ilovefuzz.com

Monkeyboard wrote:Philosophy =/= spirituality
Not all philosophy = immaterial
Not all science = material

spirituality is a subset of philosophy, so yes, philosophy is spirituality, but thats not all it is.

name an aspect of philosophy that wasn't later categorized as science that ISN'T immaterial.

do the same for science. HARD sciences. no psychology :P

In case you're interested, here's a preprint of the paper describing the experiment and the results: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
There's a PDF download link on there.

I love the understatement of the last sentence in the Abstract ...

The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5.

The experimental layout

Science is a religion.

Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

D.o.S. wrote:Science is a religion.
Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

Rubbish.
Is that kind of superficial bumper sticker supposed to pass for deep insight?

(and the word you're looking for is 'tenet' BTW)

devnulljp wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Science is a religion.
Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

Rubbish.
Is that kind of superficial bumper sticker supposed to pass for deep insight?

(and the word you're looking for is 'tenet' BTW)

its kind of true
Sciences' principle tenet is Empiricism. Thats not bad though.

Derelict78 wrote:

devnulljp wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Science is a religion.
Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

Rubbish.
Is that kind of superficial bumper sticker supposed to pass for deep insight?

(and the word you're looking for is 'tenet' BTW)

its kind of true
Sciences' principle tenet is Empiricism. Thats not bad though.

How do you define religion then? I have a hard time coming up with a definition for religion that makes Science one. Science isn't a belief system, it's a process for figuring out how things work.

bigchiefbc wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:

devnulljp wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Science is a religion.
Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

Rubbish.
Is that kind of superficial bumper sticker supposed to pass for deep insight?

(and the word you're looking for is 'tenet' BTW)

its kind of true
Sciences' principle tenet is Empiricism. Thats not bad though.

How do you define religion then? I have a hard time coming up with a definition for religion that makes Science one. Science isn't a belief system, it's a process for figuring out how things work.

Isn't science based on a naturalist worldview, that everything has a natural cause (which I feel was showed very adequately to neither be a logical necessity nor empirically observable by David Hume - there is no "necessary connection")? Religion is belief in some supernatural phenomenon, right?

Regarding the tricorder thing, I haven't watched Star Trek but the principle is the same as the human eye if i follow (hey,, here's another metaphor):

The human eye is assumed to be taking "pictures" of objective reality in some sense (light -> neural impulses -> visual cortex etc). This is based on looking at the anatomy of the human eye and brain.

If you have a camera and want to know if it's taking accurate pictures, can you decide that by looking solely at the pictures, even if they're pictures of the inside of another camera just like it? Even if it could take a picture of itself, you can't use the pictures alone to determine if the pictures are an accurate representation of reality, because that assumes that they are which is the point in question. You have to compare the pictures to what they're supposed to resemble.

All we have directly available to us is our own minds and our perceptions; sound, image, touch etc (the picture). What it's like to US. We can't look outside our subjective experiences to see what's outside (seeing is subjective experience). We can't compare the picture to what it alledgedly represents.

There is no logical reasoning that will let us infer from a picture alone that the picture is a representation of something else outside it.

bigchiefbc wrote:Science isn't a belief system, it's a process for figuring out how things work.

this.

Religion is a bunch of set-in-stone beliefs that are served with a system of rituals.
Like a philosophy that someone decided was 'right' and just went with it. Philosophy and science have in common the notion of everlasting change in form of evolution and broadening our understanding of the world, ourselves, etc.

So that makes religion dead philosophy, I guess.

Is it possible that something happened, like a bend of time/space, and it made the neutrinos seem faster than light?
The only thing that crosses my mind like a viable explanation IF the readings turn out to be correct.

Birthday Boy wrote:

bigchiefbc wrote:How do you define religion then? I have a hard time coming up with a definition for religion that makes Science one. Science isn't a belief system, it's a process for figuring out how things work.

Isn't science based on a naturalist worldview, that everything has a natural cause (which I feel was showed very adequately to neither be a logical necessity nor empirically observable by David Hume - there is no "necessary connection")? Religion is belief in some supernatural phenomenon, right?

Regarding the tricorder thing, I haven't watched Star Trek but the principle is the same as the human eye if i follow (hey,, here's another metaphor):

The human eye is assumed to be taking "pictures" of objective reality in some sense (light -> neural impulses -> visual cortex etc). This is based on looking at the anatomy of the human eye and brain.

If you have a camera and want to know if it's taking accurate pictures, can you decide that by looking solely at the pictures, even if they're pictures of the inside of another camera just like it? Even if it could take a picture of itself, you can't use the pictures alone to determine if the pictures are an accurate representation of reality, because that assumes that they are which is the point in question. You have to compare the pictures to what they're supposed to resemble.

All we have directly available to us is our own minds and our perceptions; sound, image, touch etc (the picture). What it's like to US. We can't look outside our subjective experiences to see what's outside (seeing is subjective experience). We can't compare the picture to what it alledgedly represents.

There is no logical reasoning that will let us infer from a picture alone that the picture is a representation of something else outside it.

No, science does not have a worldview. Science is simply a method to observe phenomena, hypothesize the cause, perform experiments to test said hypothesis, and generalize your findings into a theory that will accurately explain your experimental results. If new data comes up that disproves said theory, it is either modified or discarded. New data is always a possibility, and every scientist looks forward to new data. Science does not have an opinion on whether supernatural phenomena are possible. If any actually verifiable supernatural data points show up, scientists will formulate hypotheses for said phenomena, test them, etc, etc, etc. Religion, as far as I am aware, has not produced ANY verifiable data points of supernatural origin that science can be used to test. Thus, science has no opinion on such matters and will ignore them until there is some data to work with. Science is simply a tool. Does a hammer have a worldview?

It really pisses me off when people equate science to a religion. A "believer" in science can have all their ideas shifted with new evidence including their method of observation if something better comes along. Evidence means nothing to a believer. That is where faith comes in. Science is an ever changing method to try and rationalize the apparent chaos that surrounds. Religion is an ever stagnant explanation for an imperceptible order that never was.

bigchiefbc wrote:No, science does not have a worldview. Science is simply a method to observe phenomena, hypothesize the cause, perform experiments to test said hypothesis, and generalize your findings into a theory that will accurately explain your experimental results....Science is simply a tool. Does a hammer have a worldview?

YES!! bigchiefbc shoots, he scores!

D.o.S. wrote:Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

I was referring to this part
I agree science is not a religion it is a tool.
Although I think science can be used as a tool for religion.
does not work the other way around though.

I'm currently undefeated. Just sayin. If LIght wants to rumble, I will fuckin do it.

aen wrote:I'm currently undefeated. Just sayin. If LIght wants to rumble, I will fuckin do it.

Light ain't shit compared to THUNDAA
All speed, no power. Just deliver the knockout before it wins by points. No problem.

devnulljp wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Science is a religion.
Its principle tenant happens to be Empiricism.

Rubbish.
Is that kind of superficial bumper sticker supposed to pass for deep insight?

(and the word you're looking for is 'tenet' BTW)

Right, misspellings are awful.

Anyway, I find that there are a lot of parallels in the language and attitudes between religious types and people who for lack of a better term I'll deem sciencites (take the "central dogma" of biology, the conversion-happy stylings of Dawkins, etc.)

Religions evolve, albeit in a slightly different way than scientific worldviews do. I haven't seen any popes excommunicating people for saying the earth isn't the center of the universe recently.

At it's heart, yes, the scientific method is a tool. The larger culture surrounding the ideas behind the method are often spun into something that, to my mind, approximates a religion.

Also, for the record, I'm using a slightly different definition of religion than many of you. As found in the OED: A pursuit, interest, or movement, followed with great devotion.