Does anyone else find........

[kwackers]

What? you mean you're not doing?

No. I like to mimic my creations in order to understand them...

[reohn2]

What? you mean you're not doing?

No. I like to mimic my creations in order to understand them...

Ah I see,through the screen down the wires and straight into my creator's mind,and I now know exactly His plan for man(un)kind.
Thanks for that

[Si]

Nope, a numbering system is only absolute until it is expressed and used.

Eh? It's absolute in its usage - how can it not be??

Because it is applied.

[sjs]

Nope, a numbering system is only absolute until it is expressed and used.

Eh? It's absolute in its usage - how can it not be??

Because it is applied.

For those having trouble understanding you (perhaps that failure to understand in itself backs up your case) can you provide an example? I find they often help.

[Vorpal]

As far as I understand, something like a number system is philosophically absolute (not to be confused with numerically absolute ).

Cultural values, morals, and religion, on the other hand are relative, and only understandable in context.

We can understand mathematics done by people thousands of years ago, even if we don't understand the cultural context in which they were performed.

[reohn2]

For those having trouble understanding you (perhaps that failure to understand in itself backs up your case) can you provide an example? I find they often help.

Could I try to sumerise Si's case as I see it(I'm having difficulty,which maybe my lack of intelligence)
Religion=faith in an unseen Author,Maker and (possibly)controller of all that is,seen and unseen.Which relies on revelation and or writings(mostly ancient which have been translated from other,sometimes dead,languages)

Science=a search for the truth and understanding by human beings about all that is,seen and unseen,with tools and measuring equipment available to them.

Si IMO seems to be saying that humanity's understanding of science is as vague as it's understanding of God and that humans have to have faith in science,even though science can be proven by using those same tools and equipment.
Whereas religion needs faith and can only be proven by interaction by humans through either or religious scriptures or divine revelation.

[sjs]

For those having trouble understanding you (perhaps that failure to understand in itself backs up your case) can you provide an example? I find they often help.

Could I try to sumerise Si's case as I see it(I'm having difficulty,which maybe my lack of intelligence)
Religion=faith in an unseen Author,Maker and (possibly)controller of all that is,seen and unseen.Which relies on revelation and or writings(mostly ancient which have been translated from other,sometimes dead,languages)

Science=a search for the truth and understanding by human beings about all that is,seen and unseen,with tools and measuring equipment available to them.

Si IMO seems to be saying that humanity's understanding of science is as vague as it's understanding of God and that humans have to have faith in science,even though science can be proven by using those same tools and equipment.
Whereas religion needs faith and can only be proven by interaction by humans through either or religious scriptures or divine revelation.

I'm with you there. It seems to me that science is an attempt to formalise the sort of practical investigations that a rational person would do if he/she were seriously trying to understand the world around them. Religion is not that. But to claim that science and religion inhabit completely different spheres and are therefore not in conflict is to ignore the fact that some religions make claims about the same things that science investigates, creation being one obvious example.

[reohn2]

I'm with you there. It seems to me that science is an attempt to formalise the sort of practical investigations that a rational person would do if he/she were seriously trying to understand the world around them.

That's how it seems to me.

Religion is not that.

agreed

But to claim that science and religion inhabit completely different spheres and are therefore not in conflict is to ignore the fact that some religions make claims about the same things that science investigates, creation being one obvious example.

The problem with creation,as with other things from the religious POV is that if it says it was this way in (whatever) Holy Scripture then it must be correct because it is ordained by God in these Holy Scriptures.
These(they believe) are The Word(s) of God and for some,though not all followers of religion,The Word(s) of God are Absolute Truth and therefore everything hinges on these Holy Scriptures/Words of God.
This is book worship or faith in those Writings.

The same could be said of scientific writings,but the difference is that those writings can be replicated demonstrably.Obviously creation can only be a theory by scientist or the religious.

True science is proven IMHO fact though incomplete in that we only know what we know and is therefore a work in progress
Religion is belief in the unproven and it complete from the POV of the believer..

[Si]

Eh? It's absolute in its usage - how can it not be??

Because it is applied.

For those having trouble understanding you (perhaps that failure to understand in itself backs up your case) can you provide an example? I find they often help.

There are different types of examples, some of which have been already given).

Kwackers' argument seems to be that the physical universe is made up of a number of laws, constants and absolutes, which includes a numbering system. I have no issue with this (or rather I have faith in this being so ). This is what we might call pure, abstracted mathematics.....it goes on whether or not people are taking any notice of it. Where I seem to differ with Kwackers is in the extent to which people can access it without the purity/truth/etc being impinged upon.

To give a really awkward example, I am about to type a number - when you read this number I want you to hold up as many fingers as that number represents. Now, following the theory of pure mathematics this number must represent the number that it represents - it can't be more and it can't be less. So here goes: 10

So how many fingers did you hold up? Are all of your digits extended, or are you flicking the 'V's at the screen? That is, did you read the number I typed in base 10, or in binary? this is what I mean by 'applied' as soon as humans start messing with this pure number form it all starts getting a bit dodgy. Now, you may argue that the error is that I didn't express the number correctly and I should have included an indicator of base, but then I could easily point out another problem with it (for instance if it is a decimal 10, have you put up 10 fingers or have you put up 8 finger and two thumbs?).

My view is that humans can't access the purity of the real physical world without tainting it due to the interpretations that they place upon it and the restraints on how they can express it due to their system of language. Sure, some can get very close - close enough in fact for 'science', 'engineering', etc to mostly work (within possibly generous tolerances), but no one will get it perfectly, and for most it will be amazingly imperfect.

Some other examples: MMR vaccinations - science should have been able to give us a definitive answer much earlier than it did, but because there is this unbreakable link between the science and the social, it couldn't. And of course, the old classic: Schroedinger's cat....logic tells us the cat has to be either alive or dead from the get-go, yet it is observation that either condemns or saves it.

[Si]

For those having trouble understanding you (perhaps that failure to understand in itself backs up your case) can you provide an example? I find they often help.

Si IMO seems to be saying that humanity's understanding of science is as vague as it's understanding of God and that humans have to have faith in science,even though science can be proven by using those same tools and equipment.
Whereas religion needs faith and can only be proven by interaction by humans through either or religious scriptures or divine revelation.

Nope. You are using science to justify itself. You can do exactly the same with religion, and actually you'll get more reliable answers.

Indeed, the fact that you say "science can be proven" demonstrates that you have faith in it - you personally are unable to "prove science", thus your belief that it can be proven relies not on proof but faith in what others have told you. The human study of science is another form of social interaction and as such to you need faith (because you can't prove it for yourself - prove everything from first principles - no way), you can only try to prove it through human interaction (all scientists rely on other scientists, not to mention funding bodies, customers, etc), and it requires scriptures (i.e. books of science a great part of which you have to take as being correct because you can't test them all) and divine revaluation (can you understand all that stuff that <insert name of prominent scientist here> says? No you can't so how do you know it's right...because his/her acolytes confirm it?).

This is not to say that I don't think science works, and, indeed, works better than religion, rather that if we are trying to pull apart religion on scientific grounds we need to first consider what those grounds really are, how sound they are, and how applicable they are. This will then help us to see why they might not have the desired effect (which, according to our logic, they should).

[NATURAL ANKLING]

'engineering', etc to mostly work (within possibly generous tolerances), but no one will get it perfectly, and for most it will be amazingly imperfect.

Hi,
Selective assembly
Why would you spend time to get it near perfect No, lost it again, fold arms.

[reohn2]

Define perfect?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Define perfect?

Hi,
If "n" is infinity then perfect is close
Where are we going...........

[sjs]

There are different types of examples, some of which have been already given).

Kwackers' argument seems to be that the physical universe is made up of a number of laws, constants and absolutes, which includes a numbering system. I have no issue with this (or rather I have faith in this being so ). This is what we might call pure, abstracted mathematics.....it goes on whether or not people are taking any notice of it. Where I seem to differ with Kwackers is in the extent to which people can access it without the purity/truth/etc being impinged upon.

To give a really awkward example, I am about to type a number - when you read this number I want you to hold up as many fingers as that number represents. Now, following the theory of pure mathematics this number must represent the number that it represents - it can't be more and it can't be less. So here goes: 10

So how many fingers did you hold up? Are all of your digits extended, or are you flicking the 'V's at the screen? That is, did you read the number I typed in base 10, or in binary? this is what I mean by 'applied' as soon as humans start messing with this pure number form it all starts getting a bit dodgy. Now, you may argue that the error is that I didn't express the number correctly and I should have included an indicator of base, but then I could easily point out another problem with it (for instance if it is a decimal 10, have you put up 10 fingers or have you put up 8 finger and two thumbs?).

My view is that humans can't access the purity of the real physical world without tainting it due to the interpretations that they place upon it and the restraints on how they can express it due to their system of language. Sure, some can get very close - close enough in fact for 'science', 'engineering', etc to mostly work (within possibly generous tolerances), but no one will get it perfectly, and for most it will be amazingly imperfect.

Some other examples: MMR vaccinations - science should have been able to give us a definitive answer much earlier than it did, but because there is this unbreakable link between the science and the social, it couldn't. And of course, the old classic: Schroedinger's cat....logic tells us the cat has to be either alive or dead from the get-go, yet it is observation that either condemns or saves it.

Thanks. Not convinced about the "fingers" one, or very interested in whether thumbs count as fingers. But MMR is a good one. I guess it's hard to be absolutely sure (or convincing) about results which rely on interpretation of statistics, especially when the Daily Wail gets involved (don't get me started on Melanie Phillips). Schroedingers cat? As far as I know the role of the observer in quantum mechanics is still a topic for debate. But noone said science had to have a final, correct view about everything. It often changes its mind, and doesn't mind doing it (in "theory"; doesn't always work like that in practice).

[horizon]

What's all this about MMR?