TED Conversations

Nicole Small

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should Science be Considered a Religion?

This "conversation" has been voluntarily removed from the site. I apologize for any inconveniences. Feel free to add more comments or continue existing conversations here.

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Nicole Small

    • 0
    Aug 26 2012: Here's the formula for that as I observe it:
    self-awareness to theology to philosophy to theory to hopefully fact. Self-awareness was realizing there's a ME AND there's a YOU, which led to theology- ME, YOU....and SOMETHING ELSE, PERHAPS? Then, there was philosophy, which posed the questions like "What if there is nothing else?" and "What if there isn't even a YOU and ME?" From the ideas suggested by theology and philosophy (combined,) we got theory which in essence is Science (the process of observing and testing theories,) to come to an ultimate answer. Science is the last step in achieving a unified goal-TRUTH.
    • thumb

      Julius Newman

      • 0
      Aug 26 2012: that MAY .. be the formula for something. but the problem is that there are so many definitions of the sciences and of studies of logic. :) don't you notice that we have a tendency to put everything into a "box"? one of the biggest setbacks in solving real world problems is defining the confounds of the system (what are its limits?). how can we measure this thing? the problem with how we do that is that compartmentalization leaves large spaces where we are not knowing what we don't know. knowledge, in specificity, is bound by the confines we place over the branch of reason. so how do we find out what it is that we don't know? perhaps we shouldn't try to bound the applicability of philosophy into branches because the fact seems to be that most of the instances of complexity we use logic to try to clarify exist in the form of disorganized complexity. i believe that the most relevant question on earth today is "what is the single template of functions that all complexity (organized and disorganized) is based on?" this would create an effective grouping of knowledge. truth, is the totality of the circumstances relevant to it. by answering this question we will have a template for answering (literally) any question. logic SHOULD NOT be grouped by how its applied or studied but by it's relevance. you can determine it's relevance by understanding how complexity evolves. That, is when an accurate label can be created for sciences. There should only be 1 method of thought (the overall method of complexity), and simply different degrees of relevance. (In my opinion)This the basis of the theory of everything as it >relates< to observable phenomena
      i don't mean to sound disrespectful i just feel that the evolution of scientific compartmentalization is irrelevant
      • thumb

        Nicole Small

        • 0
        Aug 28 2012: I actually had to rewrite what you wrote just so I could understand what you were saying. Here's what I translated this comment as:

        That may be the formula for something, but the problem is that there are so many definitions of science and logic. Don't you notice that we have a tendency to put everything into a "box?" One of the biggest setbacks in solving real world problems is defining the limits of the system. How can we measure it? Compartmentalization leaves large, undefined, unknown spaces. Knowledge is bound by the confines we place over reason. How do we discover what it is that we don't know? Perhaps we shouldn't try to bind philosophy into branches because in most instances we try to explain existence by seeing the order within the chaos. I believe the most relevent question to be, "What is the single template of functions that all of existence is based on?" This would create an effective grouping of knowledge. Truth is the sum of the circumstances relevent to it. By answering this question, we will have a template for answering all other questions. Logic should be grouped according to relevence; not by how it works. You can determine it's relevence by understanding how existence evolves; when a label can be given to science. There should be only one method of thought with different degrees of relevence. I believe this is the basis of the theory of everything as it relates to what we can observe. I don't mean to sound disrespectful. I just feel that the evolution of scientific compartmentalization is irrelevent.
        Based on what I gathered there, it sounds like you're throwing the hierarchy model out the window. Check out this link to wikipedia and scroll towards the bottom, where it says "Further Applications."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy
    • thumb

      Julius Newman

      • 0
      Aug 26 2012: Anyway, that's how i came to the conclusion that science should be distinct from religion: because they have different "denominators" so to speak. they cant effectively add-up. logic based religion may have helped mankind to "perform actions conducive to it's success", but over time we have over leveraged our society on a non-truth. so the truth society should be based on is, THE truth (any tangible, scalable, dynamic, testable, and applicable truth would work, it just has to be absolute). i just feel that the evolution of complexity is the most relevant i guess
      • thumb

        Nicole Small

        • 0
        Aug 27 2012: I know this is going to make me sound like a total jerk, but I have to note that you use too many unnecessarily large words. I am FULLY capable of understanding them, but when you use too many of them in one paragraph, the writing and hence, the thoughts you're trying to communicate are no as quickly comprehended. The fact that you do this instead of simplifying the statement you're trying make indicates to me that your language skills (being apparently high) need to be compartmentalized. That's the fundamental basis of scientific experimentation. In Theoretical Physics, certain symbols don't just represent a number; they represent the theory or fact that gave them that number. They represent this idea as a symbol. Theoretical physicists pretty much read formulas like a musician reads sheet music. They don't always need to know the math behind the symbol; just the theories and facts they represent. I'm sure most of them do understand the math, I'm just saying that it's possible to learn these things BECAUSE they're compartmentalized- like chapters in a book. Laws in government are compartmentalized, etc. Language works the same way. That's how we compute information; in a hierarchy of "code."
        • thumb

          Julius Newman

          • 0
          Aug 28 2012: bigger words are like glue, usually they are bigger because they were formed from several Latin words to define a concept. i use them when describing concepts in cases where the meaning of another word which would complete the sentence makes the statement less true. bigger words make it less daunting to explain concepts because the are inherently general in their meaning. they define a concept that can be analogous to many different things. sometimes the words don't yet exist or are difficult to find in a spelled out yet condensed explanation. in these cases, big words can be like glue, they represent several dozen possible contexts of the word. it allows the writer to be accurate, the reader will know to use the context of the word that carries-out the intended meaning of the explanation. there's nothing less credible than throwing a word in an explanation which clearly doesn't fit and may even contradict your point. bigger words can be more dynamic. "The fact that you do this instead of simplifying the statement you're trying make indicates to me that your language skills (being apparently high) need to be compartmentalized." i think this is a misguided statement. i guess that you meant "break down" but you used compartmentalized. i would argue that the problem with my language skills is that they ARE so compartmentalized. communication is a very dynamic learning pattern. you can compare oratory skills to computer programs, they each serve a purpose but in order for one computer to digest that information it has to be broken down into binary numbers, the "common denominator" of all computing. but whereas with numbers there are endless combinations that can be designed to mean a specific thing, the exact opposite is true of words. if you dont have that learning pattern for communication, you may be a user of words but you are not "coder", you use bigger or more basic chunks of language. your words are more compartmentalized(into concepts), as opposed to being free
        • thumb

          Obey No1kinobe 50+

          • 0
          Aug 28 2012: I know this is going to make me sound like a total jerk, but Julius's comments may be a little dense or terse, but there are not that many large or obscure words.

          What I find is sometimes people think and view the world so differently, or and/or communicate in such a different way to me that it is a challenge to read and understand.

          E.g. March Rose must have a completely different world view, wiring or communication style to me. The diversity of human thinking etc is astounding.

          Perhaps that is part of the value of TED discussions, not mixing with people who tend to be more similar in outlook, experience, world view and communication styles.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.