The New Republic: 'Science Is Not Your Enemy: A plea for an intellectual truce'

93Devil, you are veering perilously close to expressing a belief in "intelligent design."

Do you think it should be taught in public school science curriculum?

 

I have no use for organized religion and I am firmly on the side of science (see my work on the various evolution threads like the one that popped up a month or so ago).

That said, it bothers me when people say things with absolute certainty that they really can't be certain of. Such as the statement that the facts of science reveal there is no purpose in the laws governing the universe. Just because you don't see one or don't understand it doesn't mean there isn't a purpose. And when they get all the laws of the universe figured out with certainty, then we can talk about whether or not there's a purpose behind them.

As I said, I am a devotee of science, but people need to be sure that when they say science proves something, science actually does prove it. Otherwise, they're no different than the religious zealots they oppose and/or mock.

 

Feynman, Richard. Lectures on Physics: Volume One, Addison-Wesley Pub Co., 1963.

 

If you beleive Jesus turned water into wine, then relgion and science can't co-exist.

 

Maybe he just put roofies in the water, I don't know.

 

Anyway, psychology isn't science, so this guy is a total fraud.

Cruise, Thomas. Lectures to Oprah: Season 18, Episode 23. Harpo Industries, 2009.

 

Hmmm. Another guy who is just wrong. Fancy that.
Psychology a science? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

 

" ... Pietrobon was faced with the fact that our science is inherently limited ... "

Limited!

That said, the politics of pangaea.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1673238/pangea-redrawn-with-todays-political-boundaries#3

 

Just some guy writing in a vacuum to the relative limits of his human mind. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, just some guy. I find these long, relatively-pointless tomes of "truth" in magazines quite boring.

Man's been no further than the moon, and this guy thinks we've acquired certitude on the lack of purpose to the universe's laws. (Cue the Hubble rebuttal in 3, 2, 1)

 

What if he had written "discernible purpose"?

 

Then that part of his argument would immediately dissolve into uselessness.

Because if science does not in fact prove to us the purposelessness of the laws of the universe, as he claims, there might very well be a purpose, which completely destroys this premise:

"The facts of science, by exposing the absence of purpose in the laws governing the universe, force us to take responsibility for the welfare of ourselves, our species, and our planet. For the same reason, they undercut any moral or political system based on mystical forces, quests, destinies, dialectics, struggles or messianic ages."