Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too [View all]patrice
(47,992 posts)41. I've always liked that one . . . for the DOING of it.
You and I are alike; I just went to Dylan Thomas to say what I was trying to say about "that which Is" above.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Pretty standard human behavior; change the definition to fit the times so as to stay relevant.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#1
That's what human brains do, put a different set of how-tos on it & you have science. The point of
patrice
Nov 2012
#30
All is in process/negotiation and I seem to be a verb > how is at least as important as what.
patrice
Nov 2012
#14
It is the essence of science that it is not-religion/ous, so to that extent, through negation of
patrice
Nov 2012
#22
OTOH, sometimes the rigidity of certain scientific beliefs can impede scientific progress.
cbayer
Nov 2012
#5
Thank you for confirming there's nothing "particularly slow" about scientific progress.
trotsky
Nov 2012
#133
Thomas R. Kuhn says that rigidity is actually part of the dynamic of scientific revolutions.
patrice
Nov 2012
#18
"Somehow"? How the hell can you say "somehow they are not guilty of faulty thinking..."?
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2012
#136
Yes! If we don't understand the HOW of something, how can we know its significance?
patrice
Nov 2012
#17
IOW, as polling just so clearly illustrated, significance is way more than a statistical formula(e).
patrice
Nov 2012
#19
String-theory.->"Strings" that "vibrate".->Sound is a vibration.->You can heal a person....
AlbertCat
Nov 2012
#77
and also: "how" is not just what steps, but the order of those steps themselves is a manifestation
patrice
Nov 2012
#32
He would agree that using the OED definition of religion, science could not be classified as
cbayer
Nov 2012
#16
That's stupid, aliens would most likely instantly recognize the LHC for what it is...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#52
Just a note to myself here to follow up on demarcation problems, later, I am doing laundry & stuff
patrice
Nov 2012
#39
Thank you for this. Time to go find Eric Hoffer in a stack of crates of books around here somewhere.
patrice
Nov 2012
#25
I would support that by getting one of my own suggestion + someone else's suggested book on my
patrice
Nov 2012
#35
He makes the point that there was likely ritual and dogma before there was religion.
cbayer
Nov 2012
#26
Which god? What's a god? IF there were such a thing that could be called a "G/god" would we
patrice
Nov 2012
#33
There are none who live off of the lives of others? Would NOT exist were it not for that?
patrice
Nov 2012
#42
Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. The word is widely used and has an defined meaning.
humblebum
Nov 2012
#70
Well I guess such a list would be ridiculously long and go back quite a ways in time, but
humblebum
Nov 2012
#84
It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to ...
AlbertCat
Nov 2012
#78
Those so-called "lame folk" are those who don't share your very narrow point of view. You
humblebum
Nov 2012
#83
The subject of Other Ways of Knowing has been hashed and rehashed countless times here
humblebum
Nov 2012
#98
So no one has ever made an attempt to establish a unified theory of science? Interesting.
humblebum
Nov 2012
#121
Not too sure exactly what you are waiting for, but happy waiting. All anyone needs do
humblebum
Nov 2012
#137
Like I said, look it up for yourself. Subject's been discussed ad nauseum in the group. nt
humblebum
Nov 2012
#113
So who decides what is real and what is not? If the limits of your reality are
humblebum
Nov 2012
#123
If the limits of your reality are that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched/felt
AlbertCat
Nov 2012
#124
I think the problem is this, "Scientism" as it were, seems to be a term that was...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#72
Actually, the"soft" sciences use the same methodology, the Scientific Method, and
humblebum
Nov 2012
#130
But not the same rigor, because its not possible, either due to practical or ethical concerns...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#134
You sound like there is some organized conspiracy to appear as something that they are not and
humblebum
Nov 2012
#135