Science teaches us reality is made up of things for which we have evidence. What about the stuff that has not yet been discovered? Isn't that undiscovered stuff just as real before as it is after we discover it? If we believe science's view of reality as being the true reality, are we not blinding ourselves?
2006-09-27 18:01:25 · 14 answers · asked by Wait a Minute 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Of course we can. I have to laugh everytime they show that episode on rogue waves, I forget if it's on TWC or Discovery. They were thought to be a myth until an actual NOAA scientist got hit by one. Thousands of sailors over thousands of years of history were wrong until that moment. Once a real scientist made a scientific observation, they were real. OK, he did get it on video too but if it had been an ordinary guy, they'd still be saying the tape was faked.
2006-09-27 18:06:37 · answer #1 · answered by Kuji 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That depends what you think about science. Some suggest that what science gives us is a picture of the world as it really is. Others suggest that science gives us a framework in which to explain experiences and observations in a coherent framework; that it is a model which explains everything, and nothing more.
Much of the 20th century philosophy of science has discredited the view that science somehow has a prividged perspective to discover the real world. The observer is a part of the experiment, as much as we try to take him out of it. The observer is 1) human 2) uses the 5 senses to detect his environment and 3) is probably an educated white male. If we give credit to the antirealist perspective, we might be inclined to say that instead of discovering truths, science _creates_ them.
2006-09-27 18:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by Jason H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scientists are generally conceited people. They always feel that the other half of humanity is less intelligent than them. When they commit blunders due to ignorance it is named as experiment.
You are correct when you say there are very many things which are beyond the knowledge of scientists. But so called rationalists find an ally in the scientist so they support them. You might have noticed that with every scientific invention a new problem is created for man. Take the case of atomic power. I need not say much on this as all the problems of humanity is on account of this power.
2006-09-27 22:31:46 · answer #3 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure it does. Every materialistic thing in the world can be used either for good or for bad. When science is used for bad objective, there actually the people who do that are blinded by science without thinking about the consequences.
Every life in this world has got good and bad. Learn to take good things and forgive and forget the bad things. That makes the life wonderful!
2006-09-27 18:19:17 · answer #4 · answered by Mathiyan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is much more common to be blinded by religion. There is a difference between undiscovered "stuff" and imaginary stuff that cannot be discovered. Religions have the imaginary stuff. No, science doesn't blind us. I see some goofy arguments to try to support religion, but this one wins some prize for numbing ignorance.
2006-09-27 18:17:36 · answer #5 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the analogy of being famous. If it is a good thing that you are famous, it is equally a bad thing to be not famous, so if one corner of the world knows who you are, but the other corner does not, then you are at odds with your fame (not that I think fame is important but just as an analogy.) So the same goes with science. If science is good because it discovers truth, then it is equally bad because it can not uncover truth. So I would say that science is true, but since it is growing, it can not be the truth.
2006-09-27 22:13:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It happens all the time. New theories become established fact. Then when new evidence turns up, the established scientists scream at the top of their lungs that the methodology is flawed or it's just plain wrong, because they have based their work on the latest last best theory. It's the way scientific discovery is held to the fire.
2006-09-27 18:15:35 · answer #7 · answered by Susan M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Now once you seem at a non secular guy or woman and a scientific guy or woman, you are able to actual see a difference. non secular guy or woman we could faith effect their each day existence. scientific guy or woman would not somewhat supply ita concept. Why? through fact technological know-how is straightforward. not elementary in terms of technique and study and so on. yet elementary to settle for. to illustrate, the certainty which you would be able to not fly, is technological know-how. people settle for it, cos it somewhat is technological know-how. the certainty that in case you sin, you flow to hell, is faith. faith is hypothesis. people can not continuously settle for theories in the event that they have not got some style of data. we've counsel on technological know-how each day, that's what the technological know-how portion of the newspaper is for. the perception that god made the universe is a end. technological know-how does not make any conclusions in the previous the corporation of certainty, they make a hypothesis. So in line with probability the scientific guy or woman isn't probable involved in the top, yet they're involved in the data?
2016-12-15 15:54:37 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That stuff that is undiscovered is what Frontier scientist work to uncover.
2006-09-27 18:04:07 · answer #9 · answered by Diamond in the Rough 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can ask the same question about Religeon...
At least Science has proof and facts.
2006-09-27 18:09:34 · answer #10 · answered by Creative Name 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋