| WolfpackN64 said: I'm not trying to accuse anything. I'm just trying to show you that science isn't in itself meaningful without scientists, without practical applications. Science isn't a divine principle that's ellevated above anything else. You give attributes to science that contradict your statement. People can seek knowledge through science. Science can't seek anything. Science itself is a vat of knowledge we can tap into, but Sciense IS NOT knowledge. Purely theoretical, these concepts are not one and the same. But this is quite useless, so we have to look at practical applications. What I'm asking you is to look at reality, not at ideals, which is what you're ellevating science to by completely decoupling it from it's practical applications. |
Science is the search of knowledge through methodology and experimentation and ONLY science can do that. Any other form of knowledge is ignorant by definition. You can believe all you want that saying a prayer will cure a disease cause your grand-ma said so but the only way to really cure a disease is to understand it, study it, obtain knowledge of elements that interact with it and ultimately cure it, no other way can achieve that.
I am looking at reality way more than many others do. A religious person could think a supernova is a God or something, I only care to know the scientific principles that explain the end of a star and the fact it explodes to make the supernova, why? Because I ONLY CARE about reality, not fantasy or beliefs or superstition.
The fact you dare write "science is NOT knowledge" says it all about your misguided opinion on science. I wish you'd understand the fundamental contradiction when you say that science is not knowledge. Because science is the very definition of knowledge, just like religion is all about faith, not sure religious people would be amused if you told them religion has nothing to do with faith...
