Hi Everyone:

I believe that the scientific age is coming to an end. It appears that in some countries, it has actually ended.

Humanity has had approximately 200 years or so to verify the assumptions on which other’s have based their opinions, without the same threat of harm. However, in come countries today, if one questions the base assumptions of: evolution, global warming, teaching methods, health care methods, child development, gender studies, etc, your reputation can be damaged and your earning potential compromised.

We are going backwards.

Regards.

In some ways, I agree with you. Now that we understand most things, we can go on find solutions for problems we now understand. We know where Troy is, we know atoms exist, we have even discovered black holes.
However, there is much left to be discovered yet. Physics and science are improving to an almost philosophical level. The universe is still full of mysteries.

And perhaps everyone understands a number of things you have listed. Psychologists are still researching child development and not everyone agrees with the teaching methods schools employ nowadays.

So I don't think we're going backwards. Rather, we are progressing at a slower rate, because the matter is more difficult.

haha.

Here it comes brotherska.

...wait for it.

You seem to suggest that science was a foolish offshoot of history. A big experiment which we tried, realized was useless, and are slowly relinquishing in favor of the preferred method of uncovering truth: religion.

I DO lose respect for people who do not understand the significance of carbon dating, evolution, and the scientific method.

A solid scientific base in schooling and technology is what has propelled us to the top of the world, and it is a lack of understanding, and a lack of appreciation for these things that now sees us in decline in almost every metric of a country's health.

America was ranked 37th out of 191 nations in health care by the W.H.O.

In 2006 the Program for International Student Assessment showed that U.S. was 17th of 30 countries.

The US ranked 29th, behind countries like Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Liechtenstein in science by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.


here is a real-world example. A smoking gun of science losing to idiocy.

Of all the stars that have names, 2/3 of them have Arabic names. The reason for this is that if you discover something, or are the first and best at a thing you get to name it.

From about 800 AD to 1100 the scientific center of the world was in the middle east: Baghdad.

This is the place from which all the major advances of the time were coming. Studies in biology, developement of the scientific method, peer review, astrology, celestial navigation, and mathematics were all taking place there, and at that time.

1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth? They are called Arabic numerals. Not because it sounds cool, but because they were invented by Arabs. Algebra, an Arabic word. They fully exploited the use of the zero and many other advances which you can see below.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

All of this was not a product of ages of scientific tradition in that community, but specific to this 300 year period. 800 AD to 1100. That was the time, that was the place.

So why isn’t the Islamic world synonymous with scientific advances? Where are the proportionate number of Nobel prize winners out of the middle east? With such a huge head start, the scientific community should be dominated by Arab thought.

Imam Hamid al-Ghazali, born 1058 AD, was a scholar who helped start a philosophy that mathematics is the work of the devil.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

Ghazali wrote more than 70 books on Islamic sciences, early Islamic philosophy, Islamic psychology, Kalam and Sufism. His 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology, as Ghazali effectively discovered philosophical skepticism that would not be commonly seen in the West until René Descartes, George Berkeley and David Hume. The encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Please take the time to view occasionalism and skepticism articles on wikipedia. They are the bottom of the barrel in intellectual integrity.

Thanks to his spiritual insight, and the works of others like him the entire foundation of these great accomplishments were torn down and Islam became what it is today. Revelation replaces investigation. Immaculate perception presides over the scientific method. That community has never recovered from this tragic blow. This is the world you yearn for. Look no further than the insanity, intolerance, vengeful, spiteful, hate filled behavior of jihadists and the militant religious that occupy this one-time pinacle of human understanding.

How many brilliant arab minds lived their whole life gazing into the stars and never once tried to study them? How many Einsteins, Hawkings, or Newtons lived and died without picking up a book?

America has just exited a fairly important period of time where we were doing all the naming. It is no coincidence that so much of the atomic chart has American origins. Now we get guys like you saying that we are backing away from science, and you think it is a good thing.

You are flat out wrong.

Brotherska wrote:I believe that the scientific age is coming to an end. It appears that in some countries, it has actually ended.

lottebeertje wrote:In some ways, I agree with you. Now that we understand most things . . .

Where in the world are you guys coming up with these assertions?

geo wrote:

Brotherska wrote:I believe that the scientific age is coming to an end. It appears that in some countries, it has actually ended.

lottebeertje wrote:In some ways, I agree with you. Now that we understand most things . . .

Where in the world are you guys coming up with these assertions?

Well, Geo:

Before the recent scientific age, opinions of truth were established on the authority of a political or religious leader. Anyone who dared question their opinions was severely persecuted. Within the last 200 years or so, persons were allowed to question some of these opinions of established truth without the threat of severe persecution.

The scientific approach can be applied to any discipline. Essentially, this approach specifies that evidence must be interpreted honestly. This means that:

• the interpretation must be supported by the evidence;
• the interpretation must not damage the integrity of the evidence;
• the assumptions used in interpreting the evidence must be verified; and
• all conflicting evidence must be resolved.

I believe that we are moving, and in many countries, we have moved back into the ‘politically correct’ age, where questioning of politically established ‘truth’ is not tolerated.

Regards.

The scientific method is so successful because it eliminates most of the human bias. Truths will not be cemented into politically correct ruts for this reason. There is of course an excessive amount of human involvement in the politics of the scientific community, but I wouldn't go so far as to say such politics will end scientific advancement altogether. That is nonsequitur and ignores the self-correcting aspect of science.

Interbane wrote:The scientific method is so successful because it eliminates most of the human bias. Truths will not be cemented into politically correct ruts for this reason. There is of course an excessive amount of human involvement in the politics of the scientific community, but I wouldn't go so far as to say such politics will end scientific advancement altogether. That is nonsequitur and ignores the self-correcting aspect of science.

Hi Interbane:

I do not believe that there is a “self correcting aspect of science”. Science is essentially an investigative approach which has been used for thousands of years. However, users of this method of investigation were normally persecuted by those who had an agenda, and did not want their opinions scrutinised.

Scientists generally have always had problems with those who had an agenda and who had the authority to enforce it. In the past, the persecutors were the political and religious rulers. Today, it includes the political, academic, and news media establishments.

Regards.

Ska: "Science is essentially an investigative approach which has been used for thousands of years."

There has been great refinement of the process due to the philosophy of science. Popper comes to mind. As long as independent verification and peer review is seen as a good practice, science will have the self correction aspect I mentioned.

For example, in the case of global warming, the book that we're currently discussing has a chapter devoted to it. Such critical analysis of the data is seen as good.

Ska: "Scientists generally have always had problems with those who had an agenda and who had the authority to enforce it."

I realize this, but I think you're taking this fact and extrapolating past a reasonable point. There will always be those with authority who have an opposing agenda, consider religion in the middle ages. To claim that these people will squash science is to ignore the track record.

I believe that we are moving, and in many countries, we have moved back into the ‘politically correct’ age, where questioning of politically established ‘truth’ is not tolerated.

Hmmm. I think that there has always been backlash to changes, no matter what they entail. Politics, power, and money unfortunately influence everything, including the scientific community. To say that we are moving backward is a very negative look at the world and I also think it is incorrect. While people who are afraid of changes are very vocal we have also progressed in many things. Medicine for example. We have easy cures and operations for diseases that used to be a death sentences.

I think about two recent cases of parents in America who did not take children to doctors based on religious beliefs. In both cases, one in Oregon, and one in Wisconsin, parents were held responsible for their children’s deaths. I wonder how much it benefits people in power to keep people afraid and ignorant of science or education in general. I think that when people are afraid they turn to trying to stay safe. I think that oftentimes that means turning to a rigid, black and white, good and evil, right and wrong view of the world. That does not mean that the world in general is like that, however. As humans, I think there will always be a give and take between those who want advancement and those who don’t. That may not be a bad thing. It is just something that is and always has been.