mazaje:
A lay man does not need to know all he has to is to believe wht ever he has been conditioned to believe in without evidence to back it up. . . . .

Are you a scientist or a layman?

mazaje:
You are bound to FAIL when you talk about science from this perpective. . . . .

Ahh,

You have evaded my question about whether or not you have observed a boson and how you come to believe in them (if you do at all). You have also attempted to pre-empt my line of discussion by reading in your own assumptions. This makes your reply vague and not necessarily relevant. I want to know what you think about bosons and how you come to think that way. I see no need for you to be generalising and hinting.

Krayola:

haha. It's ok

I still wanna know how the concept of the "supernatural" only exists relative to science tho. It just doesn't add up to me and I'm hoping you can enlighten me . . ,

(I do not pretend to enlighten people. I just hold an opinion. )

Whether something is supernatural, i.e whether or not science is currently able to explain it, is an artefact of the limits of scientific knowledge.

Is acupuncture "supernatural"? It was at one point (forgive the pun). Gradually, as scientific knowledge moves on, acupuncture may completely cease to be termed, "supernatural." This would be because science, not acupuncture, has changed,

sinequanon:

You have evaded my question about whether or not you have observed a boson and how you come to believe in them (if you do at all). You have also attempted to pre-empt my line of discussion by reading in your own assumptions. This makes your reply vague and not necessarily relevant. I want to know what you think about bosons and how you come to think that way. I see no need for you to be generalising and hinting.

According to wikipedia "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature. The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics"

Does this definition tell you that bosons are things that exist in real life?. . . . .

mazaje:

According to wikipedia "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature. The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics"

Does this definition tell you that bosons are things that exist in real life?. . . . .

Answer my questions, first, then the discussion can flow properly. Once you have done that I will address the above.

1. Are you a layman, or a scientist.

2. Do you believe in bosons and, if so, how did you come to believe in them?

Please stop the evasion. It is only a discussion.

sinequanon:

Answer my questions, first, then the discussion can flow properly. Once you have done that I will address the above.

1. Are you a layman, or a scientist.

I will not call myself a lay man, but I am not a scientist in the real sense even though I understand how some of the process functions. . . . .

2. Do you believe in bosons and, if so, how did you come to believe in them?

Do I believe in boson as something that exists? No, why because it is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics as defined by wikipedia. . . . .

Please stop the evasion. It is only a discussion.

Sorry if I came across as evasive. . . . .

Science=seeing is believing, Religion=blessed are those who have not seen but yet believed.

I personally think trying to equate both, or claim that they are both fundamentally very similar, is intellectual dishonesty on steroids. But, as usual, that is just my opinion.  Grin

I agree. For example, the story of genesis in the bible that christians say explains our origins is completely different to the theory of evolution that scientists say explain our origins.

There is also the problem that genesis contains a literal tale involving a talking snake, whereas scientists will tell you that it is biologically impossible for a snake to talk. i know that many christians now say that the story is allegorical, but there are also millions who still believe it to be the literal truth. What do you think? did the snake talk or not? In my opinion, only a religious person would believe that the snake talked.

mazaje:

According to wikipedia "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature. The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics"

Does this definition tell you that bosons are things that exist in real life?. . . . .

The Higgs boson is not the only type of boson. So one should not make any scientific conclusion about the existence of bosons from the above. However, scientists do claim to have observed other types of boson.

mazaje:

I will not call myself a lay man, but I am not a scientist in the real sense even though I understand how some of the process functions. . . . .

In what sense are you a scientist, at all?  

mazaje:

Do I believe in boson as something that exists? No, why because it is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics as defined by wikipedia. . . . .

You have misunderstood the Wikipedia article. I think you may have referred to the article on the Higgs boson, not on bosons in general. A layman's error, no?  

mazaje:
Sorry if I came across as evasive. . . . .

OK. I now think you may only have been jumping the gun a bit. I have now been able to put my points.

sinequanon:

The Higgs boson is not the only type of boson. So one should not make any scientific conclusion about the existence of bosons from the above. However, scientists do claim to have observed other types of boson.

OK, I now understand the point you are trying to make. . . .OK, I believe in the bosons as an explanation for theoritical physics and If I disbelieve in the postulations of physicist about it and what it entails I bet their will be experiments that will be set up to show me how it has been theorized and how it is expected to function. . . .So yes I believe in bosons and I do NOT believe in it based on faith. . . . .

In what sense are you a scientist, at all?

I am not a scientist, I know and understand science and how some of its process functions but that does not make me a scientist. . . . .

I can think of a few fundamental differences

1. Method of acquisition of knowledge.
In science knowledge is acquired through the scientific method which should have been taught in entry level science classes. (Can expound on it)
In religion, knowledge is gained by revelation in an old text or divine inspiration.

2. Permission of free inquiry.
In science one is allowed to ask questions about whatever one feels is relevant in that field.
In religion, some questions are considered taboo.

3. Accuracy of predictions.
In science, the predictions are usually accurate and exceptionally accurate when enough information is known about the systems involved.
In religion the predictions are usually very vague or totally wrong.

4. Inbuilt updating mechanism.
In science it is allowed for new more accurate knowledge to supersede old knowledge if it is correct.
In religion change or correction is not allowed.

These are the few I could come up with off the top of my head.

mazaje:


OK, I now understand the point you are trying to make. . . .OK, I believe in the bosons as an explanation for theoritical physics and If I disbelieve in the postulations of physicist about it and what it entails I bet their will be experiments that will be set up to show me how it has been theorized and how it is expected to function. . . .So yes I believe in bosons and I do NOT believe in it based on faith. . . . .

Just based on Wikipedia and a "bet"?

Looks like faith, to me.

mazaje:
I am not a scientist, I know and understand science and how some of its process functions but that does not make me a scientist. . . . .

You probably know as much about your prophets scientists and the scientific establishment as religious lay folk know about theirs.

What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion?
Religion rely on beliefs.
Science rely on facts.

thehomer:

I can think of a few fundamental differences

1. Method of acquisition of knowledge.
In science knowledge is acquired through the scientific method which should have been taught in entry level science classes. (Can expound on it)
In religion, knowledge is gained by revelation in an old text or divine inspiration.

Do expound. So far, this only looks like an artefact of social construction.

Also, I think any fundamental difference should not also be applicable between religions. Otherwise, it would not set science apart. It would merely put science on the same level as 'yet another' religion.

thehomer:
2. Permission of free inquiry.
In science one is allowed to ask questions about whatever one feels is relevant in that field.
In religion, some questions are considered taboo.

Investigation of near death experience has long been a taboo subject in science, to be avoided if you wished to maintain credibility among your scientific peers. Only recently, under the cover of 'discoveries' in the field of quantum physics, have a small group of scientists summoned up the courage to investigate the phenomenon. But, for as long as it was clear that the issue was a challenge to the existing principles of science, no scientist dared approach the subject without being prepared to become a laughing stock among his peers.

thehomer:
3. Accuracy of predictions.
In science, the predictions are usually accurate and exceptionally accurate when enough information is known about the systems involved.
In religion the predictions are usually very vague or totally wrong.

Isn't this a matter of degree rather than some fundamental difference?

Maybe an example would help, here.

thehomer:
4. Inbuilt updating mechanism.
In science it is allowed for new more accurate knowledge to supersede old knowledge if it is correct.
In religion change or correction is not allowed.

What about ordination of women bishops, for example. That is a possible change that is being debated. Many churches evolve and even the Bible has evolved.

sinequanon:

(I do not pretend to enlighten people. I just hold an opinion.  )

Whether something is supernatural, i.e whether or not science is currently able to explain it, is an artefact of the limits of scientific knowledge.

aight. . .so, IN YOUR OPINION, based on YOUR OWN definition of "supernatural" ,  it is a concept that only exists relative to science. Fair enough.

^^

Of course.

I also asked for your definition. You got half way.

sinequanon:

^^

Of course.

I also asked for your definition. You got half way.

haha. I usually use dictionaries when I need denotative meanings. I copied the definitions I posted earlier from a dictionary. I checked a few different ones. If you like I can copy more for you. Would you like me to? 

I asked u that question cause I just wanted to understand where u were coming from. U said it like it was matter of fact and looking up the word, or it's origin or history would confirm your claim. Apparently that isn't the case.

sinequanon:

Do expound. So far, this only looks like an artefact of social construction.

Also, I think any fundamental difference should not also be applicable between religions. Otherwise, it would not set science apart. It would merely put science on the same level as 'yet another' religion.

The scientific method generally follows the pattern of observation, hypothesis, experimentation leads to the formation of a theory, law or a new hypothesis.
This process is not observed in any religion.

sinequanon:

Investigation of near death experience has long been a taboo subject in science, to be avoided if you wished to maintain credibility among your scientific peers. Only recently, under the cover of 'discoveries' in the field of quantum physics, have a small group of scientists summoned up the courage to investigate the phenomenon. But, for as long as it was clear that the issue was a challenge to the existing principles of science, no scientist dared approach the subject without being prepared to become a laughing stock among his peers.

I would expect near death experience to fall more under the medical field but it is not a taboo subject.

sinequanon:

Isn't this a matter of degree rather than some fundamental difference?

Maybe an example would help, here.

The very fact that you are using a computer running on electricity with the ability to communicate with someone on the International Space Station moving round the earth at a speed of 27743km/h which was placed there using scientific means and whose position and velocity are predictable to the nearest metre is not a good enough fact?

Compared to the numerous predictions of the end of the world in the years gone by and these famous predictions by a popular preacher.
1989 Benny Hinn A short man appears within a "few" years who will rule the world as the Antichrist.
1990s Benny Hinn America's first female President will be appointed "in the next few years". Unfortunately, she ends up destroying the nation.
1995 Benny Hinn God destroys America's Homosexual community.

sinequanon:

What about ordination of women bishops, for example. That is a possible change that is being debated. Many churches evolve and even the Bible has evolved.

With the evolution of churches have the errors in the religion been corrected? Have you received an updated version of the Koran or Bible or Bhagavad Gita or any other religious text available? I'm sure you've not.

Krayola:

haha. I usually use dictionaries when I need denotative meanings. I copied the definitions I posted earlier from a dictionary. I checked a few different ones. If you like I can copy more for you. Would you like me to?  

I asked u that question cause I just wanted to understand where u were coming from. U said it like it was matter of fact and looking up the word, or it's origin or history would confirm your claim. Apparently that isn't the case.

Any definition, relevant to this thread, that you think 'contradicts' my definition would do. So, if you can find a relevant definition of "supernatural," whereby science can currently explain the supernatural, I would be interested.

sinequanon:

Any definition, relevant to this thread, that you think 'contradicts' my definition would do. So, if you can find a relevant definition of "supernatural," whereby science can currently explain the supernatural, I would be interested.

I posted a bunch of definitions earlier. Feel free to choose whichever one is most relevant.

That science cannot explain the "supernatural" does not mean the concept of the supernatural only exists relative to science. You, sir, may have to show that before science (or the scientific method), nothing was believed to be "supernatural". And no, you cannot create your own definition of science this time.

I don't think science tries to explain the supernatural. I don't even think it acknowledges the supernatural (but that could be a misguided opinion). It attempts to, methodologically, find explanations for objectively observable phenomena. Religion, for the most part, affirms the existence of a separate realm, and then makes claims about this realm(s) which cannot be objectively observed.

Science, IMO, can not yet explain a lot of stuff. But that does not necessarily point at the existence of another realm separate from what we can, or potentially can, observe. That something is "believed" to be supernatural does not make it so. I think your argument is about beliefs in the supernatural.


------------------------------------------

If this was science vs theology I think you would have a stronger case to make, since theology can even defined as science. But Religion as a phenomenon. . . . VS science ? U wan tiff am?

Just for the record. . . if this is goin to be a debate where we have to define every word we use and then spend all kinds of efforts rippin thru definitions, I have no interest in it. I just dont want a situation where I have to define "natural", and then "objective", and then "observe". . .etc etc. That one na nonsense IMO

thehomer:

The scientific method generally follows the pattern of observation, hypothesis, experimentation leads to the formation of a theory, law or a new hypothesis.
This process is not observed in any religion.

This is essentially observation and interpretation, appraisal, reconciliation and reinterpretation. It is common to both science and religion if you use neutral terminology.

thehomer:
I would expect near death experience to fall more under the medical field but it is not a taboo subject.

Specifically, it was, until recently, taboo for a surgeon or other scientist to investigate the claims of patients who had had a near-death-experience and had claimed to have witnessed events or seen out-of-view objects while clinically dead. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, unless I can find an article submitted by a group of (Paris-based) scientists, discribing the difficulty they faced in being taken seriously.

thehomer:
The very fact that you are using a computer running on electricity with the ability to communicate with someone on the International Space Station moving round the earth at a speed of 27743km/h which was placed there using scientific means and whose position and velocity are predictable to the nearest metre is not a good enough fact?

No -- fundamentally, no better than the 'amazing' natural constructs we see around us, like termite mounds with their accurate temperature and humidity control. In fact, much science lags behind innovation. Aircraft were airborne before vortex shedding (fundamental to the scientific model of wing technology) was understood. Semi-conductors were in use before their quantum description was developed. Modems were operating at higher speeds than predicted from the early scientific models. Civilisations long past have interacted precisely with the environment without what we know as the scientific method.

thehomer:
Compared to the numerous predictions of the end of the world in the years gone by and these famous predictions by a popular preacher.
1989 Benny Hinn A short man appears within a "few" years who will rule the world as the Antichrist.
1990s Benny Hinn America's first female President will be appointed "in the next few years". Unfortunately, she ends up destroying the nation.
1995 Benny Hinn God destroys America's Homosexual community.

The number of failed scientific predictions are legion.

thehomer:
With the evolution of churches have the errors in the religion been corrected? Have you received an updated version of the Koran or Bible or Bhagavad Gita or any other religious text available? I'm sure you've not.

Yes, religious interpretations have evolved and practices changed. Women priests are now aloud in the Catholic Church, if I am not mistaken.

I am not religious, so I have never received any 'holy book'. But I know that the Bible has been rewritten and revamped a number of times.

Krayola:

I posted a bunch of definitions earlier. Feel free to choose whichever one is most relevant.

OK.

1. unexplainable by natural law or phenomena;

Krayola:

That science cannot explain the "supernatural" does not mean the concept of the supernatural only exists relative to science. You, sir, may have to show that before science (or the scientific method), nothing was believed to be "supernatural". And no, you cannot create your own definition of science this time.

Well, all you have to do is produce one example of what scientists call supernatural that is not relative to science.

Science is the quest to satisfy human curiosity through rational methods of gathering information. It demands that ALL claims be backed by evidence. Everything is open to criticism.

Religion is the quest to control human beings through emotional intimidation. It demands total faith without any evidence to back its claims. Nothing is open to criticism, and questioning anything is considered evil.

@Sinequanon

But you cannot determine if the patient or healer really prayed, rendering the exercise somewhat useless for its stated purpose.  

I do not see it as useless for the stated purpose. An investigation of a claim that a faithhealer can cure cancer following faith healing is not the same thing as investigating that prayer cures cancer. Investigation of a claim is not meant to extablish a causal relationship but to establish an association. If a faithhealer claims that he prays and then cancer disappear, what an investigator will be looking at using biomedical tools is the presence or absence of cancer following what the faith healer says is faithhealing. At the end of such investigation, an investigator will report that following what the faithhealer says is faith healing, cancer patients become cancer free or still cancer ridden. No investigator worth his salt will report that prayer cured or did not cure cancer. If people become cancer free, then an honest investigator will have to ask himself why such an association exists. On the contrarly if there is is no significant difference between the treatment and control group, then the claims have no physical evidence to support it . The faithhealer if he is honest may have to re-examine his claims and his beliefs.   Arguing or trying to establish whether or not the faith healer prays when he says he prays is a diversion in my own view. Best wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Investigation of a claim is not meant to extablish a causal relationship but to establish an association.

Cure by a faith healer implies causality.

m_nwankwo:
If a faithhealer claims that he prays and then cancer disappear, what an investigator will be looking at using biomedical tools is the presence or absence of cancer following what the faith healer says is faithhealing.

He would also have to demonstrate that the faith healer was doing whatever faith healing entails. (I simply suggested praying.) If the investigator does not do this then, for all he knows, he has only investigated any old Joe Blow who may be deliberately posing as a faith healer.

Similarly, if the investigator were to be investigating the claim that physiotherapy can cure cramp, he would have to ensure that he selects people who carry out physiotherapy, and not any old Joe Blow.

sinequanon:

OK.

1.   [size=14pt]unexplainable[/size] by natural law or phenomena;

haha. At first You said "supernatural" ONLY exists relative to science. But it seems that now u'll settle for any definition that seems to work, as several other "relevant" (a qualifier you added later, IMO, out of necessity   ) definitions of the word do not fit the bill. . .    I asked you to choose a definition just so you could hurt your own argument. I think you just murdered it in cold blood.

But let's pretend it survived that cold blooded murder . .

Then later you said this

Whether something is supernatural, i.e whether or not science is [size=13pt]currently[/size] able to explain it, is an artefact of the limits of scientific knowledge.

As you can see the definition you quoted says UNEXPLAINABLE, and not (currently) UNEXPLAINED. So IMO that refers to objectively unfalsifiable or unverifiable claims,  whether thru scientific methods or otherwise. e.g. The flying ganja monster smoked a splif with Moses on mount Sinai 4000 years ago, or that there is a God that exists that we can never apprehend using any of our faculties. They are "supernatural" claims because we CAN NOT, and most likely will never be able to explain them, and not because we HAVE not CURRENTLY explained them. That something has not been explained simply makes it unexplained, and not supernatural. 

sinequanon:

Well, all you have to do is produce one example of what scientists call supernatural that is not relative to science.  

Most religious people acknowledge the supernatural and have beliefs, based on whatever ideas they have of the supernatural, that they act upon in their lives. I do not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession or whateva. Like I said, science, IMO, does not give a rat's behind about the "supernatural". So how will they put stuff in a category that their profession does not either even acknowledge, or does not acknowledge as part of their field of enquiry? Some scientists may be religious, but they keep dat stuff out of their labs.

Krayola:

haha. At first You said "supernatural" ONLY exists relative to science. But it seems that now u'll settle for any definition that seems to work, as several other "relevant" (a qualifier you added later, IMO, out of necessity  ) definitions of the word do not fit the bill. . .    I asked you to choose a definition just so you could hurt your own argument. I think you just murdered it in cold blood.

But let's pretend it survived that cold blooded murder . .

Calm down, please. I chose a definition for you, from the selection you gave, because you declined to do so yourself. You said any definition would do for you. Now, please run with it and be bold and explicit instead of hinting darkly about some murder or other. 

You may also like to go back and read mazaje's post #17 to appreciate the context of the word. I don't think he meant this:

3.   of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

Krayola:
Then later you said this
As you can see the definition you quoted says UNEXPLAINABLE, and not (currently) UNEXPLAINED. So IMO that refers to objectively unfalsifiable or unverifiable claims,  whether thru scientific methods or otherwise. e.g. The flying ganja monster smoked a splif with Moses on mount Sinai 4000 years ago, or that there is a God that exists that we can never apprehend using any of our faculties. They are "supernatural" claims because we CAN NOT, and most likely will never be able to explain them, and not because we HAVE not CURRENTLY explained them. That something has not been explained simply makes it unexplained, and not supernatural.

You will recall that I worded my definition differently.

"Unexplainable" is in your definition. You confidently asked me to choose one for you out of your list. Now you have to make sense of it.

IMO, there is something awry with your interpretation. You seem to suggest that there is a possibility that something unexplainable has a residual chance of being explained.

Furthermore, could you please give an example of an objective explanation that is not "through science"?

Krayola:
Most religious people acknowledge the supernatural and have beliefs, based on whatever ideas they have of the supernatural, that they act upon in their lives. I do not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession or whateva. Like I said, science, IMO, does not give a rat's behind about the "supernatural". So how will they put stuff in a category that their profession does not either even acknowledge, or does not acknowledge as part of their field of enquiry? Some scientists may be religious, but they keep dat stuff out of their labs.

I can recommend you some Richard Dawkins. 

He talks about the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairies and the like.

Krayola:

I do not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession or whateva. Like I said, science, IMO, does not give a rat's behind about the "supernatural".

sinequanon:

I can recommend you some Richard Dawkins. 

He talks about the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairies and the like.

Please pay some attention to the very statement in Krayola's which you highlighted - it may be vital here if one might reiterate it simply thus - Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists? Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in s a scientific sense - does he refer to such things in his reports or profession? How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?

Pastor AIO:

ps.  I don't want to hi jack the thread.  I want to annihilate it.  That is if it is going to try and make a fundamental distinction between science and religion.

My eyes nearly popped outa my head when I first read that, hehe. . but now I'm beginning to see why you made that prophetic statement!

Science:- A way of learning about and knowing the unknown in whatever state that unknown might be.
Religion:- A way of worshipping the unknown, in whatever state that unknown might be.

Science:- Seeks enlightenment through knowledge seeking endeavours in order to empower the seeker
Religion:- Seeks to dumb down through knowledge denial in order to disempower and make dependent unto itself the adherent.

Science:- Seeks clarifications of mysteries through investigative experimentations and observations
Religion:- Seeks to keep mysteries intact by encouraging mere contemplation at best, or through blind adoration and worship at most times.


This can go on forever . . .

viaro:

Please pay some attention to the very statement in Krayola's which you highlighted - it may be vital here if one might reiterate it simply thus - Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?

Yes. Richard Dawkins. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, and in that capacity wrote a number of books in which you will find references to things being supernatural.

viaro:
Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in s a scientific sense - does he refer to such things in his reports or profession?

First you will have to address what Krayola declined to address specifically, and explain what you mean by "supernatural in the scientific sense."

viaro:
How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?

I believe that he sees them as ideas that conflict with current scientific thinking. He advocates that such ideas have no place for discussion in science classes. He says that there is a 99.99999999% chance that God does not exist, so the existence of God should not be discussed in the science class. He also doesn't like the idea of intelligent design and suggests that its merits and demerits should not be investigated in the science class.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION THEN YOU STAND A CHANCE OF COMPLETE INSANITY.