"The Unexplainable...."

[rc_riddle]

Since Isaac Newton defined the laws of gravity and identified the laws of motion and, furthermore, awakened us to the mathematics of calculus, I have to believe that the 'unexplainable' cannot exist in the realms of science.
If science cannot explain something on this earth, then it does not exist.

[electile disfunction]

Hi rc_riddle,

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

Since Isaac Newton defined the laws of gravity and identified the laws of motion and, furthermore, awakened us to the mathematics of calculus, I have to believe that the 'unexplainable' cannot exist in the realms of science.

I understand the sentiment that you are expressing, but I believe your research (which is the basis of "science"), or at least your example, is unfortunately flawed. You see, Sir Isaac Newton was a young, brilliant, full-time alchemist who just happened to dabble in "the realms of science". He was an occultist--in fact he is considered the world's last great magician.

(Look him up in Wikipedia or search your local library and you will find that alchemy and Newton are never far apart.)

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

If science cannot explain something on this earth, then it does not exist.

Yes, we definitely agree here--because "science" is the application of observation to common sense. If you can't directly observe something you can not do anything scientific with it!

For example, "Creationism" and "Natural Selection" have nothing to do with each other as one is simple belief (not science) and the other is an explanation that describes observations and can predict future results (science). Trying to blend or "debate" the two side by side is absurd.

However, a person must be very careful to NEVER accidently mix belief and science and you are coming extremely close when using the phrase "unexplainable", above. Scientists have "explained" things for years and years and have been very wrong. Kangaroos can't exist, a self-propelled ship will never be able to carry enough fuel to cross the Atlantic Ocean, bees can't fly, caloric flows from hot bodies to cold bodies--all of these have been "explained" and "scientifically proven" and "believed" in the past but they were never observed or were not reproduceable! They failed that basic and necessary premiss of science.

One of the things about many of the experiences described in this thread is that they have never been scientifically tested--because scientific fundamentalists have "explained" that these are outside the realm of science--and therefore they have never been scientifically tested--because scient ... OOPS!!! Do you see now? Scientific fundamentalism is as insidious and destructive as religious fundamentalism--and they are both beliefs and not observable!

Look, I've studied science most of my life and I'm not going to stop now. So, on that basic premiss, I must continue to "scientifically" support anyone who has "observed" phenomenon even if that phenomenon has not been studied scientifically, and I can only emotionally support someone who believes or explains without replicatable observation.

e.d.

[rc_riddle]

[QUOTE=electile disfunction;1007761]Hi rc_riddle,



I understand the sentiment that you are expressing, but I believe your research (which is the basis of "science"), or at least your example, is unfortunately flawed. You see, Sir Isaac Newton was a young, brilliant, full-time alchemist who just happened to dabble in "the realms of science". He was an occultist--in fact he is considered the world's last great magician.

(Look him up in Wikipedia or search your local library and you will find that alchemy and Newton are never far apart.)



Newton's laws have all been proved and many times over. Wikipedia which you quote as source,probably cites Paul Daniels as the greatest Scientific brain ever!
As for creationism v science, this is an argument that has no intelligent basis in either camp. Modern creationists paint Darwin as an atheist when, in fact, he was a devoutly religious person who delayed the publication of 'The Origin Of The Species' as he wrestled with his consience.
The greatest connundrum in science has always been 'How to justify discovery with the message of the Lord.'

[electile disfunction]

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

Newton's laws have all been proved and many times over.

Of course! I never challenged Newton's scientific theories (heck, I'm studying calculus and Newtonian mechanics right now), I only challenged your implication that he was a scientist in the 20th or 21st century's use of the term. He wasn't.

(You might also recall that someone called Einstein showed that Newton's 'laws' were incomplete--and something as simple as the orbit of the planet Mercury bears this out. The reassessment of theories given further observation or data is another part of science.)

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

Wikipedia which you quote as source,

I never quoted anybody. I did suggest that you look at Wikipedia AND your local library for information about Newton. I also tried to prepare you for the surprise of alchemy that you will find.

If I wished to cite or quote something I would have cited Newton himself--all of his work, not just Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica which you seem to feel was his life's goal.

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

probably cites Paul Daniels as the greatest Scientific brain ever!

Who is this person? Should I care?

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

As for creationism v science, this is an argument that has no intelligent basis in either camp.

This is exactly what I said. Did you actually bother to read what I wrote?

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

The greatest connundrum in science has always been 'How to justify discovery with the message of the Lord.'

Um, now did you actually bother to read what you wrote? Above, just one sentence up from here?

Science--by definition--only deals the the observable and testable.

If a scientist has ideals or beliefs that conflict with his or her work then they must personally deal with that and not let it effect the science. These ideals and beliefs can include include but are not limited to ideas about science, religion, morals, ethics, and philosophy!

I have helped many people settle internal conflicts and they have gone on to be very good scientists while simultaneously remaining Christians, Buddists, physicians, counsellors, and even homemakers and parents!

You might recall that the philosopher David Hume (you WILL want to look him up!) remained a devout Christian through his life despite the philosophy he is known for. I think that if he can do it, so can anyone.

e.d.

[Jeff Vader]

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

If science cannot explain something on this earth, then it does not exist.

Hmm, can science explain conciousness - how it works, how it came to be, how it arose ?

If you can't explain me, does that mean I don't exist ?

[electile disfunction]

Originally Posted by Jeff Vader

Hmm, can science explain conciousness - how it works, how it came to be, how it arose ?

If you can't explain me, does that mean I don't exist ?

That's a great one, JV! We can even be conscious of consciousness!

For example, we can think about thinking about buying shoes. (I shop therefore I am? )

e.d.

[rc_riddle]

Originally Posted by Jeff Vader

Hmm, can science explain conciousness - how it works, how it came to be, how it arose ?

If you can't explain me, does that mean I don't exist ?

Jeeze I wish I'd kept my gob shut!
But, obviously, as a scientist, this is impossible.
To the guy who replied on 'Calculus' Congratulationns!!!
When Isaac Newton proposed the laws of calculus he had perfected mathematics as the onlyl'pure' science. If you can predict any position on a cuve , then you can describe anything in nature, a horse running, a stream flowing or grass growing.
Mathematics, thanks to calculus, can descrbe anything!!!

The other thing about Newton's Laws that we scientists take on board is that, after 400 years, they have never been disproved. We have sent space probes to the remotest parts of our solar system based on the knowledge he gave us.

And, finally. he didn't even assume the credit for his discoveries.
Read the edge of a pound coin which proclaims 'Standing on The Shoulders Of Giants.' A reference to Newton when he rose to address the Royal Society on his theories of Gravity with which he started with the proclamation, 'We have got towhere we are today, by standing on the shoulders of giants!'

[rc_riddle]

Sorry Jeff, jumped the gun a bit here with trumping your question with a science answer. Of course, science has no answer to concienceness, how could it have?
The human brain is the only natural organ with the facility to analyse itself.
There Ya' go, Jeff, Summore scientific bull ta getcha thinkin!!

regards
er

[Dumbassgo]

Originally Posted by rc_riddle

We have sent space probes to the remotest parts of our solar system based on the knowledge he gave us.

Nope, we required Einstein on top of Newton to do this. Newton's theories alone would have sent the probes off course.

Cheers,
Dumbassgo.

[chupachups]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100228...s-6323e80.html

this can easily be explained by...

http://www.xcomufo.com/gameinfo.html

"obviously the UK government has entered into a secret pact with the alien forces and withdrawn from xcom" hehehe