What would the world look like if science had never developed?
One could assume we would still be wearing sack clothes and riding asses (so to speak) and chariots. No flight, no round earth, no solar system, no social or cultural science, no dentistry, no anthropology, no physics, just the same profound ignorance of the world.
Would the church have evolved in the same way it did? If not, in what ways might it be different?
A Christian world without science
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
Micatala,
I narrowed it down a bit more in a later post - perhaps I should simply place this into the OP:
Also, people "do science" all the time so what I am referring to is well organized, intentional science whereby dedicated scientists consciously use the scientific method as their working model.
Technology is very limited without science.
And then further:
Most all modern technology you take for granted on a daily basis has it roots in hard science. I am a product designer and engineer by trade & this evening I have been researching specialty fabric and engineered adhesives. Both products exist due to advanced polymer chemistry.
I also asked some follow up questions to encourage more specificity:
How would the church compare to what it is now?
Would people's relationship with God be any different? (I am especially interested in this question)
Would they see God any differently?
I narrowed it down a bit more in a later post - perhaps I should simply place this into the OP:
Also, people "do science" all the time so what I am referring to is well organized, intentional science whereby dedicated scientists consciously use the scientific method as their working model.
Technology is very limited without science.
And then further:
Most all modern technology you take for granted on a daily basis has it roots in hard science. I am a product designer and engineer by trade & this evening I have been researching specialty fabric and engineered adhesives. Both products exist due to advanced polymer chemistry.
I also asked some follow up questions to encourage more specificity:
How would the church compare to what it is now?
Would people's relationship with God be any different? (I am especially interested in this question)
Would they see God any differently?
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #33
I have this book here called “The Development of Logic” by W & M Kneale ,1962.
I have not read it in over 20 years but one thing that I found interesting was that logic began as geometry. It was just a flash back.
The early humans used flint. It was a technology, a science and even art.
They even used it in religious ritual so they claim.
It seems we like to know create and understand. Today we have formal categories for these types of things. Anything in out culture and experience can both impede progress, what ever we choose to mean by progress, and it can stimulate. Christianity is no different. It has a bad track record for advancing knowledge, including their own, but it has spurred some thought on the nature of reality. Everything can.
There seems to be a blending in practice with the relationship between science and technology yet we have formal distinctions. Today it is hard to separate science, technology and politics. Over 3000 years ago they built the pyramids.
They understood the progression of the stars over 6000 years ago. Much of what we are is due to these influences.
I think we are all scientists. Some are mad scientists of course.
But science is like a living organism much like language. It changes, is self-critical, full of doubts, and confident, ever testing and reorganizing. Unlike religious conviction it is subject to error and correction as well as proven wrong.
I have not read it in over 20 years but one thing that I found interesting was that logic began as geometry. It was just a flash back.
The early humans used flint. It was a technology, a science and even art.
They even used it in religious ritual so they claim.
It seems we like to know create and understand. Today we have formal categories for these types of things. Anything in out culture and experience can both impede progress, what ever we choose to mean by progress, and it can stimulate. Christianity is no different. It has a bad track record for advancing knowledge, including their own, but it has spurred some thought on the nature of reality. Everything can.
There seems to be a blending in practice with the relationship between science and technology yet we have formal distinctions. Today it is hard to separate science, technology and politics. Over 3000 years ago they built the pyramids.
They understood the progression of the stars over 6000 years ago. Much of what we are is due to these influences.
I think we are all scientists. Some are mad scientists of course.
But science is like a living organism much like language. It changes, is self-critical, full of doubts, and confident, ever testing and reorganizing. Unlike religious conviction it is subject to error and correction as well as proven wrong.
Post #34
Good post Cathar.
But their religious rituals did not produce the flint. The flint was really nifty and made big sparks so they incorporated it into religious ritual. I would also argue that they probably found flint by accidentally tripping on it and not through any rigorous methodology created or advanced by a religion.
Yes, we do. This is a very natural part of being human. Today, I had to take care of my son while I worked. It was quite difficult because he was constantly walking around the office pulling things off the desk and disassembling them. But what he was doing was not science, it was just following his natural curiosity.
I would argue that "thought on the nature of reality" is a natural thing for most anyone capable of thought. Religion aborts that curiosity in the womb by providing an explanation that is not open to challenge. In fact, this forum is a true oddity. Beyond the entertainment factor and brushing up on one's debating skills, I still can't figure out why any Christian would want to invite a bunch of atheists into their virtual living room for a daily spanking!
Modern technology is absolutely dependent upon modern science. Because we are surrounded by it we take it all for granted. But, nearly everything in the room around you is a product of the blending of science and technology.
Aha Cathar, now here is something interesting! Could it be that the course of technology would have been driven by the needs of the church and it's leaders? Perhaps a quest for more and more outrageous forms of glorification of God and themselves? The pyramids were certainly a result of this.
No, we all may "do science" to some degree, but we are not all scientists. My Grandfather was a world-renowned scientist who spent his career working for Merck developing anti-inflamatories. On the other hand, George Bush is not a scientist. In fact, one might argue (on another thread) that he is utterly devoid of curiosity and incapable of scientific thought.
If we are all scientists as you assert, then I fear there are one hell of a lot of mad scientists around me!
This basic difference is why science and religion have never been very friendly.
The early humans used flint. It was a technology, a science and even art.
They even used it in religious ritual so they claim.
But their religious rituals did not produce the flint. The flint was really nifty and made big sparks so they incorporated it into religious ritual. I would also argue that they probably found flint by accidentally tripping on it and not through any rigorous methodology created or advanced by a religion.
It seems we like to know create and understand.
Yes, we do. This is a very natural part of being human. Today, I had to take care of my son while I worked. It was quite difficult because he was constantly walking around the office pulling things off the desk and disassembling them. But what he was doing was not science, it was just following his natural curiosity.
It has a bad track record for advancing knowledge, including their own, but it has spurred some thought on the nature of reality. Everything can.
I would argue that "thought on the nature of reality" is a natural thing for most anyone capable of thought. Religion aborts that curiosity in the womb by providing an explanation that is not open to challenge. In fact, this forum is a true oddity. Beyond the entertainment factor and brushing up on one's debating skills, I still can't figure out why any Christian would want to invite a bunch of atheists into their virtual living room for a daily spanking!
There seems to be a blending in practice with the relationship between science and technology yet we have formal distinctions. Today it is hard to separate science, technology and politics.
Modern technology is absolutely dependent upon modern science. Because we are surrounded by it we take it all for granted. But, nearly everything in the room around you is a product of the blending of science and technology.
Over 3000 years ago they built the pyramids.
They understood the progression of the stars over 6000 years ago. Much of what we are is due to these influences.
Aha Cathar, now here is something interesting! Could it be that the course of technology would have been driven by the needs of the church and it's leaders? Perhaps a quest for more and more outrageous forms of glorification of God and themselves? The pyramids were certainly a result of this.
I think we are all scientists.
No, we all may "do science" to some degree, but we are not all scientists. My Grandfather was a world-renowned scientist who spent his career working for Merck developing anti-inflamatories. On the other hand, George Bush is not a scientist. In fact, one might argue (on another thread) that he is utterly devoid of curiosity and incapable of scientific thought.
Some are mad scientists of course.
If we are all scientists as you assert, then I fear there are one hell of a lot of mad scientists around me!
Unlike religious conviction it is subject to error and correction as well as proven wrong.
This basic difference is why science and religion have never been very friendly.
Last edited by Cmass on Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #35
I think you are right and I was starching the meaning of scientist and Doing science would be closer to my meaning it too is a poor choice.
Maybe empiricists would have been better choice but I am hesitant.
We are experimenters that remember and pass on knowledge.
With large complex groups of people it become more organized.
Religion is like a math teacher passing on the secrets of mathematics to just one student.
Religion is like a math teacher passing on the secrets of mathematics to just one student.
I go to thinking about that and decided to push it a little further.
It would be more like a math teacher with 30 students and all but one student flunks.
But we don’t know if he has learned mathematics because his teacher refuses to let any one be tested.
Maybe empiricists would have been better choice but I am hesitant.
We are experimenters that remember and pass on knowledge.
With large complex groups of people it become more organized.
Religion is like a math teacher passing on the secrets of mathematics to just one student.
Religion is like a math teacher passing on the secrets of mathematics to just one student.
I go to thinking about that and decided to push it a little further.
It would be more like a math teacher with 30 students and all but one student flunks.
But we don’t know if he has learned mathematics because his teacher refuses to let any one be tested.
Post #36
Sure, but there is still a good reason to say that "we are all scientists". The reason being that some people take things to the other extreme and feel that there is no such thing as valid science. Yet these same people are employing the scientific method nearly every waking moment. Just picking things up and balancing them so they don't spill or fall is something that requires a valid scientific approach.Cmass wrote:Cathar1950 wrote:
I think we are all scientists.
No, we all may "do science" to some degree, but we are not all scientists. My Grandfather was a world-renowned scientist who spent his career working for Merck developing anti-inflamatories. On the other hand, George Bush is not a scientist. In fact, one might argue (on another thread) that he is utterly devoid of curiosity and incapable of scientific thought.
Post #37
OKYet these same people are employing the scientific method nearly every waking moment
No, it does not. It only requires clever coordination.Just picking things up and balancing them so they don't spill or fall is something that requires a valid scientific approach.
Post #38
And what is the process that informs that coordination? Even once you're used to an action and consign it to your Cerebellum (the part of the brain that performs those actions we can do without "thinking" about them) you have to take an occasional glance at an angle or relative mass to make a conscious assessment. This is where a valid scientific approach is required. Being unscientific can lead to excessive dry-cleaning bills.Cmass wrote:No, it does not. It only requires clever coordination.QED wrote:Just picking things up and balancing them so they don't spill or fall is something that requires a valid scientific approach.
-
Noachian
- Student
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:36 pm
- Location: Some what United Kingdom of Once Great Britain
Post #39
Thankyou very much Cmass, and alow me to refraise my quote about philosiphy "philosiphy is a primitive form of science" in many ways philosiphy is completely different to science speaking technology wise and in sense of experaments, but i you really think about it philosiphy is a system attempting to search and discover new things about the universe and nature, and science attempts many of the same things, alouth science tends not to search for the meaning of life as philosiphy, it does study the working active universe so in result philosiphy can be interpreted as a primitve version or a deeper insight of science.
Post #40
Science, as we know it today, rests upon several basic rules. The order in which I list them below does not imply any particular order in which they must occur.
The difference between "science" and "just doing stuff" is often at the level of formally following the set of rules listed above, as opposed to just doing the things on the list. If you turn on a lamp and the light doesn't go on, you very quickly scoot through the list. You consider alternatives--the bulb is burned out, or the cord is unplugged. You make sure those alternatives make sense based on other things you know (they do; but other alternatives wouldn't, such as gremlins having taken up residence inside the bulb, and hung their laundry on the filament). You make observations to test these alternatives, perhaps without additional instrumentation (look at the cord and the wall socket), or with additional instrumentation and manipulation (put the bulb into a different lamp). You do some tests (plug the cord back into the wall) and distinguish among your alternative explanations.
Is this problem-solving? Yes. Is it "science"? Not formally, but it follows scientific thinking. Do we keep track of our experimentation in our Lab Notebook? No. We do this kind of thinking innately.
Young kids may not have enough practice to follow the whole routine. But then, they haven't that many observations yet, and perhaps are fixated on step 1. Perhaps they follow The Scientific Method as used in Molecular Biology: "how does this work? Let's do something and see what happens." They wouldn't have any good reason to follow The Scientific Method as it is presented in textbooks, and used almost exclusively by Ecologists (and related flavors of field biologists): "I think this works like this, so I'll write a formal Hypothesis, and then determine what predictions that hypothesis makes, and then see whether those predictions are met, to see whether my thinking is on the right track or not." Either way, you can watch kids explore new things, and see the beginnings of innate scientific thinking / problem-solving. The sad thing is that we tend to beat it out of people in school.
- observe something--with or without fancy instrumentation
- think about what the heck might account for that observation; how'd it happen?
- evaluate whether your explanation makes sense in the light of other things that are known
- develop alternate explanations; different ways it could have happened
- think about ways you might distinguish among the alternative explanations; perhaps this is better phrased as: evaluate new questions that are raised by your suite of explanations, and think of ways to address those questions
- seek additional observations that you have identified as being helpful in addressing your questions and distinguishing among alternative explanations--with or without fancy instruments, with or without manipulating variables yourself
- This puts you back at the top of the list, in an ever-expanding game of interpreting observations and trying to make sense of them.
The difference between "science" and "just doing stuff" is often at the level of formally following the set of rules listed above, as opposed to just doing the things on the list. If you turn on a lamp and the light doesn't go on, you very quickly scoot through the list. You consider alternatives--the bulb is burned out, or the cord is unplugged. You make sure those alternatives make sense based on other things you know (they do; but other alternatives wouldn't, such as gremlins having taken up residence inside the bulb, and hung their laundry on the filament). You make observations to test these alternatives, perhaps without additional instrumentation (look at the cord and the wall socket), or with additional instrumentation and manipulation (put the bulb into a different lamp). You do some tests (plug the cord back into the wall) and distinguish among your alternative explanations.
Is this problem-solving? Yes. Is it "science"? Not formally, but it follows scientific thinking. Do we keep track of our experimentation in our Lab Notebook? No. We do this kind of thinking innately.
Young kids may not have enough practice to follow the whole routine. But then, they haven't that many observations yet, and perhaps are fixated on step 1. Perhaps they follow The Scientific Method as used in Molecular Biology: "how does this work? Let's do something and see what happens." They wouldn't have any good reason to follow The Scientific Method as it is presented in textbooks, and used almost exclusively by Ecologists (and related flavors of field biologists): "I think this works like this, so I'll write a formal Hypothesis, and then determine what predictions that hypothesis makes, and then see whether those predictions are met, to see whether my thinking is on the right track or not." Either way, you can watch kids explore new things, and see the beginnings of innate scientific thinking / problem-solving. The sad thing is that we tend to beat it out of people in school.
Panza llena, corazon contento
