Posted on 07/16/2006 4:45:40 PM PDT by walford
BOOKMARKED........Thank you!!!!!!!!
Who has said they should be separate?
Sorry, but your attempt to kid your way around the thorny issues of epistomology has failed. One cannot talk meaningfully about "fact" without defining fact, and how one can distiguish fact from non-fact. Until one deals with the basic questions of Being and the nature of human knowledge, "science" is just another belief system.
What a lot of drivel!
Worthy of Madonna, or perhaps the Maharishi.
Outside the field of physics Einstein's opinions are about as worthwhile as those of my old aunt Hazel.
Don't forget he was a supporter of every loony left wing cause
and probably a communist sympathizer as well.
As for Dr. Bohm, he was a follower of the charlatan, Krishnamurthi.
As I have said on this forum before
you will learn more about Reality from your dreams
than by a lifetime studying quantum mechanics.
True, but lunatics are also thought to be lunatics, and they heavily outnumber the inspired. If someone has moonbat ideas it is generally safest to start from the viewpoint that they are probably truly a moonbat and then go from there.
To overcome prejudice the genuinely inspired man needs to bring evidence and secure reasoning to the table. If he does this it is surprising how fast science adopts new ideas even when they overturn cherished preconceptions (which is science's strength and its weakness). Religion is largely impervious to ideas that overturn cherished preconceptions (which is also religion's strength and its weakness).
Einstein's view of God is that He is some kind of cosmic auto-mechanic. Better than no God, I suppose, but not much.
In other words, science is everything that can be modeled and predicted by mathematics.
Mathematics breaks down at the singularities. The realm of mathematics is constantly expanding as we improve the models and eliminate the singularities.
Beyond the singularities - that's where religion, superstition and speculation take over.
BUMP
I would have to argue that the ground that devout men and women have gained in the understanding of the laws of nature, bringing incalculable benefits to mankind, basically renders this comment absurd. But, like all absurd comments, it enjoys a certain following.
Devout men and women have contributed to understanding of the laws of nature to the precise extent to which they left their Holy Works at the laboratory door. People who take their Holy Books in the laboratory with them only make progress understanding the world if the data happens to match the preconceptions they gained from their holy books. For example the Answers in Genesis Ministry requires that its "scientific" workers must sign up in advance to the idea that scientific observations can never contradict a literal reading of the Bible. To my mind you aren't doing science if you get your answers in advance from a Holy Book.
Your absurd canard does enjoy a certain following however, I agree.
Not all of us...
Creationists who are a) ignorant or b) grasping at straws.
If we should not give any weight to Einstein's opinions on epistemology, why should we give any weight to your opinions on Einstein?
You should not, any more than I give any weight to yours.
However, that does not deny me the right to have them.
Where Einstein made remarks about things other than physics we ought to examine his supporting arguments as closely as we would examine anyone elses. Since this is the internet no-one's credentials can be examined so everyone's argument is worth as much as they are prepared to back it up with facts, checkable references, and manifest knowledge of what they are talking about.
Ping to above.
Can one not learn from charlatans?
Krishnamurthi may be a fake, but Bohm is not.
Yes you are right
I know from personal experience
you can learn from a charlatan.
Bohm is authentic and well-meaning
but I do find him tedious and pedantic.
I agree with your sentiment, but the tradition also exists in Western (RCC) Christianity - and I wouldn't make the incarnation an exception.
To give you a more serious reply:
Since science has nothing to do with metaphysics
(words to that effect you have posted several times)
and since you cannot have epistomology
without a metaphysics
(at least as a subconscious substratum)
it logically follows
that a man's background in science
however eminent
does give weight to his thoughts on epistomology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.