Science and Religion Interact More than They Clash [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
Question by Greywolf: What is science's purpose once they've found the answers to their questions? Science investigates, examines, and classifies for the purpose of understanding things. But does it have some mission statement on what it's supposed to do with the info it discovers? Best answer for What is science's purpose once they've found the answers to their questions?:
Answer by lindajune
Science isn't a person or a company. So while scientists, research firms, think tanks, etc. may have their own mission statements, there isn't one single statement that applies to "Science". And I doubt you could get a consensus from all scientists as to what that statement should be, anyway. As to the purpose of science once they have answers - to ask new questions.
Answer by Bazz
The scientific method allows the construction of structures of truths (where a truth is some hypothesis that has been validated by the method). Science is a consensual process, so if people agree something is a scientific truth (e.g. because it can be verified experimentally by anyone, given that the conditions for the specific true proposition hold) then others can use it to base new hypothesis and scientific thinking. So finding answers makes it possible to pose and answer new questions and so on. Notice that since the process of science is consensual, a complete "truth" structure could be built on false premises. When the foundation is proven wrong the complete structure that relies on it collapses. As an example take the case of geocentrism. A lot of astronomical work was done based on the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe. It became harder and harder to explain things (i.e. the structure was built in a way in which answering certain questions was near to impossible). In the above case, e.g. to explain the movement of planets in the skies. The destruction of the geocentric model, and its replacement for a heliocentric model allowed old questions to be answered easily and many more questions to be answered. So not always does science move forward. There are false starts, wrong paths, backtracking, etc. But at any point in time the scientific structure of truths can be used by any scientist to do more science!
Answer by aviophage
No. We just do it. It's part of what it means to be human, and there doesn't have to be a reason or a "grand mission." It's just what we do. Each settled question raises more questions, and off we go again. Having unloosed the foxes of the mind To run about the margins of the world With the five hounds the sense has close behind The hunter who in his eagerness has hurled Himself astride the swift steed of the wind Fit charger for so furious a chase! Shall be companioned by no easy friend. To alien vistas shall he turn his face. Yet he shall feel a surging in his blood Like troubled waters at the flush of spring And know it clean, and vigorous, and good; And as his mount streaks through the evening He shall behold upon a darkening hill The hounds yet fleet--the foxes fleeter still! --Byron Herbert Reece Demorest GA, 1947
Answer by gonamok
to understand the world around us. If we know how to grow crops, we can eat. If we understand dangers we can stay alive. If we learn how to use tools and material we can build shelter, and so on. Science is documented observation. When we record events and look at the record, we see patterns and trends, from which we draw conclusions. These conclusions are tested and the results recorded. If the results differ from expectations, we wonder why and investigate, and in the course of this investgation we learn many things and ask many questions, which are investigated and documented, and the store of knowledge grows. The conclusions continue to be refined and corrected as more people look at them in different ways, so we have not only more, but also better information. This knowledge benefits all of mankind. Science is mandated with the collection and refinement of knowledge.
Answer by eri
Ha. The more we le arn, the more questions we have. We'll never be done exploring everything. We publish what we discover. There are thousands of scientific journals out there for anyone to read.
Answer by Eric S
Let's cut through all the smoke-filled opinions and break this definition down in layman's terms. To establish an exact science, you must start with a hyposthesis. You have to demonstrate the ability to prove this information repeatedly. At any given time someone in the communtiy should be able to prove this theory given the hyposthesis parameters. In short, it cannot be a science unless it is proven and can be repeatedly without fail. Hope this clears it up...
Answer by Frank N
It would be egotistical to presume that this could happen, but let's say it did. Scientists would still work to help people learn and understand science. Knowing how things work conveys great advantage. We could do better inventing and engineering. We could better help solve society's problems. We could spend less time figuring how how the universe works, and thus more time figuring out how best to use that knowledge. You could argue that science is done once it has found all the knowledge. A person who is only a scientist would have nothing to do. If it happened, you'd see there aren't many pure scientists in the world.
On this episode of The Spangler Effect, Steve investigates the science of bubbles and why they pop, how to make different shapes, and how to put a person inside a bubble. Subscribe to The Spangler Effect www.youtube.com Watch the previous episode www.youtube.com Buy the Square Bubble Kit www.stevespanglerscience.com Buy the Extreme Bubble Solution www.stevespanglerscience.com Buy pipettes for the best bubble wand www.stevespanglerscience.com
The Spangler Effect - The Science of Bubbles Season 01 Episode 22
Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion
Phil Dowe
Grand Rapids, Mich. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.
205 pages. $ 21 paperback.
Sixteen hundred years ago, Augustine decided that the best model for the science-and-religion interplay was one of interaction and in Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking, philosopher of science and religion Phil Dowe argues that pattern continues today.
In his praiseworthy book, Dowe offers up four views of the science-and-religion relationship: naturalism, religious science, independence and interactivity. The first two brand the relationship as uncomplimentary, the third as unrelated, and the latter -- which Dowe favors -- sees religion and science as harmonious and dependent. He backs up his findings with detailed accounts of the history and philosophy of science-and-religion.
Dowe also reveals that ancient Christian belief made a single God the a uthor of two books: the book of Scripture and the book of nature, which must correspond with each other. Augustine harmonized them. He counseled Christians to read scripture literally except where it conflicts with science, and then to interpret it metaphorically. Moreover, he advised reading Scripture as a spiritual work, not as science.
Conflict arises only when one book is exalted, the other demonized. If both receive equal recognition, either they serve separate functions, as in Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, or they mutually benefit each other, as Dowe argues clearly and logically in this book.
In Dowe's first case study, Galileo is placed under house arrest by the Inquisition for promulgating Copernicus' idea that Earth revolves around the sun. Surely, this is conflict. Yet, Dowe notes, the Vatican's need for a better calendar and, therefore, a more accurate cosmology inspired Copernicus' work, which he dedicated to the Pope. Moreover, this discord lay not between religion and science, but between sciences -- Aristotle vs. Copernicus -- for Augustine had harmonized Scripture with Aristotelian science.
More generally, the idea that God created people in the divine image -- rational and capable of governing -- inspired early science. Rational people can discover the workings of God's rational world. As Dowe argues, governing requires power and scientific knowledge of nature increases power; therefore, humans should pursue science. These ideas gave early scientists the optimism and impetus to engage in science. Dowe claims the subsequent success of science supports the thesis that we do, in fact, share in the divine image.
Religion motivated Darwin, Dowe's second case. As a student at Cambridge, Darwin studied William Paley's Natural Theology, a design argument for the existence of God, and wrote On the Origin of Species in part to refute it. Yet, many scientists -- including Darwin -- think God and e volution compatible.
In evaluating Hawking, Dowe shows how even atheism is a way science and religion interact. The big bang gives the universe a beginning, reviving an old argument for the existence of God. Moreover, discovery that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life generates a new design argument. These God-promoting ideas, Dowe writes, drive the development of the "Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition," wherein the universe has no beginning and thus needs no creator. To avoid evoking God to explain the fine-tuning, other cosmologists hypothesize about the existence of multiple universes. According to Dowe, atheism drives an amazing amount of contemporary science, from Richard Dawkins' biology to Hawking's cosmology.
And Dowe is right. Partition between the two fields seems unlikely. Science is used to support religion, and religion -- or lack thereof -- stimulates science. Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking is worth pondering in all its detail.
More Science and Religion Interact More than They Clash Issues
0 comments:
Post a Comment