I think it means for us to work on getting the scientists, artists and mechanics to mate.Nick_A wrote:What does it mean to find open minded scientists, artists, and mechanics who realize they all have a piece of the great puzzle and work to unite them. Of course it would be impossible here. But it does seem to happen.
Of course it would be impossible here. We're on the Internet. You need physical proximity, which the Internet is lacking, because union of willing and consenting scientists with artists and mechanics requires physical intimacy.
But your theory makes sense. To me, at least. When, for instance, you observe the parts of a jigsaw puzzle, they do represent, in most of their matching, the rod entering the cavity which is closed on the other, far, end. The rod normally has a bulbous head, and the cavity expands to have a tight fit with the rod. Perfect arrangement. And each and every jigsaw puzzle is abound with instances of this great graphic representation of your symbolism.
Seriously speaking, Nick_A:
Your symbolism is noble and well written. Your entire struggle with us is a heroic battle to gain support to the nice world view you have, and which we seriously want to talk you out of.
Why? for one thing, your understanding of what "science" means is not aligned with the normally perceived meaning of the word. Sorry, but you do seriously need to study the philosophy of science and the mechanism of scientific enquiry.
For another thing, your misapprehension of what "science" entails, makes us all defend the real, accepted meaning of it. We become a bit motherly over the meaning and function of science, which you repeatedly want to destroy, via nothing else, but ignorance over what it is.
Thirdly, we don't mean to piss you off. You are getting unnerved, I can see it in the change of your literary tone. But you have to understand that we can't just let any text go unnoticed and unchallenged that we can't agree with. And yours has a lot, and fundamental problems, to not agree with.
My advice to you is to study up what scientific enquiry is, and what the philosophical basis of science is.
If I may be so bold, I would like to offer my description of the philosophical tenets that govern scientific thinking and scientific methods:
1. Assumption: the world can be known for the rules that govern its functions.
2. Assumption: man can learn these rules. At least some of them.
3. Assumption: the world, or a subset of it, will always behave in the exact same way once the conditions of it are exactly the same.
A. Rule: there is no absolute proof of any physical law discovered.
B. Rule: any physical law discovered, must be falsifiable. That is, the human concept of any law must be constructed so, that a contradiction to it will render it non-law. Whatever can't be falsified, is not a scientific finding.
C. Rule: to support 3. Assumption, experimental findings must be repeatable by anyone who sets up the same experiment with the variables set up the same way.
D. Rule: to support 3. Assumption, experimental findings must have an equivalent compliance in nature when the same or similar enough conditions exert a change. And vice versa.
E. Rule: inferences and extrapolations derived from an existing and accepted law, even if the inferences and extrapolations are iron-clad logically, can only be accepted as a law if future experiments or observations in nature support them to be true and thus verify them.
These are the philosophical considerations to apply to human knowledge acquired as "scientific finding". At least what I could muster up impromptu in five minutes. I am not going to fight if someone finds fault with this set, because, as I said, it is not researched by me, just listed from memory, and my memory can be faulty.
The points at which your proposed unification of faith vs. science break down are as follow:
1. Predictive nature. Science has a good track record of predicting outcomes of future events when the conditions and the laws governing them are known. Religion sadly lacks in them. Look at the law of gravity, and look at the Book of Job.
2. Evidence. Science always requires evidence which can be observed to substantiate a theory. Religion accepts other forms of evidence, such as historical records of events that can't be repeated (as in the scriptures), other people's dreams, old and unverifiable claims of miracles, etc.
3. God Gap. There are things freely occurring in nature that science can't to date properly explain, while religion can. Such things are, for instance, the nature of the individual's soul, the experience of it; the way man is able to enjoy music and art; etc. These things are, according to science, not explained by science. However, scientific thinking rejects the validity (not the possibility) of explanations obtained in other ways but scientific. So scientists view the aesthetic pleasure, the notion and experience of the self, and the very nature of self-actualized feelings by the self NOT as things that can't be explained, but as things that PERHAPS have an explanation, and future scientific inquiry will or will not discover them. Whereas religious thought explains them with rigid and adamant vehemence of claiming true knowledge why they happen -- with nothing but dogma.
