An Approach to Life

Hi everyone I am writing a paper that deals with the similarities and differences of science and religion. One of my differences is how religion and science approach different questions. So far I said that science may use math and other data in order to interpret their findings. I also talked about other methods that science uses when approaching questions. My question is now how religion approach questions. I’m not saying that both science and religion are trying to answer the same types of questions but just the steps of how they would answer a question. For example how would religion decide whether something is right or wrong. I know they use different teachings from scriptures an such but I just need to be more specific. I’m sorry if i presented this in a really confusing way. My head is in a million different directions right now so any help would be much appreciated.

In order to ask a logical question one’s premise must be based upon something. Christianity bases itself upon the bible as it’s foundation. Science uses past findings which are subject to change, depending on who ‘discovered’ what this week. So you see, you cannot ask a question, and receive a true answer based on science, it is too flexible and subject to interpretation.

Oh, I hear screaming of those who say you can make the bible say whatever you want. Well, I tell you the truth, the bible is of no private interpretation. There is but one truth, and it does not change, the problem is those who are not reborn of the spirit (the interpreter) are using these words to twist them to their own gain. That doesn’t make them right, and it doesn’t make them christian just because they claim the name of Christ.

Religion is based upon blind faith supported by no evidence. Science is based upon confidence that results from evidence — and that confidence can be modified and/or reversed by further observations and experimentation. Science approaches truth, closer and closer, by hard dedicated work. Religion already has it all decided, and it’s "in the book. It’s dogma, unchangeable, and unaffected by reality and whatever facts we come upon in the real world.
– James R andi

Randi is a brilliant man in addition to being one of the best illusionists in the world. But he hates frauds, which is why Uri Geller sued Randi for exposing Geller’s tricks. Randi also torpedoed a Geller appearance on The Tonight Show by telling the staff how Geller was going to pretend to do things, and lots of glue was used under cups, etc, to make sure Geller failed. It was hilarious. He still has $1m offered to phony psychic Sylvia Browne to undergo a blind test of her alleged abilities. She accepted the offer and has yet to show but you won’t hear it on Montel.

Randi’s statement above is a fine summary of how I approach life.

Randi goes after frauds because he feels his original trade of magic/illusion has been infested by charlatans claiming to have special powers. Randi will not expose any of his honest friends within magic or mentalism, the same thing as a psychic except honest with their audiences that the cold readings they perform are the result of training and practice, not special gifts.

I am thinking about some of the philosophies of being a scientist. I am looking for any kind of answers, including articles, references, quotes, and opinions.

I wish I could help, but frankly I don’t understand this question.
In general, one’s approach depends on what one is trying to achieve. If you want to make a career in science then you should suck up to those higher up the ladder, just like in any other field. If you want to acquire knowledge then study. If you want to make money then do not go into science at all, there is not much money there.

Truth in science centres on observation and experimentation. You make an assertion and then you attempt to prove it through observation, measurement and/or experimentation. If you are successful the assertion (hypothosis) becomes a truth. On a more day to day level we might approach the idea of truth in the same albeit less formal way. We might suspect such and such is going on and then go to certain lengths to establish that it is.

But people talk of other forms of truth. I have not set out to dispute the possibility of other forms of truth, but to learn about them. I would like a description of any other forms of truth.

there are:
-logical truths (a=a),
-mathematical truths (2+2=4)
-conceptual truths ("all bachelors are unmarried"),
-intuitive truths that do not rely on the scientific method but are immediately grasped ("i’m angry right now/ i’m in great pain")
-maybe interchangeable with ‘intuitive’ in some ways but I would also add truths grasped via the phenomenological method

sources of reference to call upon, the religious book relies on itself. do we think the humbler approach (science) gains more credibility than religion as it at least admits it may be off the mark. Or should we just believe the bible/koran becuase it saya we should

I believe in God’s Word over everythinng else.

Will Science arrive at the truth at the end?

I don’t think religion is an approach to know the truth, it’s a way to seal your mind off from confronting initially unpleasant realities. If you need it to live, that’s your crutch to carry, but don’t pretend like it’s truth-seeking.

As a science fair project, you want to launch an 600 g model rocket straight up and hit a horizontally moving target as it passes 35 m above the launch point. The rocket engine provides a constant thrust of 15.0 N. The target is approaching at a speed of 15 m/s. At what horizontal distance between the target and the rocket should you launch?

This is a good one. As you know f = Ma most of the time. And I’m guessing most answers will use this. But that’s not the case for rockets.

The force-accelerated mass M = m + m(t); where m is the fixed body mass and m(t) is the fuel mass. m(t) is a function of time as the fuel burns away at a rate of dm(t)/dt < 0, which means losing fuel mass over time of burn.

For your rocket, f = dP/dt = d(Mv)/dt = dM/dt v + M dv/dt is in effect; where dM/dt = d(m + m(t))/dt = dm(t)/dt; so that f = dm(t)/dt v + (m + m(t)) dv/dt = dm(t)/dt v + m(t) dv/dt + m dv/dt = dm(t)/dt v + (m(t) + m) dv/dt = 15 Newton (preferable units are kg-m/sec^2). P = Mv is the linear momentum of your rocket and dP/dt = f is the change in that momentum over time, which we define as force.

Thus, a <> f/M, as you are probably suggesting. In fact, for the kind of intercept precision you’d need, a = dv/dt = [f - dm(t)/dt v]/[m(t) + m]. Notice that this latter becomes a = f/M if m(t) = constant so that dm(t)/dt = 0. But, alas, that’s not the way rockets work, they lose most of their initial mass by buring away that fuel. That has to be taken into account…especially when trying to intercept another moving body.

If you are really going to do this at a science fair, you need to do more physics. You will also need to take air drag into account because that increases as the square of the velocity. And your intercept velocity will be significant. Finally, guidance, what will keep your rocket on the straight and narrow? What if there are wind gusts?

If you are just doing an incomplete think piece, find the time to climb t for getting to 35 m above the launch site. That can be found from h = 35 m = 1/2 at^2; where a = f/M = 15/.6. Solve for t = sqrt(2ah). Then the rocket needs to be launched when the target is D = vt = 15*t meters from the impact point above the launch pad.

But, and this is a big BUT, you’ll likely miss the target if you fail to include the burn rate and other factors I’ve mentioned earlier.

I constantly see arguing between followers of each approach; Spiritual people and hardcore atheists hardly agree with each other on anything. What I am asking is it possible for both sides to meet in the middle and use both spirituality and science to find the truths about the universe or will both sides continue there zealotry?

Absolutely. I think if science truly figured out the unifying force of nature we would figure out our past and what our ancestors were talking about, We would discover a world wrought with cyclical catastrophes and we would even discover the science of the gods themselves.

But that was never meant to be. People enjoy a good mystery.

There have been misconceptions of science/scientific fact or through the use of technology in regards to the approaches they have used towards the environment.

Why should those in particular ‘green’ lobby groups, stakeholders, and the community in general who are often opposing developments" have to understand the significance of science in environmental controversies? On what ground does science have to be understood by those who oppose it.

Is it so those who oppose technological development at the expense of the environment need to take science into account and understand this knowledge then to use it to refute those scientist?

Science is the base of every environmental issue. If you don’t understand the science, then you don’t understand the environmental issue. Simple as that. Global warming is the perfect example.

Here’s the approach: let them explain the theory of evolution. If they got it wrong (as they almost certainly will), then there is no reason to debate. You just tell them that they can’t claim a theory to be wrong and in fact not understand it.

Science lovers; agree or disagree?

As for me, I have not yet met a single creationist who truly understands evolution. And my method works well. They get stumped. All that they know about evolution are rhetoric like "survival of the fittest" or so and so.

Since creationism/IDiocy depends on evolution being a caricature of itself, its practically impossible for a creationist to actually grasp the full facts of evolution.
Creationism starts with a massive list of errors about evolution, so, if a creationist managed to learn just how WRONG they are about evolution, its not likely that they’d be able to stay a creationist.
BTW, "evolutionist" is a made up creationist word.