8 Bit Philosophy: Does Science = Truth?

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
As usual Nietzsche rambles incoherently and people that try to justify it fails to make a point. Facts are truth. Science is the process we use to search for facts. Due to our limited ability, we can never know all facts. That is a flaw with humans as a lifeform, in that we are not all-knowing. We try to learn what we can, and for that we use science. Whether its the best method or not is impossible to say, only that it is far better than the alternatives we know.

This video however goes on to claim that there is something more than how. there isnt. there is no why. there is no purpose. searching for it is therefore fruitless.

Lightknight said:
For example, if we learn that we are actually 2D or a hologram then we know that we were created this way even if we don't know the creator's intent.
No. that would only show that we are 2D, not that we were created.
 

Kittyhawk

New member
Aug 2, 2012
248
0
0
I'd say no. Science is a concept of working/figuring things out, usually through experimentation, but like all things human is imperfect and sometimes wrong. Truth is also imperfect, because of variables and perspectives.

Even if we all unraveled all of the universes secrets, our limited life span makes all of it a bit moot. We are here by a random lottery of events etc, no more no less.

Science can be still be wrong, because no one can ever know everything, no matter how hard they might try. Pluto is a planet one moment and not the next, but overall, the universe cares not about names or labels, only we do.

In both science and truth, one cannot know all, but that doesn't stop some trying. I guess there's a reason why some specialize science into different classes. Allows for narrowed focus on a part of science, say astrology as an example.

Oh, religion is in part the precursor to science in understanding ourselves and the world etc, with the difference being that of science uses experimentation, repetition, notes and facts, and religion largely does not. While not meant in offense to those of a religious nature, organized religion can and has made up stuff as it goes along, borrowing stuff from one belief system here and another there over hundreds and thousands of years. Only problem is that facts on certain religions become obscured in the mists of time, covering up the real facts.

That's just my take on it, and its by no means perfect.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Strazdas said:
This video however goes on to claim that there is something more than how. there isnt. there is no why. there is no purpose. searching for it is therefore fruitless.
Then why search for facts at all?

That is a why question, right? If you can't answer that because there is no why, only how, then how do you explain that that you still think science is better than sitting in a ditch and eating your own feces until you die.

Like it or not, science presupposes facts/truth have objective value, which is why they are worth searching for. To say that truth is worth searching for is already going beyond description, it is going beyond the how and into the why.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
evilthecat said:
Strazdas said:
This video however goes on to claim that there is something more than how. there isnt. there is no why. there is no purpose. searching for it is therefore fruitless.
Then why search for facts at all?

That is a why question, right? If you can't answer that because there is no why, only how, then how do you explain that that you still think science is better than sitting in a ditch and eating your own feces until you die.

Like it or not, science presupposes facts/truth have objective value, which is why they are worth searching for. To say that truth is worth searching for is already going beyond description, it is going beyond the how and into the why.
Simple. Due to the way humans work in their phisiology and psichology, answering how allows us to fullfil our needs better and is therefore better than not fulfilling them. It is beneficial to us, which is how we derive better pleasure.

The why is very simple here: because we are humans. there is no answer why we are humans, nor there needs one.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Strazdas said:
Simple. Due to the way humans work in their phisiology and psichology, answering how allows us to fullfil our needs better and is therefore better than not fulfilling them. It is beneficial to us, which is how we derive better pleasure.
That's an explanation, not a description.

You said there is no purpose, but now you have explained the purpose. Which is true?
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
evilthecat said:
Strazdas said:
Simple. Due to the way humans work in their phisiology and psichology, answering how allows us to fullfil our needs better and is therefore better than not fulfilling them. It is beneficial to us, which is how we derive better pleasure.
That's an explanation, not a description.

You said there is no purpose, but now you have explained the purpose. Which is true?
the truth is you did not understood me. I did not explain the purpose, i explained one of the methods of achieving something many see as one. science allows us to feel better. why we need to feel better is unanswered. we just do. thats how humans are. you want to blame somone blame evolution. Noone knows who created evolution (note, created, not discovered). noone cares. its not relevant. we only know that it is.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
Olas said:
TruthInGaming said:
Olas said:
I think this is where a lot of atheist thinkers go astray. Religion existed for more than explaining the physical facts about the universe, so you can't replace religion with science and think you've got all your bases covered. Atheists should tout culture and humanism at least as much as they tout science as the successor to religion.
You seem to use the past tense as if that was no longer the purpose of religion today or that religion didn't exist today. If this is your meaning please see http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.
I guess I should have said religion HAS existed. I didn't mean to imply that religions no longer exist or have radically changed.
Very good.
 

IOwnTheSpire

New member
Jul 27, 2014
365
0
0
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
Based on dogma as prescribed in some sort of historic text. That's unchanging. I never said anything about having to believe in some deity to be religious.
 

IOwnTheSpire

New member
Jul 27, 2014
365
0
0
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
Based on dogma as prescribed in some sort of historic text. That's unchanging. I never said anything about having to believe in some deity to be religious.
You said religion is unchanging dogma, which is untrue.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
Based on dogma as prescribed in some sort of historic text. That's unchanging. I never said anything about having to believe in some deity to be religious.
You said religion is unchanging dogma, which is untrue.
It is not. People may choose whatever way they wish to adhere to whatever religion they want (it is all man made after all), the foundation of the religion always stays the same. It has to, it's its foundation. You can interpret the books all you want, the letters don't change.
 

IOwnTheSpire

New member
Jul 27, 2014
365
0
0
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
Based on dogma as prescribed in some sort of historic text. That's unchanging. I never said anything about having to believe in some deity to be religious.
You said religion is unchanging dogma, which is untrue.
It is not. People may choose whatever way they wish to adhere to whatever religion they want (it is all man made after all), the foundation of the religion always stays the same. It has to, it's its foundation. You can interpret the books all you want, the letters don't change.
It IS untrue. You're making dogma seem inseperable from religion when they are in fact separate things. Not every religion is based on something written in a book. Religion is much more complex and broad than your narrow mind is making it out to be.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
Based on dogma as prescribed in some sort of historic text. That's unchanging. I never said anything about having to believe in some deity to be religious.
You said religion is unchanging dogma, which is untrue.
It is not. People may choose whatever way they wish to adhere to whatever religion they want (it is all man made after all), the foundation of the religion always stays the same. It has to, it's its foundation. You can interpret the books all you want, the letters don't change.
It IS untrue. You're making dogma seem inseperable from religion when they are in fact separate things.
I can repeat myself if that helps. A religion is based on dogma per definition. That's what makes it a religion.

You denying that won't make it so, I'm afraid. The reason for your denial intrigues me though.
 

IOwnTheSpire

New member
Jul 27, 2014
365
0
0
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
IOwnTheSpire said:
Nimcha said:
Religion is unchanging dogma by definition.
Wrong. You don't have to believe in a deity, dogma or the supernatural to be religious. All religion is is a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.
Based on dogma as prescribed in some sort of historic text. That's unchanging. I never said anything about having to believe in some deity to be religious.
You said religion is unchanging dogma, which is untrue.
It is not. People may choose whatever way they wish to adhere to whatever religion they want (it is all man made after all), the foundation of the religion always stays the same. It has to, it's its foundation. You can interpret the books all you want, the letters don't change.
It IS untrue. You're making dogma seem inseperable from religion when they are in fact separate things.
I can repeat myself if that helps. A religion is based on dogma per definition. That's what makes it a religion.

You denying that won't make it so, I'm afraid. The reason for your denial intrigues me though.
And I'll repeat myself again: religion is a narrative structure by which people contextualize their lives and works that provides a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values. By definition, you're the one who is wrong and in denial.