- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
Originally Posted by goldenchild9
Originally Posted by sillyputty
Yes, you are right to an EXTENT.
I will give you credit for that. In each community, even in science there are certain defining characteristics and methods of interaction that prevail over others.
Boom, stop there. Thats point of debate #1. Science has a culture.
If you want to call it a culture, fine do so.
I will. Anyone else who wishes to be on the side of scholarship and truth should do the same.
Granted, the scientific community that investigates claims tries to be as impartial as possible so as to determine whether or not claims can be verified. You may assert that objectivity and the pursuit of it is a "culture" but you have to see that this same community changes its rules all the time. It tries to get BETTER. It is scientific about being scientific. Thats the thing. It is critical of even the practices that IT uses. Thats why research institutions have review boards and other certification entities meet constantly to develop new and more refined ways of allowing data to be analyzed.
ALL COMMUNITIES CHANGE THEIR RULES OVER TIME. It seems that the basic understanding of human society is lost on too many left brained Western Scientific zealots.
But how does that invalidate the claims suggested as a whole at their forefront. If you disagree, propose an alternative method through which we can validate claims. If your suggestion works better and there is more evidence to support it, then TRUST ME, everyone will adopt your method.
People want to progress and use the best possible tool through which they can understand the world. As it stands, this is the best way to do so...its not the ABSOLUTE way to do so. Until another way comes along, and it may, then this is the best tool we currently have. Not the ONLY tool.
Do you see what i'm saying?
I haven't shot down any scientific theories of the system itself, that would be foolish. What is equally foolish is disregarding the esoteric "right-brained" analysis of life, which is essential for an optimal and holistic understanding of existence.
I honestly don't even know why you are arguing with this man sillyputty.
Science as a "culture" does not equate to religion as a belief system and faith.
His initial argument was science is a religion that is FOLLOWED like any other religion (which is not true), NOT a culture, and when you crushed that argument he changed it to culture.
Difference is that science culture doesn't blindly have faith in something untested and unproven. I have no idea how you can mix it or equate it to religious individuals having blind faith.
Sure both come with a set of rules, but rules made in science are placed there so that no one can make up a bunch of mumbo jumbo and call it science or fact. Rules in religion, although kind of having validity amongst moral value, have been created to support nothing, but a blind belief and faith. They have no ulterior motive, only a set of rules for believers to follow. Something to do besides just believing in a God. This is why their rules are always changing to fit what the preacher thinks should be right and how the followers should act during that time and in that place.
In the end we are not arguing about the "culture" or rules in religion. We are arguing about the fact that there is no proof of a divine God. So speaking of science as a culture is pointless and inane.
Lastly, you DO NOT have to FOLLOW or have a belief in science for it to be valid. Being alive is proof enough that the culture has some validity. But, more so one that has no knowledge of science and its "culture" or rules still contributes to its findings and proves its functionality and gives it purpose. The purpose to know. Science = scientia in latin = knowledge.
[h3]sci·enceNoun/ËsÄ«Éns/[/h3]
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.