![]() There are infinite (not many, infinite) things of which we have not proof (scientific ones) in favor or against. "not to search for it while NOT having any material proof in favor or against it, is TO BELIEVE " <- Not necessarily. Yet muons reach the surface of the Earth every day to provide a scientific proof of it. I wouldn't say time dilation is a material phenomenom, and many people would find it more difficult to believe than any psychic phenomenom. It has not to be material it just has to be repeatable, provable by the scientific method. ![]() When some repeatable phenomenom which cannot be explained with present scientific theories is discovered, scientists from all over the world are quick in studying it. It's far more easier to study, say, telekinesis, than to achieve to cool helium below its liquefaction temperature in order to be able to study superfluyds. It's the abolition of dogmas what has kicked out, until now at least, the unproven (scientifically) psychic phenomena from science. ![]() Science doesn't reject what is not provable this way (rejecting it would be, in fact, dogma), it simply doesn't discuss it. The scientific method leaves no place for dogmas in the sciences: Every proposition (as "life was created by a supreme being" or "I can read your mind" or "water boils when applied heat at 100ยบ") must be provable whenever, wherever, and by whoever. If you don't follow it, you're not doing science, you're doing whatever you want to call it, but not science. I see the question more simply: science is the practice of the scientific method. I myself don't accept creationism as a science and had never before thougth of any linkage with spirits. The point is that the fact physical phenomena is so much easier to handle led science to develop materialistically, and now it would be fair to give the same right for the realm of spiritual (or psychic) phenomena to develop as science (with the same meaning of the word too). "Well, and what has paranormal stuff got to do with creationism?" <- Just trying to make the point of what originates the problem of the non acceptance of creationism as real science, or it would open political space here for the doctrine of spiritual creation of life be admited as scientific. Well, and what has paranormal stuff got to do with creationism? (As an aside, when I said "science is what it is" I was talking about the word "science", to argue that what creationists do cannot be called "science", just as I cannot be called "French", as French as I can feel myself: The word means what it means, not what I (or anybody) want it to mean) - Jorge 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Links between creationism and the paranormal Are scientists irrational in their bias against the nonphysical or is the burden of proof on creationists to produce evidence for nonphysical processes before scientists should have to be open to their possible role in scientific explanations? Further discussion (below, click "expand") continued with the idea that a "spiritual creation of life" is unfairly rejected as an hypothesis by scientists who exclude creationism from the domain of science. ![]() Earlier discussion at Science and belief introduced the idea that science has problems dealing with attempts to "explain" phenomena in terms of the nonphysical. 3 Does science arise from evidence or belief?.2 What are the practical applications of the nonphysical?.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |