Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to science. I think it is essential and very useful. I just don't believe it is the ultimate truth and I find it alarming how devoted some people are to it's teachings.
*Fact is truth
*Interpretation of fact is science
*Belief in the findings, interpretations, and conclusions of scientists is faith.
*Deriving ones purpose and patterning ones life after such faith is religion.
If science is the ultimate truth perhaps a better name for it would be religion.
2007-06-18 14:50:48 · 7 answers · asked by atomzer0 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
NO! The epistomological grounding for science is empiricism, meaning ascertained and proved through observation. The grounding of observation is experience. Experience is something that is special and unique to us as humans. Just because our powers of observation see something a certain way, it would not be seen that way if not for what we bring to the table. In other words, the way something is seen is intrinsicly linked to how one looks at it. Science finds truths, but ultimate truths transcends us and could only lie with God.
2007-06-18 15:47:59 · answer #1 · answered by alex d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before I attempt to answer your question, I would like to comment on a couple of things you said...
"*Interpretation of fact is science"
Wrong. Science is a method which we use to find explanations based on what we already know about the world around us.
"*Belief in the findings, interpretations, and conclusions of scientists is faith."
Wrong again. Due to the nature of scientific method, no belief is required. Before a scientific explanation is accepted as plausible and sufficient, it must first undergo several stages of peer review. If, for example, a proposed new scientific explanation of something is a result of an experiment, the experiment and its results must be reproducible -- other scientists must be able to conduct the same experiment and arrive at the same outcome.
"*Deriving ones purpose and patterning ones life after such faith is religion."
Once again, no need to have faith and, therefore, it is not a religion. Anyone with eyes open and a couple of functional brain cells to rub together can see that scientific method simply works. After all, cars, computers, cell-phones, aircraft, food -- in fact, anything more or less man-made -- was possible because of science. Think about it for a few minutes and you will see how true it is.
Now, to answer your question... Science is _not_ the ultimate truth. Disregarding for the moment the obvious question ("What exactly do you mean by 'ultimate truth'?"), science really has little to do with the ultimate truth mainly because it is nothing but a method to arrive at and test explanations. A method that, as history clearly shows, simply works.
2007-06-18 15:18:43 · answer #2 · answered by Dae 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no is probably not a good answer. But for the sake of argument, let's say it is not. And from this method we will prove that it is.
The real question is hidden in this parody. And it is, "Did man descend from early species (Australopithecus), or did God create man from dust and take his rib to form woman. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.
It is logically a fallacy to argue that there is "one"
"true" god. The proposition presupposes an assumption,
which has and is not substantiated by evidence.
"Faith", as we know it is also untenable. Since it
too is based on several confabulated fallacies. The
same is accurate with respect to agnosticism and
atheism. It's not the case to say, that we do not
know one way or another, but it is also not the case
that we do not know that we do not know. The
ambiguity leaves us in a state of evidence, or the
absence thereof, because we cannot explain the
implacability of the universe, which leads us to
Existentialism Kierkegaard, Freddy Nietzsche(AKA,
hermit, whore monger and syphilitic near-do well),
Sartre, Camus and other agnostics, who wanted to
rationalize their hatred for the Stoics in way form or
fashion they could. Thus, they ruminated around and
hatched one of the most dangerous philosophies on
earth: the idea that man is essentially nothing pitted
against the implacability of the universe. If this is
so, then it also nothing to kill somebody, which as we
all know is nonsense. Rather than admit, that their
philosophy breaks down, they would rather proselytize
verisimilitude's of its vagary upon the world as being
the end all and be all of belief systems. The
evidence of the reality check on it is quite another matter. Religion: if it's organized, then pick your poison.
East of Escape, West of a Guess, North of No Such, South of a Search
2007-06-18 14:57:02 · answer #3 · answered by Ke Xu Long 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in God, but I still love science. I don't see why a lot of people have to turn it into God vs Science.
The way I look at it God created all of nature including all the natural laws. Science is a reflection of it's creator.
2007-06-18 15:59:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not acording to thoth he wrote 36.000 years ago
infinate love is the only truth
everything else is an illusion
and if you read about string theory and M theory .i tend to agree with him
quantum physics makes nonsense of a lot of science
2007-06-18 15:00:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
both "ultimate" and "truth" are illusions
all you know is the now.
the facts you may cite are mere wind out your mouth or ink on a page
you are seeking "ultimate truth"?
: you are it, and you are in it
now go:
and play
2007-06-18 15:42:26 · answer #6 · answered by ỉη ץ٥ڵ 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IT DEPENDS HOW ONE LOOKS AT THIS
2007-06-18 15:09:27 · answer #7 · answered by RENE 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋