Breakthrough in Alzheimer's

[Pliny]

I don't think it was faith that got people to do that. More likely determination, and how is it despite science? Lots of peer-reviewed article saying it couldn't be done.

That was the scientific consensus at the time.

There had to exist the idea it could be done. Determination was indeed necessary but the idea had to exist and a "belief" or faith in the accomplishment had to exist a priori.

No I really don't have any.

I suppose you have faith in that conclusion.

Every night. Seriously though what has more power than science? It's science that feeds the people of earth, it was science that created the first nuke. In terms of accomplishments science beats everything.

It's contributions cannot be denied but why would humans wish to create a nuclear bomb? Some kind of experiment? Nuclear physics could produce more peaceful uses for nuclear energy. I guess it is politicians that have more power than science. Science left to itself would probably never have produced such a destructive force as a nuclear bomb but would have probably understood it without the experimentation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Pliny

[Remiel]

Science left to itself would probably never have produced such a destructive force as a nuclear bomb but would have probably understood it without the experimentation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no such thing as " science left to itself " . There is not even such a thing as " scientists left to themselves " . A scientist is never just a scientist. They are a person, with a full range of purposes and interests and agendas, just like everyone else.

[Pliny]

There is no such thing as " science left to itself " . There is not even such a thing as " scientists left to themselves " . A scientist is never just a scientist. They are a person, with a full range of purposes and interests and agendas, just like everyone else.

Yes, I agree. The human aspect must be recognized. It is a fly in the ointment when the objectives of that application of science remain unknown or purposely ignored.

[Yesterday]

Yes, I agree. The human aspect must be recognized. It is a fly in the ointment when the objectives of that application of science remain unknown or purposely ignored.

Yes, science without political interest IMO would be rather benign compared to its current destructive directed directions.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I do not think that that is precisely correct. Science cares about what works. Philosophy cares about what is true.

Well yes I suppose, though they generally amount to the same thing.

That was the scientific consensus at the time.

There had to exist the idea it could be done. Determination was indeed necessary but the idea had to exist and a "belief" or faith in the accomplishment had to exist a priori.

Source?

I suppose you have faith in that conclusion.

Nope.

It's contributions cannot be denied but why would humans wish to create a nuclear bomb? Some kind of experiment? Nuclear physics could produce more peaceful uses for nuclear energy. I guess it is politicians that have more power than science. Science left to itself would probably never have produced such a destructive force as a nuclear bomb but would have probably understood it without the experimentation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Without military intervention I doubt the bomb would have been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but I am sure a lot of test nukes would still have been dropped. Those bombs taught us a lot about how nuclear fission works and lead to fission reactors. Science is inherently neutral, pretty much everything it creates is multi-purpose so it's the people who use it to pick the purpose they are going to use it for. The nuke example is a great one because it comes from the simplest of equations E=MC2. That where the ability to make nuclear bombs and reactors come from. It up to the people to decide which one to make.

[Pliny]

Well yes I suppose, though they generally amount to the same thing.

In the end essentially, but science when tainted with human purpose and emotion will reject truth.

Source?

Four minute mile

. For many years, scientists and athletes[1] thought that it was impossible to run a four-minute mile.

That was the consensus at the time. You canresearch it further if you like but of courseit is a negative so it doesn't have double blind peer reviewed studies.

If you care to research it further you can but science basically limited man and his faith he could break the four minute mile barrier.

Nope.

Sounds like "faith" is a phobia of yours.

Without military intervention I doubt the bomb would have been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but I am sure a lot of test nukes would still have been dropped. Those bombs taught us a lot about how nuclear fission works and lead to fission reactors. Science is inherently neutral, pretty much everything it creates is multi-purpose so it's the people who use it to pick the purpose they are going to use it for. The nuke example is a great one because it comes from the simplest of equations E=MC2. That where the ability to make nuclear bombs and reactors come from. It up to the people to decide which one to make.

Science should be inherently neutral. It is not and you are an excellent example of why it isn't.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Four minute mile

The wiki source isn't credible, bring me something from a Kinesiologist or medical doctor. The guy who wrote the article claims scientist and athletesSounds like "faith" is a phobia of yours.

Science should be inherently neutral. It is not and you are an excellent example of why it isn't. thought it was impossible but doesn't back it up.

If you care to research it further you can but science basically limited man and his faith he could break the four minute mile barrier.

Science does set barriers, like man can't naturally run more than a certain speed. All the faith in the world won't change that, science might though.

Sounds like "faith" is a phobia of yours.

Your really able to read a lot into one word.

Science should be inherently neutral. It is not and you are an excellent example of why it isn't.

Science is inherently neutral. You just don't understand science so you don't realize that.

[Pliny]

The wiki source isn't credible, bring me something from a Kinesiologist or medical doctor. The guy who wrote the article claims scientist and athletes.

As it is with skeptics, no source is credible since absolutes are not attainable. All sources can thus be discredited. What a safe point to argue from for your opinion. You just have to find a source that agrees with you and defend that. You can always discredit his critics since truth cannot be known and in the end if the source is proven wrong it no skin off your knees - truth is not attainable.

I really have to laugh at the infallibility of your position. Where have I seen such infallibility before......hmmm.....I think it was at Catholic residential schools?

The Wikisource may not be credible to you but the statement is there and is not a scientific finding that requires scientific refutation. It is an opinion and can only be an opinion because it is a negative and very safe for you in hindsight to assume the view that the opinion was wrong. What scientists believed it to be impossible to run the four minute mile? It had never been done so I imagine it was the opinion of most scientists at the time, having some ability to reason, that they probably thought it wasn't possible.

That doesn't mean that someone could not have enough faith in himself and determination to hold a contrary opinion and prove the critics wrong.

You need to add some reason to your choice of peer reviewed literature.

Science should be inherently neutral. It is not and you are an excellent example of why it isn't.

I'm glad you agree and see the point that although it should be inherently neutral as long as humans are involved it can't be. You are an example of why science could be used to lead us over a cliff.

Science does set barriers, like man can't naturally run more than a certain speed. All the faith in the world won't change that, science might though.

Only faith that science or any field might possibly be able to produce what we dream, will determine that.

Your really able to read a lot into one word.

Sounds like "faith" is a phobia of yours.

Seems that way. Don't ever admit any to your friends.

Science is inherently neutral.

I indeed am an example of why it is not inherently neutral - I admit to my humanity.

You just don't understand science so you don't realize that.

Your opinion? Or is there a peer reviewed citation?

Edited August 16, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

Honestly, a statement like a "man can't run a mile in under 4 minutes" isn't even science, or close to it. There are a lot of fields that try to cloak themselves in the veneer of science, such as many aspects of social science, but are very far from what science really is. Anyway, records of this type are constantly coming down.

The only really absolute "speed limit" that comes from science, is the speed of light. I can confidently say that a man cannot naturally run a mile in under 0.0000053 seconds. No amount of athletic faith and willpower will change that.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

Honestly, a statement like a "man can't run a mile in under 4 minutes" isn't even science, or close to it.

Exactly. Everything isn't about science. But True matey here needs a scientific study for every opinion expressed. He is a skeptic and not a scientist. He likes to use science to debunk dissenting opinion.

He's got the process down from the skeptic's handbook and thinks it's pretty funny to go around debunking all manner of opinion, idea, or theory as though someone were presenting the final word on a subject.

This is entirely a misuse of science and kills ideas, concepts, dreams, objectives, hypotheses, postulates, and such from which spring the creation of the future. Science has descended into being just a means of discovery and not a means of realizing dreams. Dreams and ideas are the target of skeptics, and science in their view must be the tool that kills them.

There are a lot of fields that try to cloak themselves in the veneer of science, such as many aspects of social science, but are very far from what science really is.

I entirely agree, how long will science tolerate it's name being tarnished by such who will ride their coat tails.

Anyway, records of this type are constantly coming down.

Thanks to the "ideas" that they can come down.

The only really absolute "speed limit" that comes from science, is the speed of light. I can confidently say that a man cannot naturally run a mile in under 0.0000053 seconds. No amount of athletic faith and willpower will change that.

Not even with a favouring wind? Actually, at that speed, "running" would be a thing of the past.

What the future holds is in what we can dream not in what we can determine to be impossible.