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]humblebum
(5,881 posts)88. Now you are admitting that there are other ways of knowing again.
Either there are or there aren't. As far as your word "exactly"- you inserted the 'your words' next to 'really', not 'exactly.'
But that changes nothing. If you claim that this is how something "really is," That is no different than saying this is "exactly" how it is. Neither word leaves any room for equivocation.
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