5 ms·

This is an interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to back this up? EDIT I have some cases to counteract your theory: - Flat Earth - Earth as ce

This is an interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to back this up? EDIT I have some cases to counteract your theory: - Flat Earth - Earth as centre of Universe - Quantum mechanics - Relativity - Thermodynamics - Newton's laws - Evolution - God(s) - Bible stories in general Basically scientific progress has been a story of overcoming verbal traditions and received wisdom.

graemep 11y ago
The discovery that the earth was round pre-dates the development of the scientific method by two millenia - the ancient Greeks found the evidence a few centuries BC. God: science has contributed no new knowledge. Bible stories: How? For example the creation account in Genesis was regarded as metaphorical at least as far back as St Augustine's time, 1600 years ago (Augustine supports what he calls a literal interpretation, but that means that each thing in genesis has a specific real life counterpart - so each of seven days corresponds to some kind of undefined epoch). Revelations is clearly metaphorical if you read up on the obvious contemporary references it contains. American Evangelical style biblical literalism is a heresy of the modern era - hardly a sign that scientific knowledge is encouraging progress. That said, I do not think the idea that science incorporates a lot of knowledge from oral sources is false. It is based on ideas developed from pre-scientific ideas - ancient greek philosophy, the Christian idea of a universe that follows laws etc. - but that is hardly surprising as ideas rarely appear from nowhere.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > God: science has contributed no new knowledge. God is a myth/legend. There is no knowledge. > Bible stories: How? For example the creation account in Genesis was regarded as metaphorical at least as far back as St Augustine's time, 1600 years ago (Augustine supports what he calls a literal interpretation, but that means that each thing in genesis has a specific real life counterpart - so each of seven days corresponds to some kind of undefined epoch). Revelations is clearly metaphorical if you read up on the obvious contemporary references it contains. American Evangelical style biblical literalism is a heresy of the modern era - hardly a sign that scientific knowledge is encouraging progress. Agreed that Evangelical literalism is ridiculous. However, even taken allegorically the genesis myth adds nothing to what we know about the Universe. Furthermore what we know about the Universe is in spite of this myth not following from it. > ancient greek philosophy Could be regarded as a pre-cursor to modern science (not directly but in terms of the process of a species learning about thinking). > Christian idea of a universe that follows laws Sorry how does this contribute to science? Also what laws? The laws of some God myth?
jorangreef 11y ago
You might want to read up on the development of the scientific method, specifically the ordered-universe hypothesis of people like Johannes Kepler which led to it. If you're truly serious about science as I think you want to be, you might also want to revise that list of yours, as it suggests less of an interest in science itself, and more of scientism and naturalism which are both circular philosophies in the pop-science Dawkins crusade. Furthermore, to define scientific progress as "a story of overcoming verbal traditions" might show that you have something to learn of the study of ancient history, specifically the accuracy and role of oral tradition in knowledge. You might also want to read up on the laws of evidence. Some people want to appropriate science as some kind of vehicle in their own personal war against religion, and I don't think you can rationally make it that. Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural. Read a few quotes from Carl Sagan if you're still not convinced.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  I simply regard religion as a set of myths and legends. This is the basis of including God and religion in that list. Otherwise I really don't care about what voices people what to listen to and stories people want to tell.
- dalke 11y ago
  "Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural." Science doesn't like being anthropomorphized. I mean that only partially in jest. You mean "science" here as shorthand for "people who follow the natural philosophy known as 'science'". I'll call those people 'scientists', as is the normal practice. The thing is, there are scientists who investigate putative supernatural events, such as ESP in its various forms, or supernatural events like stigmata from a stone sculpture. This is possible because some supernatural events affect the natural world. If someone says they can use dowsing to detect a buried bottle of water, then the success is part of the natural world. If during unblinded tests they can find the water while during blinded tests they cannot, then it's likely that any success is not due to a supernatural agent but to to the internal knowledge of the dowser. Similarly, some claim that water molecules can be influenced by thought. (Eg, the film 'What the Bleep Do We Know'.) Such claims can be tested, which puts them in the natural world. However, other supernatural events, such as received wisdom, might have no impact on the natural world. If you say the god Mxyzptlk told you that left-handed people should not eat soup, then there's nothing that science can do or say about it. While if you say that Mxyzptlk told you that William the Conqueror in 1072 liked to smoke Cuban cigars and eat macadamia nuts while watching Game of Thrones, then science still can't say if Mxyzptlk does or doesn't exist, but can show that such an event was ahistorical. It is much more likely that Mxyzptlk doesn't exist, or that Mxyzptlk told you a lie. Going back to your phrase "Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural". What you say is true. If something has no impact on the natural word, then there's nothing that science can do or say about it. But the vast majority of supernatural event also have a natural component, and those real-world effects are in the domain of science. Are you limiting yourself to only those events with no real-world effect? Or do you want to include supernatural events like a global flooding, which would leave physical traces had it occurred?
Amezarak 11y ago
> - Flat Earth To add on to what the sibling poster said, the Earth was widely accepted as round by at least some cultures by at least 500 BC, due to overwhelming and easily observable natural evidence that the Earth was round. - The shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon is a circle. - The further you travel south, the more the stars change, 'rising' before you and 'setting' behind you. - When ships sail away, the bottom of the ship disappears first over the horizon, leaving the sails still visible. The same is true for mountains. There were certainly some ancient peoples who imagined a flat earth (or a flat disc-shaped earth), but the idea of a round Earth is very old and most probably predates the Greek philosophers.

graemep 11y ago

The discovery that the earth was round pre-dates the development of the scientific method by two millenia - the ancient Greeks found the evidence a few centuries BC. God: science has contributed no new knowledge. Bible stories: How? For example the creation account in Genesis was regarded as metaphorical at least as far back as St Augustine's time, 1600 years ago (Augustine supports what he calls a literal interpretation, but that means that each thing in genesis has a specific real life counterpart - so each of seven days corresponds to some kind of undefined epoch). Revelations is clearly metaphorical if you read up on the obvious contemporary references it contains. American Evangelical style biblical literalism is a heresy of the modern era - hardly a sign that scientific knowledge is encouraging progress. That said, I do not think the idea that science incorporates a lot of knowledge from oral sources is false. It is based on ideas developed from pre-scientific ideas - ancient greek philosophy, the Christian idea of a universe that follows laws etc. - but that is hardly surprising as ideas rarely appear from nowhere.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> God: science has contributed no new knowledge. God is a myth/legend. There is no knowledge. > Bible stories: How? For example the creation account in Genesis was regarded as metaphorical at least as far back as St Augustine's time, 1600 years ago (Augustine supports what he calls a literal interpretation, but that means that each thing in genesis has a specific real life counterpart - so each of seven days corresponds to some kind of undefined epoch). Revelations is clearly metaphorical if you read up on the obvious contemporary references it contains. American Evangelical style biblical literalism is a heresy of the modern era - hardly a sign that scientific knowledge is encouraging progress. Agreed that Evangelical literalism is ridiculous. However, even taken allegorically the genesis myth adds nothing to what we know about the Universe. Furthermore what we know about the Universe is in spite of this myth not following from it. > ancient greek philosophy Could be regarded as a pre-cursor to modern science (not directly but in terms of the process of a species learning about thinking). > Christian idea of a universe that follows laws Sorry how does this contribute to science? Also what laws? The laws of some God myth?

jorangreef 11y ago

You might want to read up on the development of the scientific method, specifically the ordered-universe hypothesis of people like Johannes Kepler which led to it. If you're truly serious about science as I think you want to be, you might also want to revise that list of yours, as it suggests less of an interest in science itself, and more of scientism and naturalism which are both circular philosophies in the pop-science Dawkins crusade. Furthermore, to define scientific progress as "a story of overcoming verbal traditions" might show that you have something to learn of the study of ancient history, specifically the accuracy and role of oral tradition in knowledge. You might also want to read up on the laws of evidence. Some people want to appropriate science as some kind of vehicle in their own personal war against religion, and I don't think you can rationally make it that. Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural. Read a few quotes from Carl Sagan if you're still not convinced.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
I simply regard religion as a set of myths and legends. This is the basis of including God and religion in that list. Otherwise I really don't care about what voices people what to listen to and stories people want to tell.
dalke 11y ago
"Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural." Science doesn't like being anthropomorphized. I mean that only partially in jest. You mean "science" here as shorthand for "people who follow the natural philosophy known as 'science'". I'll call those people 'scientists', as is the normal practice. The thing is, there are scientists who investigate putative supernatural events, such as ESP in its various forms, or supernatural events like stigmata from a stone sculpture. This is possible because some supernatural events affect the natural world. If someone says they can use dowsing to detect a buried bottle of water, then the success is part of the natural world. If during unblinded tests they can find the water while during blinded tests they cannot, then it's likely that any success is not due to a supernatural agent but to to the internal knowledge of the dowser. Similarly, some claim that water molecules can be influenced by thought. (Eg, the film 'What the Bleep Do We Know'.) Such claims can be tested, which puts them in the natural world. However, other supernatural events, such as received wisdom, might have no impact on the natural world. If you say the god Mxyzptlk told you that left-handed people should not eat soup, then there's nothing that science can do or say about it. While if you say that Mxyzptlk told you that William the Conqueror in 1072 liked to smoke Cuban cigars and eat macadamia nuts while watching Game of Thrones, then science still can't say if Mxyzptlk does or doesn't exist, but can show that such an event was ahistorical. It is much more likely that Mxyzptlk doesn't exist, or that Mxyzptlk told you a lie. Going back to your phrase "Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural". What you say is true. If something has no impact on the natural word, then there's nothing that science can do or say about it. But the vast majority of supernatural event also have a natural component, and those real-world effects are in the domain of science. Are you limiting yourself to only those events with no real-world effect? Or do you want to include supernatural events like a global flooding, which would leave physical traces had it occurred?

Amezarak 11y ago

> - Flat Earth To add on to what the sibling poster said, the Earth was widely accepted as round by at least some cultures by at least 500 BC, due to overwhelming and easily observable natural evidence that the Earth was round. - The shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon is a circle. - The further you travel south, the more the stars change, 'rising' before you and 'setting' behind you. - When ships sail away, the bottom of the ship disappears first over the horizon, leaving the sails still visible. The same is true for mountains. There were certainly some ancient peoples who imagined a flat earth (or a flat disc-shaped earth), but the idea of a round Earth is very old and most probably predates the Greek philosophers.