Science Vs Religion

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Which Has more Authority

Science
111
93%
Religion
8
7%
 
Total votes: 119

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:15 am UTC

Ugh.

Tchebu wrote:NONE of those are of religious origin, except perhaps the one about the "houses of worship"... but that one DOES come from the assumption that it's the house of God and therefore should be treated as such.


Actually it's an issue of people making money off of religion. How the house of God should be treated is covered more closely in the many laws listed out in ridiculously boring detail in Numbers (and Leviticus, if my OT isn't too awful rusty). And as for the "religious origins," you're going to have to show me some pretty good records of the very beginnings of mankind dealing with morality to say definitely that none of this stuff had origins in religion. Remember we're talking about "religion" here, not Christianity.

Tchebu wrote:Because religion says "This is the answer... cuz God said so", whereas philosophy says "This is the answer because [insert long and complicated explanation which does not involve supernatural unobservable agents]"


I have to admit I don't know much of anything about philosophy as I find it incredibly boring and mostly useless. That said, I can't really defend attacks that philosophy replaces all the useful bits of religion without any real knowledge about how it works, its history, etc. without that knowledge and so I won't really try. I hate to believe that you honestly think that all of religion is based on a "because God said so" argument, especially since some religions don't even incorporate a god.

Tchebu wrote:There's no such thing as a "religious question". Religion isn't a separate domain, it's a... thing... that pokes its conceptual nose into every other domain it can find. It tries to tell us how the world works, without ever even looking at it properly. It tries to tell us what our "purpose" is, without ever investigating if such a notion is even relevant in our context. It tries to tell us what we should consider "moral" without even giving a better reason than "God spoke to [insert prophet] and said so".


I think space-raptor did a decent job of addressing this. Again, I don't have much background in many eastern religions, but I've never seen a physics or chemistry lesson in the Bible (at least not that I've been aware of). Other than the creation story, of course, which is only taken literally by people who take such a book literally of which (I'll repeat) I am not.

fjafjan wrote:And here's the deal, you are picking and chosing. For every trule of the bible you think is good there are half a dozen that are insane. Respect your mother and father? I'll respect them if they deserve respect, not because they are my mom and dad, that's a dumb rule, honor the sabbath? Hell no. etc.


It doesn't say to respect them, it says to honor them. Honoring them is much different than respecting them. I have little respect for my father at this point, but I still honor him. I call him up on his birthday and on father's day. I don't trash him behind his back. I do my best not to dishonor him, I feel that he can choose whether or not to do that for himself. But honoring and respecting are two different things. Respecting is what you feel, honoring is what you do.

As for the sabbath, I'm kind of surprised you picked that one when you had so many better ones to choose from.

fjafjan wrote:ANd prostitutes are also people, but there is alot in the OT that suggests that infact prostitues AREN'T PEOPLE as they are promiscuous (which you shouldn't be) etc. So which do you chose? WHy do you disregard some rules but stick with others?


I'm not sure I know the text you're referring to. Would you point me in the right direction?

As for the "picking and choosing" bit, this has actually already been dealt with, though I don't remember if it was in this thread or another. But the basic idea is that God changed his approach with the world when he brought Jesus into the picture and so anything in the NT that conflicts with the OT takes precedence over the OT. Just so that's laid out.

fjafjan wrote:Are you trying to suggest the only people trying to determine what is right and what is not (as proffesionals) are priests and the ilk? Because that is rediculous.


Actually, it's ridiculous. Again. And no, that's not what I said or suggested or anything. *Exactly* what I said was
me wrote:I doubt most people are going to turn to philosophy to deal with whether or not they should put someone to death, but rather their morals.

Which is me saying that when people deal with the big moral issues, there's a tendency to lean toward religious and spiritual teachings over philosophy. People have an issue with "playing God" and that can affect their decisions on matters like the death penalty. In other words, the vast majority of people have found religion more helpful in answering these questions than philosophy.

fjafjan wrote:So back to morals, I can tell you one tihng, religion didn't give you you morals. Or ethics. Now you say "zomg that's not true I read "thou shalt not kill in the bible" true, but you also didn't read, or were told to empathise any of the "you should stone ..." bits of the bible, so baically you have a book full of rules and you are told that a couple of them are good. What decides that is more or less social norms, which change, and religion adapt. religion is not the changer of norms, that is why it is a regressive element.


I don't know that I've ever thought "zomg," but thanks for the vote of confidence. This has already been dealt with. Stoning people is how we used to deal with it. For the last couple thousand years we've been trying a different approach. And I really don't get how you can argue that "religion didn't teach [me] morals. Or ethics." This last part about being the changer of norms and a regressive element... I'm not parsing what you're saying. Reword please?

fjafjan wrote:Science cannot account for purpose of life because as far as we know there is none.

22/7 wrote:You've got that backwards, afawk, there is no purpose for life because science cannot account for it.

fjafjan wrote:It is reasonable to assume that there is no purpose to life as there is no evidence suggesting that so is the case. that better?


Yes, because you restated what I said, not what you previously said. What you previously said indicated that science couldn't find it because, as far as we know, there is none. The truth of it, however, is the reverse. You had if A, then B, and you knew B and therefore assumed A, which logically doesn't follow.

fjafjan wrote:It's dogmatic, that's as easy as it gets. What happens when we die? You go to heavne or hell. That's pretty easy, now if you try and understand it logically or whatever it's complex and doesn't make sense, but it's an easy awnser. What should I do with my life? obey the rules of the bible. Actuallg doing so isn't easy, but it's an easy awnser.


That's like saying "Mr. Jones, your car broke down because it needs to have every single piece of the drivetrain replaced" is an easy answer because it's easy to say, even though it's really hard to do.

fjafjan wrote:It also says all you have to do to get into heaven is to repent to god and he will forgive you and it'll be fine. I'd say that's pretty comforting (and also I think that is one of the main things religious people say it gives them) however it is not incredibly constructive as people ask forgivness to themselves ("god") rather than the people they have wronged.


Actually, some forms of Christianity have these things called "mortal sins" which are not forgivable. Not so easy as a "whoops, I'm sorry" in that case. Also, saying that people ask forgiveness of themselves, not to God, is a completely different discussion.

fjafjan wrote:I never said that was the onoly thing it is there to do. However it DOES. Why do you think so many old people get "more christian" as they get older?


It does "take the edge off of death," or it does offer "purpose to life, which can make someone quite comfortable with the prospect of death?" And many, many people get wiser as they get older. I'm sorry, but you walked into that one.

fjafjan wrote:At risk of semi godwinning the thread do you think it is correct that white power movements grant a sense of superiority to the followes? Do you think I could say this and THEN go on to say how shitty white power movements usually are? I hope you say yes. I don't think I am a better person than religious people, however I do think not being religious is better than being religious.


I have to admit I'm not familiar with the term "godwinning," do explain.
I'm not sure your current arguments against religion and the mindless sheep that follow it can support your assertion that you are no better than them.

fjafjan wrote:personally I don't know because i've never been interested in that question, but if you think it is a question reserved to religion then I think you are sorely misstaken.


Because you *don't* know anything about the answer to it, though you admit that science *doesn't* have it?

fjafjan wrote:and you assume that they are fundamentally different. If a rock falls down a mountain why did it occur? does there need to be some grand intelligent scheme behind it for you to accept it, rather than that the ground shook a bit due to the tautanic plates moving and then gravity pulled it down? Why are we here? Because a couple atoms shashed together and then some time passed and here we are.


They are most certainly fundamentally different. Yet again, I punched Jimmy in the face by thinking about it, which moved my muscles. Oh, and I used a closed fist. But I did it *because* he stole my lunch money. But However, I think we need to get off this path because it leads here.

fjafjan wrote:As for you next reply, please trim your quote tree.


Sorry, it slipped through. Should have used the preview button first. But I suppose you're right, everyone could use a good proof read now and again.

fjafjan wrote:I agree with you on morals not being science, but I also claim they are equally far removed from religion which does not argue morals but simply dogmatically teach them.


I'm sorry, but did you just say that religion teaches morals but is far removed from them? Explain please?

ID wrote:Everything does something. If you hunt in a group, you have the advantage of numbers, if you hunt solo, you have the advantage of stealth. So, no matter how they go about it, it still seems to have a purpose.


Which is actually in support of my point. Animals do things with reasons and purposes. But this has already been dealt with.

ID wrote:And, how about cats sitting around blearily. They have the energy to go and do something to fulfill their needs, but they choose not to. That has no purpose in the grand scheme of keeping them alive, they should always be active!


That's ridiculously specious reasoning. That's like saying bears should go out in the winter and kill stuff instead of hibernating. If the cat gets up and runs around and does stuff all the time, it's metabolism will increase. This means it will have to go hunt for more food. Since wild cats have to work pretty hard for their food, and have no refrigerators to keep their food fresh enough to eat, between meals it's a good idea for them to stay chill and not move around much, as it will burn fewer calories and allow them to stay alive longer with less work. If they had refrigerators, then they might be able to go on a hunting spree for a few weeks/months and then eat whenever they want, but as there current scheme goes something like, expend tons of energy hunting/killing food, eat as much as possible, wait until more food is available (which might be a very, very long time) and then go hunt some more, it makes much more sense for them to burn as few calories as possible between eating animal A and animal B, as animal A must last them until animal B rolls around.

ID wrote:You tread dangerous ground. Anyway, science hasn't proven any sort of morality to it (you could go so far as to say that morality is an illusion (hint: since it's in parentheses, it's just conjecture, and should in no way be considered a serious argument)), as morality is subjective. However, science can prove that there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is detrimental or problematic. There are numerous species that practice homosexuality, homosexuals are just as healthy as heterosexuals, homosexuals do not suffer especially from anything except fascism (I couldn't resist), homosexuals are in fact no different from heterosexuals except in choice of sexual partners (which has no bearing on anything). Thus, there is no basis on which to say there is a problem with homosexuality.


I tread on no such dangerous ground. If you'd read the post I was responding to, you'd see that the claim was that religion claimed homosexuality was wrong (once again, we're calling Christianity religion) and that that's been proven wrong. What I was saying was that it had *not* been proven wrong. And why do you think that is? Is it possible that it *cannot* be proven either way because it is not a fact, capable of being proven? You might have to read between some lines on this one.

And your rant about homosexuals isn't completely true. Homosexuals do suffer from living no more than a single generation unless they stray from their sexual preferences. They are incapable of passing on their genetic data without doing so. Oh, and one more difference between the hetero and homosexuals of the human persuasion. Homosexuals tend to increase the value of real estate simply by owning/renting nearby real estate. Heterosexuals do no such thing.


Wowza that was a long post. I've either got to stop posting in SB or go back to checking it more often.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:39 am UTC

I find "authority" to be an odd term. That being said, I voted 'religion'. My own religion informs vast swaths of my worldview and thus how I actually live in the world. Science does a fantastic job of what it does, but I don't see any effects of science in the way that I actually live my life.

This is not to discount technology as a product of science and its ability to affect the way that we live, but I think that such ability is disconnected from the science that brought it about. Technology can affect HOW we do things, but it does not really get to WHY we do things.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:46 am UTC

TigerX wrote:I find "authority" to be an odd term. That being said, I voted 'religion'. My own religion informs vast swaths of my worldview and thus how I actually live in the world. Science does a fantastic job of what it does, but I don't see any effects of science in the way that I actually live my life.

This is not to discount technology as a product of science and its ability to affect the way that we live, but I think that such ability is disconnected from the science that brought it about. Technology can affect HOW we do things, but it does not really get to WHY we do things.


That's actually an interesting angle which I hadn't thought of before. And I agree, authority is an odd word to use, but I understand what the poll is getting at. Still, authority cannot be taken or earned, but must be given, which makes it sit poorly with something that is basically a competition.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Postby TheTankengine » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

TigerX wrote:I find "authority" to be an odd term. That being said, I voted 'religion'. My own religion informs vast swaths of my worldview and thus how I actually live in the world. Science does a fantastic job of what it does, but I don't see any effects of science in the way that I actually live my life.

This is not to discount technology as a product of science and its ability to affect the way that we live, but I think that such ability is disconnected from the science that brought it about. Technology can affect HOW we do things, but it does not really get to WHY we do things.


That's because science has absolutely NO concern with WHY anything is done, only how it works, has worked, and how it may work in the future. If you don't think science and technology effect your daily life in any way, how did you post that comment? If you live in anything resembling the modern world (that is, unless you literally live in a cave in a hunter-gatherer clan), science and technology are absolutely integral to everything you do. Civilization is technology.

Anything you've done today has been done before. It has been made possible by someone that sat down and figured out how to do it, or do it better than the last guy. That is science.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting

User avatar
Insignificant Deifaction
Small Goddess
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:14 am UTC
Location: Through the mother@#$%ing looking glass.

Postby Insignificant Deifaction » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:50 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Homosexuals do suffer from living no more than a single generation unless they stray from their sexual preferences. They are incapable of passing on their genetic data without doing so. Oh, and one more difference between the hetero and homosexuals of the human persuasion. Homosexuals tend to increase the value of real estate simply by owning/renting nearby real estate. Heterosexuals do no such thing.


My response to the italicized portion: "...What?"

And, technically homosexuals don't suffer from single generations, as reproduction is not necessary, and many heterosexuals lack children as well.

Reproduction=Bonus, not mandatory

Last, I appreciate you calling it a rant, but it is far from it. Nobody has ever heard me rant.
Belial wrote:You are giving me the tools to sodomize my vast imagination, and for this I am grateful.

PM Me, if you care for a chat.

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:51 pm UTC

TheTankengine wrote:That's because science has absolutely NO concern with WHY anything is done, only how it works, has worked, and how it may work in the future.
And people wonder why there are those of us who believe that Science has little or no insight into the human condition.

If you don't think science and technology effect your daily life in any way, how did you post that comment? If you live in anything resembling the modern world (that is, unless you literally live in a cave in a hunter-gatherer clan), science and technology are absolutely integral to everything you do. Civilization is technology.
I don't entirely disagree, but Civilization arose from sociology, not science. Tools one could argue are the result of some primitive science, but even then that only allowed people to continue more efficiently in tasks that they already took part in. Social interaction is much more a definer of our own daily lives than Science is.

It's pretty simple to me: Science lacks much authority outside of its own pursuits.

Anything you've done today has been done before. It has been made possible by someone that sat down and figured out how to do it, or do it better than the last guy. That is science.
Sort of, it's also a set of epistemic assumptions that in theory allow Science to engage reality in an objective manner.

Tchebu
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:42 am UTC
Location: Montreal

Postby Tchebu » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:07 pm UTC

That's because science has absolutely NO concern with WHY anything is done, only how it works, has worked, and how it may work in the future.


The question "why" in the sense of "for what purpose" is only relevant when the action is done by an intelligent agent. Therefore asking "why" any natural phenomenon occurs already supposes that there is an intelligent agent behind it, which is not a claim that can be tossed around that carelessly.

So in this sense, science does the smart thing and simply doesnt bother answering the question. Religions keeps going and pretending that it's a valid question...
Last edited by Tchebu on Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:12 pm UTC

TigerX wrote:
TheTankengine wrote:If you don't think science and technology effect your daily life in any way, how did you post that comment? If you live in anything resembling the modern world (that is, unless you literally live in a cave in a hunter-gatherer clan), science and technology are absolutely integral to everything you do. Civilization is technology.
I don't entirely disagree, but Civilization arose from sociology, not science. Tools one could argue are the result of some primitive science, but even then that only allowed people to continue more efficiently in tasks that they already took part in. Social interaction is much more a definer of our own daily lives than Science is.


Not really. Civilization as we know it resulted from the technology of planting crops, thus negating the need to move around all the damned time. Sociology existed, sure, but related in smaller numbers than a city. The largest group of nomads wouldn't register on the scale in relation to the largest city.*

(Using the data that Seoul is the largest at 10,231,000 people. You'd have to have a nomad group of more than 10,000 to show up as a blip on the population statistics)
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:27 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote: Not really. Civilization as we know it resulted from the technology of planting crops, thus negating the need to move around all the damned time. Sociology existed, sure, but related in smaller numbers than a city. The largest group of nomads wouldn't register on the scale in relation to the largest city.
I agree that agriculture was instrumental in allowing the development of cities, but I think that sociology was the driving force for the organization of the society. I would think that technology once again offered a new way to attend to the same basic human social functions.

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:38 pm UTC

Tchebu wrote:The question "why" in the sense of "for what purpose" is only relevant when the action is done by an intelligent agent. Therefore asking "why" any natural phenomenon occurs already supposes that there is an intelligent agent behind it, which is not a claim that can be tossed around that carelessly.
As true as that may be, what does the word "authority" mean outside of intelligent agents? Moreover, what does Science mean outside of intelligent agents?

So in this sense, science does the smart thing and simply doesnt bother answering the question. Religions keeps going and pretending that it's a valid question...
Ignore it if you will, but once again it just goes to show that Science is lacking in dealing with the human condition.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

TigerX wrote:
Tchebu wrote:The question "why" in the sense of "for what purpose" is only relevant when the action is done by an intelligent agent. Therefore asking "why" any natural phenomenon occurs already supposes that there is an intelligent agent behind it, which is not a claim that can be tossed around that carelessly.
As true as that may be, what does the word "authority" mean outside of intelligent agents? Moreover, what does Science mean outside of intelligent agents?


Ok, intelligent agent outside of the people carrying on the discussion. That better?

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:02 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Ok, intelligent agent outside of the people carrying on the discussion. That better?
The context of the question assumes intelligent agents. You can't have Science or Religion without intelligent agents.

My personal comment was on the basis of Science's ability to inform the human experience. I've already stated that Science is wonderfully adept at its own ends. However, I believe that Science (and Religion) make unfounded assumptions in its own workings.

It is just as easy to hand-wave the pursuit for objective understanding.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:39 pm UTC

TigerX wrote:
zenten wrote:Ok, intelligent agent outside of the people carrying on the discussion. That better?
The context of the question assumes intelligent agents. You can't have Science or Religion without intelligent agents.

My personal comment was on the basis of Science's ability to inform the human experience. I've already stated that Science is wonderfully adept at its own ends. However, I believe that Science (and Religion) make unfounded assumptions in its own workings.

It is just as easy to hand-wave the pursuit for objective understanding.


Well, no, they are concepts. Rocks to my understanding generally don't have concepts. However, most religions require the concept of intelligent agents for the basic functions of the universe to function, science only requires the existence of intelligent agents for intelligent agents to function.

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:16 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Well, no, they are concepts. Rocks to my understanding generally don't have concepts.
Hence, asking about authority is restricted to a certain domain.

However, most religions require the concept of intelligent agents for the basic functions of the universe to function, science only requires the existence of intelligent agents for intelligent agents to function.
Well, I would argue that Science systematically discounts certain possibilities for epistemic reasons. This is what I was pointing towards with my comments on unfounded assumptions. I don't believe that either the acceptance or rejection of background volition is a well-founded assumption.

Yet to me, both Science and Religion have proven their own ability to inform me about the world around me. As long as their assumptions are clear and their domains properly defined, I don't see a serious problem.

My comments on "Why" were restricted to why we as intelligent agents do certain things. I think that a question such as "Why does gravity exist?" is probably contentless anyway.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:44 pm UTC

TigerX wrote:
zenten wrote:Well, no, they are concepts. Rocks to my understanding generally don't have concepts.
Hence, asking about authority is restricted to a certain domain.

However, most religions require the concept of intelligent agents for the basic functions of the universe to function, science only requires the existence of intelligent agents for intelligent agents to function.
Well, I would argue that Science systematically discounts certain possibilities for epistemic reasons. This is what I was pointing towards with my comments on unfounded assumptions. I don't believe that either the acceptance or rejection of background volition is a well-founded assumption.

Yet to me, both Science and Religion have proven their own ability to inform me about the world around me. As long as their assumptions are clear and their domains properly defined, I don't see a serious problem.

My comments on "Why" were restricted to why we as intelligent agents do certain things. I think that a question such as "Why does gravity exist?" is probably contentless anyway.


I meant currently accepted scientific theories, sorry.

User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Postby TheTankengine » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:14 am UTC

TigerX wrote:
SecondTalon wrote: Not really. Civilization as we know it resulted from the technology of planting crops, thus negating the need to move around all the damned time. Sociology existed, sure, but related in smaller numbers than a city. The largest group of nomads wouldn't register on the scale in relation to the largest city.
I agree that agriculture was instrumental in allowing the development of cities, but I think that sociology was the driving force for the organization of the society. I would think that technology once again offered a new way to attend to the same basic human social functions.


Let's think about this for one second without blindly holding on to your sociological beliefs.
Levels of civilization are defined by their technology. Stone-age, copper-age, bronze-age, up to digital- and nanotechnology- civilization. It isn't socialfunction1-age, socialfunction2-age and so on.

You would probably say that being hunter-gatherers would define a stage in civilization. You would be wrong. Stone-age or copper-age or bronze-age civilizations can still have hunter-gatherers. However, they would still be in different stages due to their technology, which would afford them different levels of efficiency (in terms of time spent hunting/working:time spent not hunting/gathering). This level of efficiency would be directly responsible to the amount and type of social functions the group could undertake.

TheTankengine wrote:That's because science has absolutely NO concern with WHY anything is done, only how it works, has worked, and how it may work in the future.

And people wonder why there are those of us who believe that Science has little or no insight into the human condition.

What do you think sociology is, exactly?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines Sociology as "the study and classification of human societies". Study and classification, sounds rather like the underpinnings of science, to me.


In short, civilization is defined by technology + sociology!=religion.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting

User avatar
TigerX
its the squiggles dude!
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:16 am UTC
Location: Clemson, SC
Contact:

Postby TigerX » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:32 am UTC

TheTankengine wrote:What do you think sociology is, exactly?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines Sociology as "the study and classification of human societies". Study and classification, sounds rather like the underpinnings of science, to me.


Sociology is a science, but I was referring the functioning of sociology. That is, how human societies actually manifest themselves. IOW, cities were an increased measure of social organization spurred by technology.

Just as this conversation is spurred by technology. However, even without the computer, I continue to function socially. Just as without technology, humans were still social. Technology didn't change the sociology of man. It just allowed it to function in a more advanced way.

In short, civilization is defined by technology + sociology!=religion.
I'm trying to figure out who made such an argument. I merely stated that I didn't believe technology to be a sufficient driver in increasing the understanding of the human condition; necessary perhaps, but not sufficient.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:11 am UTC

Science != Technology

User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Postby TheTankengine » Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:33 am UTC

zenten wrote:Science != Technology


In a literal sense, you are correct. However, for the purpose of this discussion they are similar enough. Technology comes from science. Technology represents science on a physical level.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:24 am UTC

Insignificant Deification wrote:
22/7 wrote:Homosexuals do suffer from living no more than a single generation unless they stray from their sexual preferences. They are incapable of passing on their genetic data without doing so. Oh, and one more difference between the hetero and homosexuals of the human persuasion. Homosexuals tend to increase the value of real estate simply by owning/renting nearby real estate. Heterosexuals do no such thing.


My response to the italicized portion: "...What?"

And, technically homosexuals don't suffer from single generations, as reproduction is not necessary, and many heterosexuals lack children as well.

Reproduction=Bonus, not mandatory

Last, I appreciate you calling it a rant, but it is far from it. Nobody has ever heard me rant.


That's based on a study that was recently done. I heard it twice in the same day, once on NPR and once on the intarblags. It's actually kind of an interesting study.

Wait, are you saying that homosexuals can pass on their genes *without* having sex with someone who isn't a part of their own gender? And reproduction is most definitely mandatory to pass one's genes on.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:30 am UTC

22/7 wrote:Wait, are you saying that homosexuals can pass on their genes *without* having sex with someone who isn't a part of their own gender? And reproduction is most definitely mandatory to pass one's genes on.


IVF.

Additionally, there are other, less organised, less understood means of genetic drift.

Lastly, or course, the genome is hardly the be all and end all of non-nurture traits.
Epigenetics, anybody?
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:35 am UTC

VannA wrote:IVF.


You're right, I forgot to include that. That's what I get for not proofreading my posts. But I'm not sure that the urges we get to hump things are satiated by IVF.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Postby Bondolon » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:10 am UTC

22/7 wrote:
VannA wrote:IVF.


You're right, I forgot to include that. That's what I get for not proofreading my posts. But I'm not sure that the urges we get to hump things are satiated by IVF.


IVF is still reproduction, though.

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Postby 4=5 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:34 am UTC

TheTankengine wrote:What do you think sociology is, exactly?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines Sociology as "the study and classification of human societies". Study and classification, sounds rather like the underpinnings of science, to me.


In short, civilization is defined by technology + sociology!=religion.

I'm sorry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5II-BJ8hI

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Postby Bondolon » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:49 am UTC

4=5 wrote:
TheTankengine wrote:What do you think sociology is, exactly?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines Sociology as "the study and classification of human societies". Study and classification, sounds rather like the underpinnings of science, to me.


In short, civilization is defined by technology + sociology!=religion.

I'm sorry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5II-BJ8hI


What. You posted a blatantly satirical video of the practice of turning social science into mathematics, and suggesting that, as such, sociology isn't science? Science is the practice of experimenting, and thereby testing hypotheses which can then be classified as sound or false. Mathematics need not intervene (as sociology, at its best, is only looooooooosely statistical), but even without mathematics one can still do science. One just has to rely on more analog (secular?) statements, as opposed to digital (mathematic) statements to prove one's hypotheses. Misunderstanding Tom Lehrer isn't a sin, it's just silly.

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Postby 4=5 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:56 am UTC

Bondolon wrote:
4=5 wrote:
TheTankengine wrote:What do you think sociology is, exactly?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines Sociology as "the study and classification of human societies". Study and classification, sounds rather like the underpinnings of science, to me.


In short, civilization is defined by technology + sociology!=religion.

I'm sorry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5II-BJ8hI


What. You posted a blatantly satirical video of the practice of turning social science into mathematics, and suggesting that, as such, sociology isn't science? Science is the practice of experimenting, and thereby testing hypotheses which can then be classified as sound or false. Mathematics need not intervene (as sociology, at its best, is only looooooooosely statistical), but even without mathematics one can still do science. One just has to rely on more analog (secular?) statements, as opposed to digital (mathematic) statements to prove one's hypotheses. Misunderstanding Tom Lehrer isn't a sin, it's just silly.
the I"m sory was for posting it, I thought it would be a bad idea to but it's 3:00 in the morning I figured I might as well and regret it later

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Postby Bondolon » Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:10 am UTC

4=5 wrote:
Bondolon wrote:
4=5 wrote:
TheTankengine wrote:What do you think sociology is, exactly?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines Sociology as "the study and classification of human societies". Study and classification, sounds rather like the underpinnings of science, to me.


In short, civilization is defined by technology + sociology!=religion.

I'm sorry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5II-BJ8hI


What. You posted a blatantly satirical video of the practice of turning social science into mathematics, and suggesting that, as such, sociology isn't science? Science is the practice of experimenting, and thereby testing hypotheses which can then be classified as sound or false. Mathematics need not intervene (as sociology, at its best, is only looooooooosely statistical), but even without mathematics one can still do science. One just has to rely on more analog (secular?) statements, as opposed to digital (mathematic) statements to prove one's hypotheses. Misunderstanding Tom Lehrer isn't a sin, it's just silly.
the I"m sory was for posting it, I thought it would be a bad idea to but it's 3:00 in the morning I figured I might as well and regret it later


I thought it was very entertaining, granted, as I've had an acquaintance argue that economics was derived principally from the equation "1+1=2". and that human behavior was statistical, and that, as such, free will was impossible. I enjoyed it greatly, I just didn't feel that it really helped the argument you seemed to have been trying to convey.

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Postby 4=5 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:15 am UTC

Bondolon wrote:I thought it was very entertaining, granted, as I've had an acquaintance argue that economics was derived principally from the equation "1+1=2". and that human behavior was statistical, and that, as such, free will was impossible. I enjoyed it greatly, I just didn't feel that it really helped the argument you seemed to have been trying to convey.
my thought process went like this "hey he mentioned the word sociology, I just watched some funny songs by tom leher and I recall one of them being about sociology maybe I should share it, wait... this song seems to be a little offensive, oh well I'll post it anyway and if it fails I'll avoid this thread in the future."

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Postby Bondolon » Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:21 am UTC

4=5 wrote:
Bondolon wrote:I thought it was very entertaining, granted, as I've had an acquaintance argue that economics was derived principally from the equation "1+1=2". and that human behavior was statistical, and that, as such, free will was impossible. I enjoyed it greatly, I just didn't feel that it really helped the argument you seemed to have been trying to convey.
my thought process went like this "hey he mentioned the word socialogy, I just watched some funny songs by tom leher and I recall one of them being about socialogy maybe I should share it, wait... this song seems to be a litte offensive, oh well I'll post it anyway and if it fails I'll aviod this thread in the future."


No, no. He's awesome. The song's only offensive insofar as it's a satire, but it still rings fairly true. I appreciate your posting it, as I found it quite interesting, I'm just trying to say that it may not have actually disagreed with the original post that you were responding true.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:42 pm UTC

If it doesn't use calculus, it's not science, as far as I'm concerned.

That's right, screw biology.

:D
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:51 pm UTC

Bondolon wrote:IVF is still reproduction, though.


Yes it is. My point was that as human beings we have sexual urges so that we'll pass on our DNA. Our technology and society allow for us to use IVF, which is actually one more way we have slowed down human evolution with technology. I guess what I meant was that on a purely "natural" basis, homosexuals don't have the luxury of passing on their genetic material because of the need to have sex with someone of the opposite sex (Mary excluded). Of course, science has found a way around that now.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:52 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:If it doesn't use calculus, it's not science, as far as I'm concerned.

That's right, screw biology.

:D


Biology uses calculus.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:00 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
space_raptor wrote:If it doesn't use calculus, it's not science, as far as I'm concerned.

That's right, screw biology.

:D


Biology uses calculus.

Biochemistry uses calculus. I submit that this is a ripoff of chemistry, one of the greatest sciences known to man. Biology is just a collection of information. No real structure to it.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:05 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:
zenten wrote:
space_raptor wrote:If it doesn't use calculus, it's not science, as far as I'm concerned.

That's right, screw biology.

:D


Biology uses calculus.

Biochemistry uses calculus. I submit that this is a ripoff of chemistry, one of the greatest sciences known to man. Biology is just a collection of information. No real structure to it.


Incorrect. Kinesthetics for instance uses calculus.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:57 am UTC

zenten wrote:
space_raptor wrote:If it doesn't use calculus, it's not science, as far as I'm concerned.

That's right, screw biology.

:D


Biology uses calculus.


You'd damn well better not mean the hard stuff on manky teeth.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:12 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Incorrect. Kinesthetics for instance uses calculus.

An offshoot of physics, which biology sneakily tried to pass off as it's own!
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Postby TheTankengine » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:53 pm UTC

This is not a biology thread.

Get back on topic.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:39 pm UTC

Sorry.

I think technology is far more influential on humans than sociology. I think technology tends to be the cause of human change, and sociology tends to be the study of the effects.

The Romans were as powerful as they were because of their technology. The Industrial Revolution probably did more to change the human race then the coming of Christ did. The Internet is revolutionizing communication and information sharing. Society is changing due to these technologies. Heck, the entire human race is changing due to these technologies, some parts faster than others.

Technology allows people to eat, it wins wars, it allows for easy transportation. It has a far greater effect than whatever social customs a people have. Those social customs don't go far when that society's soldiers are getting mowed down by machine guns. Technology is the ultimate equalizer. The reason the US won the Cold War: technology, and the way people used it.

Science has been the most influential factor on the human race since it began. It addresses practical issues. Real factors. The reasons people do things like going to war or developing a way of life aren't important. If they don't have superior technology, they'll lose.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
mister k
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby mister k » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:02 pm UTC

I think science has a LOT to say about the human condition. First of all, in an indirect manner- science has prolonged lives via germ theory and all that comes from that, giving us more time to actually ponder existence, and improving it immeasurably. Second of all, more directly, we can understand where ou urges come from- lust and greed excetera, instead of feeling awful about these things because they are a dark sin, we understand they are explained by evolutionary biology. Which is awesome. Psyciatary allows us to attempt to understand our own minds, psychology the behaviour of people. Science allows us to be more comfortable in ourselves, because we understand, and understanding is the key to acceptance. I'm afraid religion fails to provide any of that. Any understanding it might give is sadly false.

User avatar
Insignificant Deifaction
Small Goddess
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:14 am UTC
Location: Through the mother@#$%ing looking glass.

Postby Insignificant Deifaction » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:16 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Wait, are you saying that homosexuals can pass on their genes *without* having sex with someone who isn't a part of their own gender? And reproduction is most definitely mandatory to pass one's genes on.


No, not at all.

But reproduction is not necessary to lead the life you find fulfilling. Just because it may be an evolutionary dead-end does not mean it is worthless.
Belial wrote:You are giving me the tools to sodomize my vast imagination, and for this I am grateful.

PM Me, if you care for a chat.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests