length of the responses in a single post.

 

[Nara]

No, I am only 'V', no 'NV'... :madgrin:... hence the green...

Nice saptha, great fun chiding with you, but I bow to Raghy's reprove....


Dear Raghy, Science is not some set of dogmatic codes that can be scrutinized and value judgments placed on. That kind of thinking itself reveals a bias. Science is not a system designed for some purpose, say like the Varna system, which is supposed to be designed for the purpose of this or that.

Science is simply a process of discovery.

So when some wants to scrutinize science, what does that mean? You want to scrutinize why people are curious to look around and try to understand how nature works? You want to scrutinize why people think?

Indeed scientific discoveries have resulted in horrors like atomic bomb, global warming, etc. But science is not a social construct like varna/casts system or even religion that can be thrown away -- many an ancient religion and scores of social customs are now no more. But the curiosity of inquiring minds will always be there, will never die. Science is the very nature of humans, it has always been there, and it will always be there.

Science is the only game in town that can give authentic answers about the world around us.

Cheers!

 

[anandb]

I partially agree with Sri. Nara on his views of science. I don't think the religion called Sanatana Dharma imposes dogma. I don't really want to talk about other man made religions which appeared about 3000 years back discounting the fact that humanity existed much before that. But SD encourages the spirit of inquiry just like science. It encourages "experience" more than "blind following". The fact remains both religion and science can be used for constructive or destructive purposes by man but that is not the fault of religion and science. Mankind has to use its grey matter in the right way.

It is worth noting that Science only "discovers" but does not "create" anything by itself. Meaning there has to be a Creator of all things. The fact remains that Science is absolutely indispensable to humanity but a sense of humility should prevail that it is something which compliments the laws of nature and not goes against it. So when Science acts as a tool to improve the lot of humanity it comes out trumps but as a tool for commercial interests it just leads mankind in the path to hell. Unfortunately we are seeing the more of latter because there is very little spirituality left in Science now as everything needs funding from big businesses whose sole aim is profits.

I read an interesting article written by an American professor who says that future decision making is going to get so complex with overload of useless and conflicting information that "intellectual" intelligence based on reams and reams of data will be rendered useless. So apart from equipping oneself with college degrees and so on, what we also need is "intuitive" intelligence needing split second decisions based on what you feel. Such "intuition" can only be developed by a "spiritual" temperament and not just going through the grind in top universities.

In summary, I will say if one applies the tenets of religion to Science it is a win-win combination. One cannot ignore the other in this complex world

 

[nachi naga]

the methodology science uses to explain,is easier to understand for a layman.unlike the science as explained via samnskrtham slokas.samnskrutham was spoken by the learned of india,which was a small community,and reason's best known to them,education was imparted to few rather than a mass producing factory churning out robotons.principle's of controlling desire's was a primary instruction for sanathana dharma spiritual scientiscts,whereas present science says go and aspire more and more,strive hard to acheive whatever you want from life.for present scenario this though will continue,untill some other changes occur in human psyche.the ways of the lord is always mysterious and only few people are able to crack this mysterious way's and be in absolute divine happiness.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Anandb said :-

I don't think the religion called Sanatana Dharma imposes dogma. I don't really want to talk about other man made religions which appeared about 3000 years back discounting the fact that humanity existed much before that.

Sri.Anand, Greetings. When religion is criticised, the criticising is for all the religions. Not directed to any particular religion. You are right, some religions are more backward thinking than the others; some religions are stuck in the past...stuck in the stone ages.

The fact remains both religion and science can be used for constructive or destructive purposes by man but that is not the fault of religion and science.

I beg to disagree with this statement, please. Science does not have an identity. If you ask 'why?' about any subject and start criticaly analysing that subject, then it is science. Anything and everyting connected to any analysing; data gathering; searching for a pattern...anything at all is science. But, religion has an identity. That said religion has its holy scripture (most often than not it was dictated by God and it can not be changed). So anything destructive performed in the name of the religion is the fault of that religion. For example, I hold Catholic religion directly responsible for Goa Inqusition and argued my point in other forums. I can show other instances where, religious doctrine can be directly traced back as the perpetrator of destruction.

It is worth noting that Science only "discovers" but does not "create" anything by itself.

Sorry. I have to disagree, please. Research and development has helped 'creating' human organs for transplant. Kindly listen to Mr.Anthony Atala....

Anthony Atala on growing new organs | Video on TED.com

The fact remains that Science is absolutely indispensable to humanity but a sense of humility should prevail that it is something which compliments the laws of nature and not goes against it. So when Science acts as a tool to improve the lot of humanity it comes out trumps but as a tool for commercial interests it just leads mankind in the path to hell.

I am in agreement with those words. The so called 'research' conducted for commercial interests, mostly by the chemical companies is a solid example. (if I am not wrong, cigarette smoking was 'found' beneficial by a study conducted by the cigarette companies in the 1960s....)

In summary, I will say if one applies the tenets of religion to Science it is a win-win combination. One cannot ignore the other in this complex world

Sri.Anand, I am not so sure about that. There are religions diametrically opposed to any thinking. I am not exaggerating.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Nara said:-

Science is simply a process of discovery.

Sri.Nara, Greetings. Science is not only a process of discovery but also creative. It can be for analysing, explaining too.

Indeed scientific discoveries have resulted in horrors like atomic bomb, global warming, etc.

I am not so sure about global warming. This earth was going through an ice age, from about 70,000 years ago. Temperature plumeted; ice covered about half the world. The thickness of ice in sweden was estimated to be about couple of kilometers. (Ref - Spencer Wells, talk posted in 'why are we here?' thread)

That ice melted.

The human race was very small. No industry; no technology; no automobiles....
I am not convinced about the global warming caused by human beings.

Cheers!

 

[anandb]

Shri. Raghy

Sri.Anand, Greetings. When religion is criticised, the criticising is for all the religions. Not directed to any particular religion. You are right, some religions are more backward thinking than the others; some religions are stuck in the past...stuck in the stone ages.

I don't agree with you here. You cannot put a timeless religion like SD and other monotheistic religions which appeared 2500 years back all in one basket and criticize them.

I beg to disagree with this statement, please. Science does not have an identity. If you ask 'why?' about any subject and start criticaly analysing that subject, then it is science. Anything and everyting connected to any analysing; data gathering; searching for a pattern...anything at all is science. But, religion has an identity. That said religion has its holy scripture (most often than not it was dictated by God and it can not be changed). So anything destructive performed in the name of the religion is the fault of that religion. For example, I hold Catholic religion directly responsible for Goa Inqusition and argued my point in other forums. I can show other instances where, religious doctrine can be directly traced back as the perpetrator of destruction.

Again I am not bothered about other religions here. Let us talk only about SD or Hinduism here.

Sorry. I have to disagree, please. Research and development has helped 'creating' human organs for transplant. Kindly listen to Mr.Anthony Atala....

Anthony Atala on growing new organs | Video on TED.com

Let Science create an altogether new life form. Even then I will call not call Science as original because the inspiration is already there.

Sri.Anand, I am not so sure about that. There are religions diametrically opposed to any thinking. I am not exaggerating.

As I said, I will stick only to Hinduism so may be we can talk about how it is opposed to thinking.

Cheers![/QUOTE]

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Anand,

Asking me to talk only about Hinduism is too restrictive. I am not just opposed to dogmas in Hinduism only. I don't like to have a debate with you for the sake of having a debate. Since I feel restricted in talking only about Hinduism, (which is not my aim anyway) I respectfully decline your offer to talk only about Hinduism. Thank you for making the offer.

Cheers!

 

[anandb]

No problem, Shri. Raghy.

thanks

 

[Nara]

...
The human race was very small. No industry; no technology; no automobiles....
I am not convinced about the global warming caused by human beings.

Dear Raghy, we are now branching off from the topic of the thread into global warming, hope this is alright.

I am sure you have studied the issue sufficiently, yet, please take a look at this site:

350 Science | 350.org

I think there is overwhelming evidence and a broad consensus among scientists that global warming is real and human activity is the cause. But even if one disagrees with the second part of this, the effects of global warming will be catastrophic for humans and life as we know it in the planet.

In earlier epochs the planet only had a fraction of the current population, one estimate puts world population at 5 million some 10,000 years ago. With such sparse population the previous global warming was probably a non-event for humans. Now, the population is surging past 7 billion, none could reasonably expect to ride out the coming disaster.

The world has to act, and bring CO2 to 350 ppm or lower.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Nara,

I am more than happy to discuss about global warming. (but for the next couple of days, I can't download much. Computer is too slow. We exceeded this months quota to download and our internet connection is capped. Just for 2 more days only, though).

I am not saying we are not contributing to global warming. But, I think, we are not the only cause. There much powerful natural forces could be involved. I need more time to dig more information on this. I am very much interested.

As per the coming disaster, I don't think it can be stopped. I think it is too late.

(Again a different subject - what do you think about 21st December, 2012? Not the movie....That subject keeps pulling me towards it...).

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

science proclaims one thing to day and another in a day or two,scienticts comes up with another findings,so science changes in a dynamic fashion,which is always truth,temperorarily.its just that vedic science has given,enuff and more,for a harmonius life,our vedas explains everything.to know about them,a guru is required,as thats the easy way.to expect a student,to become phd without a teacher,is silly and downright delusional,exceptions are always there,but definitely not the norm.

 

[Nara]

(Again a different subject - what do you think about 21st December, 2012? Not the movie....That subject keeps pulling me towards it...).

Dear Raghy, there have been many predictions of end of the world, none actually panned out, obviously, we are still here!!! No Raghy, I have no time for such predictions coming from handed down belief systems.

Cheers!

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Jai SiyaRaam
Good morning/Namaste Naraji

Science experiments/theories are based on predetermined conditions ie assumptions ex: under normal room temperature so and so ... etc.,

Moreover even in science we are indirectly involved in "belief system" ie truth in scientific field is true only until a case/event pops up that renders the truth as false ie set of cases(pls substitute with appropriate word) is infinite(exhaustive? non-exhaustive?) and is limited to carry out the experiment ie to make it easy in practical life/world

There are many scientific observations(accepted truths) of the past that have been refuted by new discoveries. And future discoveries MAY prove our current understand as wrong.

My questions(genuine & child like):
Is it possible for a scientist to accept a belief system as "yet to be proved" science?
Why is science opposed to belief system ?

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[Nara]

Dear jaisiyaraam,

Science experiments/theories are based on predetermined conditions ie assumptions ex: under normal room temperature so and so ... etc.,

As I have said repeatedly, science is simply a process of observation to make sense of the world around us. There is never a claim that everything there is to know is known and fixed.

... There are many scientific observations(accepted truths) of the past that have been refuted by new discoveries. And future discoveries MAY prove our current understand as wrong.

Yes, absolutely, isn't that wonderful? When new evidences are discovered, science embraces the new ideas with gusto. It is religion that wants to hold on to ideas from a long bygone era, not just in their religious arena, but they want to impose it upon science as well.

Is it possible for a scientist to accept a belief system as "yet to be proved" science? Why is science opposed to belief system?

This is like saying why can't science be a little unscientific. Science by definition has to observe, verify, validate, and revalidate, define scope, apply caveats, etc., before a hypothesis is accepted. That is why the testimony of science is indeed a pramana, but the testimony of the Vedas is not.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

The Vedas are apoureshyam,if this Pramana is NOT accepted,there is nothing to debate.Simply don't mix Veda's with Science,as science is not static,it's an ever evolving field of scrutiny.When people compare,it's like oranges to apples.Long before even science as it is known today,our ancient civilisation lived,and Vedas have been existing from time immemoral.No one has any business,to triviliase Vedas,as its our holy scripture.Will anyone in their sane minds triviliase Bible,koran,talmud or torah?Much before the technological advances had been made,these holy scriptures were providing succour,relief to humanity.Even today humanity which is involved in scientific progress,do not belittle any scriptures of the world.Petty devious minds,indulge in mischeivious activities and raise a stink,with their crap.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Thanks Naraji !!!

May be a different approach need to be taken to study/prove/validate a belief system and the current scientific knowledge is just not enough to either accept/prove or reject ideas/theories(truth ?) mentioned in a belief system

I guess(wish ?) even this Galileo like belief system will have to with stand the persecution by Vatican like science community before being accepted

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Jai SiyaRaam said:-

May be a different approach need to be taken to study/prove/validate a belief system and the current scientific knowledge is just not enough to either accept/prove or reject ideas/theories(truth ?) mentioned in a belief system

Greetings. The current scientific knowledge need not either accept or reject any belief system. So many science projects involve scientists from various religious backgrounds working together. Science is just a study of objective data to validate or reject hypothesis. Sometimes, due to lack of data, the project may go back to drawing board to collect more objective data. On the other hand, a 'study' of a belief system is based on pre-accepted belief; no objective data gets scrutinised. Mostly more subjective data are exchanged to ascertain the belief system.

I guess(wish ?) even this Galileo like belief system will have to with stand the persecution by Vatican like science community before being accepted

Vatican like 'science system' is based on belief. For vatican to survive, people should believe everything without questioning. Galileo like 'belief system' is based on experiments and objective data colection. That's why we see when 'galileos' die, some other scientist continue the research. 'Galileo belief system' believes in the need for collecting objective data. Belief system does not get persecuted by the science community. it is always the other way around.

For example, a scientist has to produce many objective evidences before his/her hypothesis may be accepted; but, even today, any belief system is not required to produce any evidence to spread the faith.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

raghy

For example, a scientist has to produce many objective evidences before his/her hypothesis may be accepted; but, even today, any belief system is not required to produce any evidence to spread the faith.

Spiritual science is a vast experiance in life,for civilisations together on earth.Today,the accuracy of material science with technological progress,is wonderful.Smart,Intelligent people even today,use their own organs and faculties,for living in optimum condition.In a super-market,without an aid,of a compuer or calculator,the manager and clerk,were swamped with stress to manage the crowd,but a vedic brahmana who was,well experianced in vedic mathematics went and helped the personnel,that soon,the crowd dwindled as he was able to clear,the crowd faster,and that too without a calculator or computer.Science has huge advantage today,but m/c shud be used to aid as tools,not for humans to be dependent on them,and lose ones own intelligence.Belief system,is an foundational stone,on top of which we build civilisations from time immemorial.The other systems are just a mere pygmy,in front of faith based belief systems.

 

[Raghy]

In a super-market,without an aid,of a compuer or calculator,the manager and clerk,were swamped with stress to manage the crowd,but a vedic brahmana who was,well experianced in vedic mathematics went and helped the personnel,that soon,the crowd dwindled as he was able to clear,the crowd faster,and that too without a calculator or computer.

Sure. Vedic mathematics is science. The results to mathematical problems using vedic mathematics can be verified objectively. Since it can be proven, it does not come under the umbrella of 'faith or belief'.

Belief system,is an foundational stone,on top of which we build civilisations from time immemorial.

Exactly. Many civilisations were built upon the belief systems that had no evidence. That's why those civilisations crumbled. It can be seen all over the world.

The other systems are just a mere pygmy,in front of faith based belief systems.

In my earlier posts I maintained that science and any belief system can not be compared. They are two different quantities altogether.

 

[anandb]

I wouldn't agree that a belief system is based purely on pre-existing belief and no objective data gets scrutinized. The belief on a belief system is very much a personal experience which may or may not be measurable by science. If it is not measurable by Science because Science has not got the tools as yet to measure them cannot render the belief system to be wrong. What has been intuitively realized by ancient seers and validated by personal experiences cannot be dismissed as trash. On the other hand these experiences which may not relate to the physical laws may be tough to be proved by the person undergoing these experiences (with no resources at his command) but could be some day proved by Science when it develops the right tools. If there is no inherent truth in a belief system it is bound to fail in the long run even without proof from Science. That is the fundamental nature of Truth. Truth alone prevails and triumphs in the end.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Anandb said:-

The belief on a belief system is very much a personal experience which may or may not be measurable by science.

Greetings. That is my point too, Sri.Anand. If the personal experience can be measured, then the act of merasuring is science. Kindly allow me to explain with an example, please. Let us say, in the case of a peason suffering from stomach cancer, we can measure objectively the spread of the cancer, the amount of the medication adminstered, the regression of the cancer after the treatment etc. We can tabulate all the results. We can also record the subjective data above the pain, the patient's psychological condition as observed from time to time. all these study and recordings are science.
But we can not measure the psycholgical strength of the patient; we really do not know why some persons respond well to the treatment while others succumb to the cancer. If the patient says that it is 'God's grace I survived', then we can not actually objectively measure that. Honestly, science is a toll to guide us through measurable informations.

If it is not measurable by Science because Science has not got the tools as yet to measure them cannot render the belief system to be wrong.

science does not pass judgement on belief system. Science has no intention of criticising any belief system. Science and belief system are two different quantities, not connected to each other at all. But it is also true that science is based on evidences where as belief systems are based on faith only.

What has been intuitively realized by ancient seers and validated by personal experiences cannot be dismissed as trash. On the other hand these experiences which may not relate to the physical laws may be tough to be proved by the person undergoing these experiences (with no resources at his command) but could be some day proved by Science when it develops the right tools.

Kindly refer to the example of the cancer patient here, please. Science does not say one should not have hard to explain personal experiences; but, such experiences are termed as 'subjective data' and not as 'odjective data'. By the way, collecting and obtaining a pattern from such 'subjective data' is an objective information and falls under science.

If there is no inherent truth in a belief system it is bound to fail in the long run even without proof from Science.

I fully agre with you.

Truth alone prevails and triumphs in the end.

Truth is something that can be proven. That's why it is the truth. For example, we may read about a saintly person who offered service to every one, who lived couple of hundred years from one source; we may come across some stone engravings on which a similar saint is explained, and if the stone engraving is from the same vicinity and dates about couple of hundred years, then we know that the saint indeed lived in that area. We have a cross reference that authenticates the whole thing.

Hope I am clear.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Hi,

People often conflate opinion with belief and faith. As long as there is not a common understanding of the terminologies, our normal tendency to talk past each other will only get further aggravated.

Personal experience by definition cannot be validated, it can only be claimed. One may claim to have experienced seeing an invisible pink unicorn and say science has still not developed the necessary tools to measure this experiences, and, one day it may, and then my experience will get scientifically validated, is not a serious position to take.

Science indeed is the only way to validate opinions. If one is interested in claiming validity for his/her opinion, then it is up to that person to develop the necessary tools to generate objective and accurate data, analyze the data and present a cogent argument. Until this is done, claims of personal experience have to remain just unverified opinions. Just because some of the opinions can turn out to be true does not mean all opinions will.

Of course, individuals can ignore all this and insist on claiming validity for their opinions based solely on their personal experience. They also may get a lot of people to go along with these claims. Truth is not determined through majority. Only science can tell us what truth is, to the extent possible.

Cheers!