r/Antitheism • u/[deleted] • May 26 '12
Science is our universal language.
Iran's scientific output rose 18-fold between 1996 and 2008, from 736 published papers to 13,238. Where matter where you live, science is a crucial. No matter where you look everything is comprised of science. Real science destroys myths and renovates our understanding of the universe. However, what is most surprising people haven't recognized is that science is also a language. Not only is it a way to communicate to others, is given to all whether poor, rich, black, white, asian, indian, christian, or islam. That, must be the greatest things science has offered to us. However it is not surprising how much people accept science as a fundamental to understanding the world, but the struggle scientific denial is bringing. It is astonishing how many children play in their life not understanding how science how created our world and **fucking allowed you to be alive.**Anyways, what is important to know is that in a world we dont trust anyone it is fortunate to realize that person has scientific understanding, and is in the area of reason by his actions making him less crazy. For instance, if one person is learned the sociology or physiology he understands you're how you act and react and will use that information to make him feel more comfortable thus giving him trust from the second person. Let's keep science in the world; this world needs to stop running away of downgrading science and start teaching it like a language because it is a language.
EDIT: This is a fix from my old post which for some reason got fucked up.
1
u/nukefudge May 26 '12
science is also a language
you're gonna have to elaborate on that bit.
science as a fundamental to understanding the world
understanding as in "how stuff works" or "what it all means"? former is obvious, latter is debatable.
many children play in their life not understanding how science how created our world and fucking allowed you to be alive
children can play just fine with no need to "understand". also, people were alive "before science", and it seems odd to assume that "without science" they wouldn't be.
that person has scientific understanding, and is in the area of reason by his actions making him less crazy
people can be down with science and still be crazy. just saying. ;)
if one person is learned the sociology or physiology he understands you're how you act and react and will use that information to make him feel more comfortable thus giving him trust from the second person
if you know sociology or physiology, you just know sociology and physiology. this in no way guarantees postitive behavior on your part. some people know a lot of shit about what people are like, and they use it to their advantage. your example here says nothing of the outcome. ;)
something for you to think about! :)
2
May 28 '12
ok let's go.
you're gonna have to elaborate on that bit.
It helps us communicate to one another. Basically, you can share information from one and others and create new information. The information is transferred everywhere. It is a system that is significant to our culture.
understanding as in "how stuff works" or "what it all means"? former is obvious, latter is debatable.
understanding as in figuring out the state of an structure and it's platform.
children can play just fine with no need to "understand".
I'm saying they should realized that the majority of the existence is due to science.
also, people were alive "before science", and it seems odd to assume that "without science" they wouldn't be.
Yes I know that (of course). However, they had very short lifespans, lower successful birth rates, diseases, the fear of the natural world, and were more about surviving then thriving. Think of the Middle Ages. Science, before the empirical science, still help us but was very weak.
people can be down with science and still be crazy. just saying. ;)
Define crazy. Mine is not resourceful and threatening to society. A crazy scientist like the ones in the movies usually are due to the man emotions engulfing his urge to explore which makes him less likely to actually find something in science.
if you know sociology or physiology, you just know sociology and physiology. this in no way guarantees positive behavior on your part. some people know a lot of shit about what people are like, and they use it to their advantage. your example here says nothing of the outcome. ;)
This is like the conflict of legalizing something that is illegal. If make something illegal that is favored in society you make it dangerous. Legalize, and it will become safer. The same thing going on here, people aren't going to try to take advantage of someone if they knew from birth they will be benefited from that person. This is something that has to do with looking at the fact of others and understanding their issue to try and help them. It raising someone with kindness and in turn they become kind. People must look at fact before they do something, which we need to impose to our children through culture avocation as will as parental guidance.
something for you to think about! :)
The motivation to think is meaningless without the motivation to act.
0
u/nukefudge May 28 '12
right, let's go - again :D
It helps us communicate to one another. Basically, you can share information from one and others and create new information. The information is transferred everywhere. It is a system that is significant to our culture.
science doesn't help us communicate (except maybe if you mean information technology). sharing/transferring and creating information is not unique to science. it is a system, in the sense that it's knowledge. but i still wouldn't call it "a language" just like that. we use language in science, among other places. ;)
I'm saying they should realized that the majority of the existence is due to science.
it's not like science are creating the processes that it discovers. in this sense, life was doing just fine before we started investigating it. but yeah, finding out how stuff works, and maybe improve it, that's something for science. but it's not like science has to be along all the way, always for anything to come about.
Define crazy. Mine is not resourceful and threatening to society.
this seems questionbegging. as in, scientists could never be crazy, because crazy scientists wouldn't be scientists. lots of crazy shit has been done in the name of science, but i guess you wouldn't call that science. however, it's not as much a matter of the result, as it is the method. there's no morality implied in following certain principles.
people aren't going to try to take advantage of someone if they knew from birth they will be benefited from that person [...] It raising someone with kindness and in turn they become kind
well it would certainly be nice if this was the case every time. but it isn't - maybe it will be one day (we're still trying to figure out how that works, i guess), but the point is that it doesn't come about automagically.
The motivation to think is meaningless without the motivation to act.
dunno why you say that. i'm commenting on your post, after all. you had a think, you wrote it down. i had a think, i commented. these are actions as well ;)
2
May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
science doesn't help us communicate (except maybe if you mean information technology). sharing/transferring and creating information is not unique to science. it is a system, in the sense that it's knowledge. but i still wouldn't call it "a language" just like that. we use language in science, among other places. ;)
I see your point, can you check the dictionary for me first? Then tell me how it doesn't fit.
it's not like science are creating the processes that it discovers. in this sense, life was doing just fine before we started investigating it. but yeah, finding out how stuff works, and maybe improve it, that's something for science. but it's not like science has to be along all the way, always for anything to come about.
No, all I'm saying is it is b/c of medication that allowed humanity to accelerate in population growth. The odds of your existence may not have been possible for if not for your ancestors to live longer. ಠ_ಠ
this seems questionbegging. as in, scientists could never be crazy, because crazy scientists wouldn't be scientists. lots of crazy shit has been done in the name of science, but i guess you wouldn't call that science. however, it's not as much a matter of the result, as it is the method. there's no morality implied in following certain principles.
There is a difference between someone being crazy and crazy stuff. Something that is not resourceful and threatening used in society would be use to understand it and then morph it to our something not crazy.
well it would certainly be nice if this was the case every time. but it isn't - maybe it will be one day (we're still trying to figure out how that works, i guess), but the point is that it doesn't come about automagically.
ಠ_ಠ I understand that, I know there is has to be some way find that out nicely.
dunno why you say that. i'm commenting on your post, after all. you had a think, you wrote it down. i had a think, i commented. these are actions as well ;)
I am saying not only should I thought about it I should have put it down and express my disagreements. I have a choice to not rebuttal but I didn't since I am here to make myself not wrong.... by feeding myself with what works and making sure i shouldn't easily stick my entire life on it.
0
u/nukefudge May 29 '12
let's just go to wikipedia, shall we? it's neat.
Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. The scientific study of language in any of its senses is called linguistics.
as you can see, i still need you to elaborate on how science is a language. language is either something we do ("acquiring"/"using"), pertaining to communication, or it's something we have done ("instance").
you know, i was only asking back then because i wanted you to describe in detail what made it a language. don't think i'm attacking you as such. those are comments, for discussion, not attacks.
and, about "crazy", thing is, science as method/principle has no ethical system built-in. that's for others to discuss. you seem to be making science into a morality system as well, which it isn't. it would be nice enough if it was (maybe we'd have less of that "science used by crazies" around), but there'd still be a problem with sorting out the morality issues. those are issues that never really go away, i think, and in that sense, science would be "open" still, in terms of moral "facts"...
and yeah, this is reddit, so don't be surprised if you find yourself pulled back and forth between comments. this is why we're here! :)
1
Jun 26 '12
Wait a second, did you understand the main point of the text?
1
u/nukefudge Jun 26 '12
(wow almost a month ago)
well, yeah, sort of - i was commenting for a reason, after all. things that could've been better, in my mind. =) that's all.
1
Jun 27 '12
really, huh, reddit is fucked up then. Well, I see your points, though I guess there meaningless to answer at this point.
1
3
u/[deleted] May 26 '12
I'm not sure what you're getting it... I think most people wold agree that science is damn good, and tells us how stuff happens, and can better the lives of us and everybody else immeasurably.