Prev: If You Don't Like Header Changing, Take Action!
Next: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS
From: Immortalist on 19 May 2010 21:30
Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
concerned with;

The net, or magistcrium, of science covers the empirical realm: what
is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory).
The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning
and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they
encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art
and the meaning of beauty). To cite the old cliches, science gets the
age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the
heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.
--Stephan Gould

But it seems that many other people make the same claim for something
as simple as personal problems through to any area of life where they
need something to remain a mystery.

....our everyday or "folk" understanding of mental states constitutes a
theory of mind. That theory is widely called "folk
psychology" (sometimes "commonsense" psychology). The terms in which
folk psychology is couched are the familiar ones of "belief" and
"desire", "hunger", "pain" and so forth. According to many theorists,
folk psychology plays a central role in our capacity to predict and
explain the behavior of ourselves and others.

Folk biology is the cognitive study of how people classify and reason
about the organic world. Humans everywhere classify animals and plants
into species-like groups as obvious to a modern scientist as to a Maya
Indian. Such groups are primary loci for thinking about biological
causes and relations
From: Sir Frederick Martin on 20 May 2010 08:58
Is any subject outside of what science should research?
No. 'We' are not that important.
Though hubris may tell stories, otherwise.
From: Jimbo on 20 May 2010 09:06
On May 19, 9:30 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
> concerned with;
>

Religion will always try to direct us not to pay attention to that man
behind the curtain.

There are most likely areas where the applications of the science
researched should be off limits, certain methods of research should be
off limits, but there should be no limits on the research itself.
From: Don Martin on 20 May 2010 13:40
On May 19, 9:30 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
> concerned with;

Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
evidence. It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
soon.


From: Sir Frederick Martin on 20 May 2010 13:59
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmartin(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>On May 19, 9:30�pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
>> concerned with;
>
>Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
>evidence. It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
>soon.
>
The neural basis of all religious experiences and the social
structures thereof are all valid evidence studies.

An area that might be ignored is the mystery of the fact of existence
'itself', though that is more likely just a 'built in' constraint of the
human condition.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: If You Don't Like Header Changing, Take Action!
Next: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS