E does NOT equal MC Squared

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Christians on this site really show a laughable misunderstanding of science. Science is based on establishing descriptions of physical reality that can be tested experimentally. The "moral character" (whatever that means) of a scientist is utterly irrelevant has to whether his hypotheses are verifible by experiment. Ask the people at Hiroshima if E=MC2 (don't know how to do exponents).

Speaking of Hiroshima, we can add that to Mr. Einstein's disgusting past, further casting a shadow on any "contribution" he may have made on society.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Christians on this site really show a laughable misunderstanding of science. Science is based on establishing descriptions of physical reality that can be tested experimentally.

How do you test Geology? If this is a laughable question let me know.

Originally posted by poopsiecui
How do you test Geology? If this is a laughable question let me know.

Interesting.... I wonder where this will take us?

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Speaking of Hiroshima, we can add that to Mr. Einstein's disgusting past, further casting a shadow on any "contribution" he may have made on society.

You still maintain that his moral fibre (the questioning of which is nowhere near conclusive) should impact on the quality of the scientific work which he brought to the world. Why? What are you trying to gain by this?

If you are attempting to say that the process of science loses a degree of integrity and religion gains instead you are a simpleton. Do you not understand the simple idea that moral fibre is in no way connected to the science Einstein worked at? Certainly the decisions to use products made on account of that knowledge can be morally questionable and yes perhaps Einstein has a responsibility for that, but science itself is not a subject for the discussion of morals. As no1 has pointed out already, science is the empiric study of experimentation to further understand the processes of the natural world, nothing more.

Originally posted by Starrman
You still maintain that his moral fibre (the questioning of which is nowhere near conclusive) should impact on the quality of the scientific work which he brought to the world. Why? What are you trying to gain by this?

If you are attempting to say that the process of science loses a degree of integrity and religion gains instead you are a simpleton. D ...[text shortened]... study of experimentation to further understand the processes of the natural world, nothing more.

You say:

"If you are attempting to say that the process of science loses a degree of integrity and religion gains instead you are a simpleton. "

I do not believe kingdanwa has ever stated this and

You say:
"As no1 has pointed out already, science is the empiric study of experimentation to further understand the processes of the natural world, nothing more"

Unfortunately this question was raised by me earlier...

So, I will now ask you...

Does science have as a framework only empirical analysis, or doesn't it also utilize a Philosophical understanding about the Nature of Reality?

Originally posted by Eingaben
I do not believe kingdanwa has ever stated this

I believe that this was exactly the point he was trying to put forward, covert as it may have been in its presentation. What do you think was the point of his post?

Unfortunately this question was raised by me earlier...

So, I will now ask you...

Does science have as a framework only empirical analysis, or doesn't it also utilize a Philosophical understanding about the Nature of Reality?

Would you care to elaborate on an example?

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by Eingaben
[b]I do not believe kingdanwa has ever stated this

I believe that this was exactly the point he was trying to put forward, covert as it may have been in its presentation. What do you think was the point of his post?

Unfortunately this question was raised by me earlier...

So, I will now ask you...

Do ...[text shortened]... cal understanding about the Nature of Reality?

Would you care to elaborate on an example?[/b]

If you read my first post you will see what I think kingdanwa's point is...

as far as Philosophical assumptions...

let me find the best example, then I will come back and post... I don't want to become laughable...

Originally posted by Starrman
If you are attempting to say that the process of science loses a degree of integrity and religion gains instead you are a simpleton.

You are wrong. Kingdanwa hasn't even mentioned religion, let alone a competition between the two.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by Eingaben
[b]I do not believe kingdanwa has ever stated this

I believe that this was exactly the point he was trying to put forward, covert as it may have been in its presentation. What do you think was the point of his post?

Unfortunately this question was raised by me earlier...

So, I will now ask you...

Do ...[text shortened]... cal understanding about the Nature of Reality?

Would you care to elaborate on an example?[/b]

Here may be a suitable example...

Although it is a quote...

The main Philosophical assumption of scientists is that Nature is all there is. (Emphasis on the period)

Originally posted by poopsiecui
You are wrong. Kingdanwa hasn't even mentioned religion, let alone a competition between the two.

Maybe we are both seeing something covert then... as you see one,I see the other... otherwise why isn't this in debate rather than spirituality..

Originally posted by Eingaben
Here may be a suitable example...

Although it is a quote...

The main Philosophical assumption of scientists is that Nature is all there is. (Emphasis on the period)

I don't believe this is within the bounds of science, but as you say scientists, the human element.

However I will further that statement, from this I deduce you are suggesting of the supernatural and that science pays no heed ot it. And why should it? Since the supernatural exists outside the boundaries of the natural, what natural process could possibly form an emprical measure of it through experimentation? In fact what natural sense could have any expereince of the supernatural at all?

There are both religious and non-religious scientists, a belief that the supernatural does not exist is not a necessary preclusion to the practice of science, or its aims.

Originally posted by poopsiecui
You are wrong. Kingdanwa hasn't even mentioned religion, let alone a competition between the two.

Then why is this in the spirituality forum? I believe from previous threads, that he is a theist and as such is likely to be suggesting a link between his refutation of Einstein and the truth of his god.

Originally posted by Starrman
I don't believe this is within the bounds of science, but as you say scientists, the human element.

However I will further that statement, from this I deduce you are suggesting of the supernatural and that science pays no heed ot it. And why should it? Since the supernatural exists outside the boundaries of the natural, what natural process could pos ...[text shortened]... pernatural does not exist is not a necessary preclusion to the practice of science, or its aims.

Though for the sake of discussion... The Cosmological argument as evidenced by many throughout the centuries, but more prominently through Thomas Aquinas, gives an excellent example of how the so called supernatural makes itself know through the natural, since it would be a key figure in the development of the natural laws (i.e. Philosophical assumptions) hence a key figure in Nature itself. I wonder what you would think about the Cosmological argument at its argument for the interaction between the natural and the supernatural. If there is interaction there is a need for emprical consideration of the two together or else science's data is incomplete

Originally posted by Starrman
Then why is this in the spirituality forum? I believe from previous threads, that he is a theist and as such is likely to be suggesting a link between his refutation of Einstein and the truth of his god.

If this is his argumentation what do you think about its validity

Originally posted by Eingaben
Though for the sake of discussion... The Cosmological argument as evidenced by many throughout the centuries, but more prominently through Thomas Aquinas, gives an excellent example of how the so called supernatural makes itself know through the natural, since it would be a key figure in the development of the natural laws (i.e. Philosophical assumptions) h ...[text shortened]... e is a need for emprical consideration of the two together or else science's data is incomplete

I'm not prepared to get into a discussion about prior cause here, but I will say that I believe that the Cosmological arguement is philosophy, not science. Were we in a discussion about it I perhaps would be tempted to use scientific examples to illustrate my points, but I would still be philosophising. It is important to secure the process of science as seperate to the discussion of the origins of the universe, to which science is, as yet, unable to conclusively prove.