What is the Force

Arisaig wrote: Ah yes... the educational process. Where they teach you what is, because those whom they've never met have 'proven' these things to be fact. Beyond that, a system that's fatally flawed because the teachers are undervalued and under great deals of personal stress, too tied up in personal problems to properly be able to teach.

Im not sure what the point of this rant it but it’s completely irrelevant to the argument.

Arisaig wrote: Until one goes and discovers it for oneself to be fact, it is taken in faith. Well placed faith, I'll grant that, but faith nonetheless.

No it’s not. It’s taken on convincing argument supported by facts. Faith has no component in facts, therefore science is not taken on faith.

Arisaig wrote: Even then, things we're not taught have to be taken in faith in order to look for them. Louis Pasteur theorised about molecular beings that caused illness, and through that, discovered a way to combat it through vaccines. He also theorised about what we now know as Biogenesis (Like produces like, and life produces life), as before, people believed in Spontaneous Generation, where things like, say, flies were born of rotting meat, rather than eggs left on said rotten meat.

Notice the key word there. They believed that. It ended up being wrong, but for ages, they believed this falsehood because of their ignorance. Why? Because that is what they were taught, and that is what they went onto observe.

Yes, spontaneous generation and the 4 humors were products of faith. People observed the facts that rotting meat gets maggots and people get sick for no apparent reason. They took a leap of faith and guessed at a cause in order to make themselves feel better. This is the same way people arrive at the belief in a God.

However others like Pasteur observed those same facts and did not make that leap of faith. Instead he decided to look for actual evidence for the phenomenon and investigated without the bias of faith to produce proof that the earlier speculations were wrong. No faith involved, no preconceived notions. He allowed the evidence, not faith, to lead him to reliable truth. When he told others of this he was able to show them his evidence and those other wild theories went by the wayside. Faith was replaced with reasonable and rational theories based in fact and reproducible evidence and allowed the progress of medical technology. Something that belief through faith is incapable of doing.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote: Ah yes... the educational process. Where they teach you what is, because those whom they've never met have 'proven' these things to be fact. Beyond that, a system that's fatally flawed because the teachers are undervalued and under great deals of personal stress, too tied up in personal problems to properly be able to teach.

Im not sure what the point of this rant it but it’s completely irrelevant to the argument.

Arisaig wrote: Until one goes and discovers it for oneself to be fact, it is taken in faith. Well placed faith, I'll grant that, but faith nonetheless.

No it’s not. It’s taken on convincing argument supported by facts. Faith has no component in facts, therefore science is not taken on faith.

Arisaig wrote: Even then, things we're not taught have to be taken in faith in order to look for them. Louis Pasteur theorised about molecular beings that caused illness, and through that, discovered a way to combat it through vaccines. He also theorised about what we now know as Biogenesis (Like produces like, and life produces life), as before, people believed in Spontaneous Generation, where things like, say, flies were born of rotting meat, rather than eggs left on said rotten meat.

Notice the key word there. They believed that. It ended up being wrong, but for ages, they believed this falsehood because of their ignorance. Why? Because that is what they were taught, and that is what they went onto observe.

Yes, spontaneous generation and the 4 humors were products of faith. People observed the facts that rotting meat gets maggots and people get sick for no apparent reason. They took a leap of faith and guessed at a cause in order to make themselves feel better. This is the same way people arrive at the belief in a God.

However others like Pasteur observed those same facts and did not make that leap of faith. Instead he decided to look for actual evidence for the phenomenon and investigated without the bias of faith to produce proof that the earlier speculations were wrong. No faith involved, no preconceived notions. He allowed the evidence, not faith, to lead him to reliable truth. When he told others of this he was able to show them his evidence and those other wild theories went by the wayside. Faith was replaced with reasonable and rational theories based in fact and reproducible evidence and allowed the progress of medical technology. Something that belief through faith is incapable of doing.

So do you think there’s only one type of science ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: So do you think there’s only one type of science ?

Im not sure what you mean? Are you talking about scientific disciplines? Technically speaking "science" is not a thing, it is a method applied to many disciplines.

So, can faith can be one of those ? Those disciplines ?
It progressed a lot of science in the past ...

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: So, can faith can be one of those ? Those disciplines ?
It progressed a lot of science in the past ...

No, faith is not a discipline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_disciplines

How has faith progressed science?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: So, can faith can be one of those ? Those disciplines ?
It progressed a lot of science in the past ...

No, faith is not a discipline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_disciplines

How has faith progressed science?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/122263-faith-vs-science

Great moment to thread out!

Some people say faith and science have their place. It’s ok if you don’t think so or agree -

Feel free to join in and discuss ! See ya there

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Yes, spontaneous generation and the 4 humors were products of faith. People observed the facts that rotting meat gets maggots and people get sick for no apparent reason. They took a leap of faith and guessed at a cause in order to make themselves feel better. This is the same way people arrive at the belief in a God.

However others like Pasteur observed those same facts and did not make that leap of faith. Instead he decided to look for actual evidence for the phenomenon and investigated without the bias of faith to produce proof that the earlier speculations were wrong. No faith involved, no preconceived notions. He allowed the evidence, not faith, to lead him to reliable truth. When he told others of this he was able to show them his evidence and those other wild theories went by the wayside. Faith was replaced with reasonable and rational theories based in fact and reproducible evidence and allowed the progress of medical technology. Something that belief through faith is incapable of doing.

Uh, no. Aristotle compiled the theory of spontaneous generation based on the scientific evidence he had available at the time. It was questioned by a number of people over the years as better observational equipment and experimental data became available. Aristotle's biology texts are dated, but they show both scientific observations and scientific method as we know currently understand them. Any time you've seen a picture in a biology book that shows a bunch of embryos from a variety of critters that all look remarkably alike, that's Aristotle's influence, still.

The fact that he was wrong in the long run doesn't make this a matter of faith. It makes his observational methods flawed. This is not really shocking for a bloke writing in the 4th century BCE. It's probably more shocking that he got anything right.

Everyone between Aristotle and Pasteur who took it on faith because Aristotle said so, yeah, you're right about them. Aristotle saying so does not make a thing true (for which we should probably all be grateful).

But: I personally would have no reason to question Aristotle. His explanation is perfectly sufficient for my actual life. Which is to say: Don't want flies? Clear out any rotting organic material from your house. If spontaneous generation were the best scientific explanation available, it would still be useful to most normal people. So it's also not shocking that someone might not bother to look more closely into it. He provided sufficiently useful results that matched common observational data. That's how any scientific theory gets accepted: It continues to provide results that match the data.

No faith required.

TLDR: Hey! Aristotle was doing the best he could when he came up with that theory!

Just a random question, brought to mind by this discussion for all. Would you consider the humanities science when studied?

For example, History, Literature, Art, Music ect

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

EVERYTHING is The Force..

What you can see, what you cannot
What you can feel, and what you cannot
Those things that are material, and those that are not..

What is The Force, you ask? Living Light-Energy that is the foundation of ALL that exists. Natural or Super"natural"..

Uzima Moto wrote: EVERYTHING is The Force..

Uzima Moto wrote: What is The Force, you ask? Living Light-Energy that is the foundation of ALL that exists. Natural or Super"natural"..

You state everything is the Force, but then you go on to narrow it down by saying it is "Light-Energy" (as opposed to what? Darkness, Void?) and the foundation of all that exists (so is it all that exists, or only its foundation).