The Limits of Science

[HexHammer]

Monks just live their life.
And they are wiser than any scientist who tries to give names and tags to the things he sees...

Blatant babble!

Do such monk know about very complex economy? ..what about surgery? Would you want such ignorent monk to do a bypass operation on you, which he has no clue about? Would he know how to make a jumbo jet ..less pilot it?

.................NO?

What good are such monk then? ..he's good for excatly nothing!

[Blaggard]

Science is only limited by small minds and small people.

[volatileworld]

Science is limited to studying the appearances in space and time (phenomena) However, our reason wants to go beyond appearances and know what Kant and Hegel called the ideas of reason. For more on the limits of science:
https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic

[skakos]

Monks just live their life.
And they are wiser than any scientist who tries to give names and tags to the things he sees...

Blatant babble!

Do such monk know about very complex economy? ..what about surgery? Would you want such ignorent monk to do a bypass operation on you, which he has no clue about? Would he know how to make a jumbo jet ..less pilot it?

.................NO?

What good are such monk then? ..he's good for excatly nothing!

Does complex economy make you happy?
Do you know what life is so that you can be so certain that you must fear death?
Would you feel unhappy without jumbo jets?

Are these truly the things which define happiness for you?

[HexHammer]

Monks just live their life.
And they are wiser than any scientist who tries to give names and tags to the things he sees...

Blatant babble!

Do such monk know about very complex economy? ..what about surgery? Would you want such ignorent monk to do a bypass operation on you, which he has no clue about? Would he know how to make a jumbo jet ..less pilot it?

.................NO?

What good are such monk then? ..he's good for excatly nothing!

Does complex economy make you happy?
Do you know what life is so that you can be so certain that you must fear death?
Would you feel unhappy without jumbo jets?

Are these truly the things which define happiness for you?

Only a very complex economy can support a complex culture, with programmers, technology industries, etc,etc.

In the middle ages with hardly any technology, people died of simple infections, where supersticious doctors let you drink pure mercury, did bloodletting.
If you wanted to travel just short distances, you could count days and weeks, if long it was months or years, but today we don't get lost with GPS, and can travel continents in just mere hours.

I'm not conserned if I break a bone, doctors can heal it, if it was back in the days I would fear gangery and certain death.

I can chat with people from afar, I can make friendships with people I else would never meet. I can freely watch beautiful vids on youtube, allt this wouldn't be possible if we all were pieus monks and nuns, glaringly ignorent..

You don't know (as usual) what you are talking about.

[skakos]

Why medicine is not a pro-science argument!

You are using the simplest and yet most wrong argument to support science: Medicine.

I have written a nice article about that Medicine cannot be used as an argument in favor of science. You can read it at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... -argument/.

In summary:

First of all most of the things you mention are of "mechanical nature" (fix a broken bone, by pass arteries etc) and have nothing to do with "Science" (as in "modelling things we observe into theories so as to make predictions" kind of science). Secondly, you would be alarmed on how much important is faith, love and othher "unscientific" things in what you call medicine. And I am sure you know that most of the things you believe medicine has done are actually technological advances (e.g. chlorinated water helped people die less in modern cities, not "medicine").

And last but not least (for now) I am sure you understand that claiming anything about life (or death) means you KNOW what life (or death) actually IS.

Do you?

Less arrogance and more open thinking. This is what we need in such important matters.

[HexHammer]

Why medicine is not a pro-science argument!

You are using the simplest and yet most wrong argument to support science: Medicine.

I have written a nice article about that Medicine cannot be used as an argument in favor of science. You can read it at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... -argument/.

In summary:

First of all most of the things you mention are of "mechanical nature" (fix a broken bone, by pass arteries etc) and have nothing to do with "Science" (as in "modelling things we observe into theories so as to make predictions" kind of science). Secondly, you would be alarmed on how much important is faith, love and othher "unscientific" things in what you call medicine. And I am sure you know that most of the things you believe medicine has done are actually technological advances (e.g. chlorinated water helped people die less in modern cities, not "medicine").

And last but not least (for now) I am sure you understand that claiming anything about life (or death) means you KNOW what life (or death) actually IS.

Do you?

Less arrogance and more open thinking. This is what we need in such important matters.

Less arrogance indeed, and more open thinking ..yes that's good, but for you it's less delusions and less supersticion.

[Blaggard]

The placebo affect is an area of study now receiving considerable attention by academics in medicine, it seems the human mind can be a powerful aid to healing, just believing something will help increases the chance something positive will happen. I think there is a slow trend in medicine towards understanding that body and mind are more holistic, and should both be treated to ensure better outcomes, it's well known a depressed patient is less likely to recover than a more mentally positive patient. It should also be noted that suppressing the immune system by the use of drugs like steroids, is well known to cause depression, so much so that patients who are on steroid treatments (and some chemotherapy that destroys the immune system) are often are also on anti depressants, it's well known that people recovering from flu (not man flu proper, sometimes fatal flu) may suffer a period of depression as they recover. It's also true that being depressed suppresses the immune system, there is hence a clear link between the two that should not be underestimated in medicine, gradually I think medicine is coming around to this idea that the mental health of a patient can be as important as the treatments you are giving to them. I don't think there is anything magical about the mind affecting the body, after all psychosomatic is not a new word, but I do think it is an interesting area of research.

[skakos]

Why medicine is not a pro-science argument!

You are using the simplest and yet most wrong argument to support science: Medicine.

I have written a nice article about that Medicine cannot be used as an argument in favor of science. You can read it at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... -argument/.

In summary:

First of all most of the things you mention are of "mechanical nature" (fix a broken bone, by pass arteries etc) and have nothing to do with "Science" (as in "modelling things we observe into theories so as to make predictions" kind of science). Secondly, you would be alarmed on how much important is faith, love and othher "unscientific" things in what you call medicine. And I am sure you know that most of the things you believe medicine has done are actually technological advances (e.g. chlorinated water helped people die less in modern cities, not "medicine").

And last but not least (for now) I am sure you understand that claiming anything about life (or death) means you KNOW what life (or death) actually IS.

Do you?

Less arrogance and more open thinking. This is what we need in such important matters.

Less arrogance indeed, and more open thinking ..yes that's good, but for you it's less delusions and less supersticion.

Please explain your self. What do you mean?

[skakos]

The placebo affect is an area of study now receiving considerable attention by academics in medicine, it seems the human mind can be a powerful aid to healing, just believing something will help increases the chance something positive will happen. I think there is a slow trend in medicine towards understanding that body and mind are more holistic, and should both be treated to ensure better outcomes, it's well known a depressed patient is less likely to recover than a more mentally positive patient. It should also be noted that suppressing the immune system by the use of drugs like steroids, is well known to cause depression, so much so that patients who are on steroid treatments (and some chemotherapy that destroys the immune system) are often are also on anti depressants, it's well known that people recovering from flu (not man flu proper, sometimes fatal flu) may suffer a period of depression as they recover. It's also true that being depressed suppresses the immune system, there is hence a clear link between the two that should not be underestimated in medicine, gradually I think medicine is coming around to this idea that the mental health of a patient can be as important as the treatments you are giving to them. I don't think there is anything magical about the mind affecting the body, after all psychosomatic is not a new word, but I do think it is an interesting area of research.

Indeed medicine could be the reason for science to change its way of thinking. For too long time have we thought we are just machines which need... fixing. Its time to start seeing us as mind inside a body...

[skakos]

Only a very complex economy can support a complex culture, with programmers, technology industries, etc,etc.

In the middle ages with hardly any technology, people died of simple infections, where supersticious doctors let you drink pure mercury, did bloodletting.
If you wanted to travel just short distances, you could count days and weeks, if long it was months or years, but today we don't get lost with GPS, and can travel continents in just mere hours.

I'm not conserned if I break a bone, doctors can heal it, if it was back in the days I would fear gangery and certain death.

I can chat with people from afar, I can make friendships with people I else would never meet. I can freely watch beautiful vids on youtube, allt this wouldn't be possible if we all were pieus monks and nuns, glaringly ignorent..

You don't know (as usual) what you are talking about.

You can read at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... -medicine/ about why the life expectancy argument is more a statistical trick than a reality for which we should all be grateful.

And technology has more downsides than good.
It does not connect people. It draws people apart.
In the old days people used to talk, to go out, to spend time with each other.
Now we just spend time looking at our smartphone.

And this only ONE example...

Being human has nothing to do with using a computer or the Internet!

[skakos]

As a well known physicist said...

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
― Werner Heisenberg

What do you think?

[Cerveny]

As a well known physicist said...

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
― Werner Heisenberg

What do you think?

Do you have a more concrete idea of God? Is there a soul?

[skakos]

As a well known physicist said...

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
― Werner Heisenberg

What do you think?

Do you have a more concrete idea of God? Is there a soul?

Based on the evidence we have, I believe there is a soul/ spirit.
And I see God as the Cause of existence.
What about you?

[SpheresOfBalance]

As a well known physicist said...

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
― Werner Heisenberg

What do you think?

I agree, but with slight variation. Yes, at the end of learning everything, one can only see our creation very clearly, but I doubt it's the same anthropomorphized "god" most cling too, thus I call it "The Creator" so as to distinguish it from the hu-man's God. The one that 'men' dubbed god so as to worship 'him,' while 'destroying' 'his' 'creation,' as if 'his' 'creation' was meant to be 'destroyed,' then why would 'he' 'create' it? An anthropomorphized creation called god in deed (indeed).