Science Isn't Everything

"In science, nothing is ever 100% proven." ~Michio Kaku, physicist

I put a lot of faith in science. I know that it can give us answers to certain things and it can help us to accomplish things that would be impossible without it. It has helped the human race come very far (and well has turned us into monsters in many cases as well).

I also recognize, however, that science is not everything. There is so much in the universe that we do not yet understand and probably never will. Just because science can not prove it's existence right now, or explain how it works right now, does not make it any less real.

Scientific facts are not meant to be a be all and end all explanation. It's what we know right now, and what we know right now can change tomorrow. So when someone says "I will only believe something if it can be proven as fact" to me that is no different than someone having blind faith.

Nothing is constant, facts and beliefs can change, so as far as I'm concerned to hold to these as absolutes is foolish and in some cases even dangerous.

So I will have faith in science when it is appropriate that I do so, but science will never replace my instincts and personal experiences in defining my reality.

I can believe in the Force because I feel it and I experience it in my own way. I don't need science to prove to me that it exists.

I believe in my abilities (healing and otherwise) because I have seen them work. I don't need science to prove to me that it works.

I trust my instincts because they have never lied to me. Science has never been as reliable as my instincts have been.

However, I do enjoy hearing theories about how the existence of the Force might be proven through Science. Do I need the theory to come through what some people term as "reliable" scientific sources? No... I just like hearing about the theories. I like considering the possibilities.

If that makes me stupid or naive in the minds of those obsessed with the concept that science is everything, well then that's their problem and not mine. If people want to limit their imaginations, then that's their problem and not mine.

I happen to believe that all things are possible until it's proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it's not possible.

I enjoyed The Field because to me it represented one possibility. It made me think about other possibilities, and about things I had not considered before.

What is so bad about that?

I can believe in the Force because I feel it and I experience it in my own way. I don't need science to prove to me that it exists.

Interestingly enough, and Ironic coming from a Darkie perhaps, but its not all about you, you, you.

The difference within science, is while application may be specialized and to some minimalized, though I like to use the term focused, it is repeatable and can be applied, or felt beyond you own little bubble.

Which is important given how you are using a machine that allows you to communicate to people all over the world and have access to the whole of its current knowledge. Because of scientific method and principles.

Nothing is constant, facts and beliefs can change, so as far as I'm concerned to hold to these as absolutes is foolish and in some cases even dangerous.

Nobody is holding to them. They are holding to the scientific method, which allows for change, IF PROVEN. Proven mind you repeatably, and not just to one persons personal experience or feeling.Which is a big difference when your only trying to justify it to yourself and hold onto what you believe.

Which is more absolute?

So when someone says "I will only believe something if it can be proven as fact" to me that is no different than someone having blind faith.

Er...no, sorry, thats actually the opposite of blind faith.

Its in fact asking for proof, verifiable proof.

Which yes, is fairly safe to believe, however most scientists are willing to change, IF, again, you can prove it.

Faith is saying " I know it because I feel it, even if you cant so I believe it."

Which is what you are saying.

I can believe in the Force because I feel it and I experience it in my own way. I don't need science to prove to me that it exists.

I believe in my abilities (healing and otherwise) because I have seen them work. I don't need science to prove to me that it works.

Again, its not all about you. What if, by looking for proof, repeatable results with more than just you, with such abilities(healing being a great one) there is a benefit to many.

I happen to believe that all things are possible until it's proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it's not possible.

Thats working in negatives, and gets you nowhere.

I believe anything is possible, and would like to see it proven possible. Proven outside ones own (possible) delusions.

Lol, but its ironic that you want proof of it not being possible too.

I enjoyed The Field because to me it represented one possibility. It made me think about other possibilities, and about things I had not considered before.

What is so bad about that?

Nothing at all. However whats wrong with pointing out the glaring flaws, and inaccuracies as well?

Should that be ignored? Also, given the actual knowledge, the current proof, that should effect what possibilities you thought were there. Of course, you want proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, and yet, I see little evidence that you would believe even that.

I am willing to believe the evidence, until something compelling(other proof or evidence) proves otherwise.

However I am not willing to hold onto something in light of compelling evidence to continue my current worldview with a white knuckled grip.

it's true science isn't everything

a study of what comes and goes, morphs, changes and rearranges

like every thing and any thing, there is value and purpose based on the intention given

always. . . that which is temporal, seen by physical eyes or quanitifiable/identifiable is not everything

Science aims to understand and make sense of everything, and I believe that aim is admirable. It's given us a huge amount, from fire to the wheel, medicine, exploration, even our lovely Temple. Science is brilliant.

I think it's the belief that science already can explain everything, or the unwavering belief it ever will, which are more problematic. I don't think humans can or will ever have the capacity to understand absolutely everything. Maybe whatever comes next can... or the thing after that, etc etc.

Humans are tiny, isolated, short-lived. Our understanding is and always will be incomplete. I'd rather we push forward a little with each generation, whilst still accepting the tremendous importance and validity of the myths and beliefs which got us this far.

This never-ending argument has always struck me as such an "apples vs. oranges" kind of thing.

Science is wonderful, in that it has a high standard of proof in revealing information about the world around us. However, the results are usually just a set of data, one that must be interpreted and qualified to be fully understood for what it is. Any good scientist will give their results with a percentage of how sure they are about their interpretation. And, as technology improves, and understanding increases within a field, we become more confident about how things really are, even if it is totally different from what we used to believe.

Religion/philosophy is simply a way of thinking that give one a path on how they should live their lives and treat people. It is highly subjective, and there is no one answer to anything, although there are over-arching themes that certainly pervade almost all faiths to some degree.

Science's strength is it's solid foundation in proof, but people are flawed and sometimes the information is either obtained incorrectly, or misinterpreted. There are also some things that simply cannot be proven with our current understanding and technology.

Religion's strength is the capacity for its practitioners to keep an open mind and have the freedom listen to their intuition. However, sometimes these practitioners are slow to change when their traditions and beliefs are challenged by scientific evidence.

To my mind, science needs a bit more openness to accept the possibilities that seem to be outside what is (so far) scientifically possible, and religion needs more willingness to adapt to our ever-changing understanding of the cosmos provided by the scientific method.

Can't we all just get along?

I'd like to remind everyone that there is science (the method of reasoning that lets us understand the world) and "Science" (which I have capitalized for the same reasons Roman Catholics capitalize that second word). The latter is the data from the former, but interpreted by men. Men who are fallible and (more often than not) biased, funded by corporations and universities that are also both. Science tells us lots, but sometimes it's a misinterpretation of science. And, so long as we rely on Science as the go-between that bridges the gap between science and the common pleb, we'll be dependent on the interpretations of limited minds (for the human mind is limited), and therefore, we'll never be able to understand absolutely everything about absolutely everything. And even if we did, what a boring place the world would be!

Besides, science and religion can peaceably coexist, if you understand the purpose and limits of each. What was it Einstein said?

Oh, yeah! I remember now:

Albert Einstein wrote: ...science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

...a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being...Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation...In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...

I feel that science is extremely important on many levels to understanding the world around us, no less for Jedi than for anybody else. I just feel its important to understand that science only studies one part of a whole concerning reality. Many who rely on science more than anything else, are apt to see reality as including only the tangible and nothing else beyond it, and therefore, it is all in the grasp of science to figure it all out. When we talk about the Force and whether we can study it through science, what exactly are we seeing the Force as being? Is the Force just some "thing" that resides in the world, that is "holding things together after the fact that everything exists by some other means", or are we seeing the Force as synonymous with the Tao - something that precludes all acts of tangible existing at all, and therefore outside of the grasp of measurement, division, and dissection? For me, personally, it is very much the latter. To others here, its likely the former. I think maybe this is where the difference in view concerning the potentials of science lies between different members here. Remember, to rely on science, also requires certain personal beliefs and faiths based on the scientific method and assumptions about what exists and what does not.

In my view, the Force is something that not only includes the tangible, but infinitely more. Science itself has communicated that in the wider, objective reality, there are many more dimensions beyond just the three we live and operate in, and that the science we work with, at least at this time, will not be able to function beyond these three dimensions because of the fact that we do not have the human capacity to comprehend any of the further. Within this fact, we can use science to observe a small aspect of something like the force (a certain behavior that results from it), but it is more like observing a single hair on an animal's fur coat, and not being able to see the entire animal. Does that make it not worth studying the hair? No, its most definitely worth it. It gives us clues as to what the hair is growing from, what its a part of, and that helps us understand an immense deal about what we can comprehend, but not to be able to see the whole animal, since, in this metaphor, the whole animal resides in a plane of existence far beyond our capability to reach as the beings we are. I think, even if this changes, it may take an insurmountable amount of time (centuries), for us to evolve not just technologically, but more importantly biologically, and metaphysically, to simply have a grown range of perception. Even then, there may never even be a "final destination" that shows us an actual whole, since such an idea, does not infer boundaries, or ends of any kind. If one is found, then that assumes a space, and therefore, yet another frontier beyond it, each time, without end.

Why are we comparing a Hammer to a Paintbrush?