Sacred and Profane Science? [SPLIT from "Are you a Homosexual"]

[Aemma]

If humans can dismiss this so-called animal nature so often, then this nature isn't something so essential, so inevitable, so static, as one could assume.

:) Well I don't agree with this assessment. I think that our respective religious groundings manifest themselves in these differences of opinion more than anything H. :)


Besides, independently from the above mentioned considerations, theoretically it would be possible for one living species to differ in one particular trait of behaviour from all other species, wouldn't it? Species do differ in many things.

Why would we make such an assumption? I wouldn't necessarily.

[Poltergeist]

:) Well I don't agree with this assessment. I think that our respective religious groundings manifest themselves in these differences of opinion more than anything H. :)

Not the essence of the issue. Your ancient heathens didn't care about any notion of true "human/animalistic/whatever" nature. Such concepts are of (post)-Christian origin. It is the fruit of objectification of the world, of the human beings, of "nature", so alien to most originally pagan minds.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Aemma
Well I don't agree with this assessment.

Me neither, just because humans can override their “animal” instincts doesn’t mean they necessarily should.

It’s an interesting subject in itself, the supposed Cartesian split between rational/irrational, imagination/reality etc, even though I use the model I’m not entirely convinced that reason can easily be separated from instinct. Perhaps reason is another form of instinct, perhaps reality is subjective, a fascinating thing the human mind.

This is a particularly interesting book on consciousness and emotion:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feeling-What-Happens-Emotion-Consciousness/dp/0099288761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266953257&sr=8-1

My several personalities enjoyed, isn’t that right lads?....except Frank (but he’s not all there anyway)…Do you ever talk to yourself and someone answers? That’s when you should be worried…..:D

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
Your ancient heathens didn't care about any notion of true "human/animalistic/whatever" nature.

I would like to see how you arrived at this conclusion, certainly it’s no conclusion I would have come to having studied Greek philosophy, mythology, Germanic mythology and some Celtic lore…..

Come to think of it isn’t all mythology about the human condition….

[Poltergeist]

I would like to see how you arrived at this conclusion, certainly it’s no conclusion I would have come to having studied Greek philosophy, mythology, Germanic mythology and some Celtic lore…..

Come to think of it isn’t all mythology about the human condition….

It is about human condition, yes. Where did I say it wasn't?

I did come to this conclusion, precisely from studying the ancient myths and philosophy.

No naturalistic ideology there, no true objectification of the world. It takes a desacralized world first to have such an attitude.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
No naturalistic ideology there, no true objectification of the world. It takes a desacralized world first to have such an attitude.

Now I understand you better….but I still disagree.

Greek science itself, whilst acknowledging deity, was the first attempt at the creation of a non-religious explanation of material phenomenon.

As for “desacralized” you seem to be, if I understand you correctly, confusing atheism with science and also assuming that atheists don’t have a concept of the sacred and also that sacred equals profession of belief in God(s).

[Poltergeist]

Me neither, just because humans can override their “animal” instincts doesn’t mean they necessarily should.

When I was referring to the non-binding character of this animal nature, I wasn't speaking in terms of "should" or "shouldn't", but merely stating that the very fact that humans can behave in ways different from their animal nature, and that they often do, proves that it's not something so inevitable and essential. Is there any man in the world who behaves according to this animal nature always and in every occasion? There isn't. It's impossible for anyone. Including those who advocate ideas of "animal nature". Not to mention that there is no general agreement on what this animal nature is about, about all of its constituent parts. There are various theories.

There is a fish called whale. You observe this fish attentively. After a while you notice its behaviour notably differs from behaviour of any fish you know of. The only conclusion you can draw that therefrom is that whale is not a fish.

Totally independently from my current religious persuasion, much before I had this persuasion, I never understood this obsession some people have with some supposed "animal" nature. Because it's something so banal, so trivial, so truistic, so boring, if you wish. More interesting is why people can reject to act according to this nature. And this rejection can go into many various directions, for example of self-destructivity.

The hard truth of life is that one is thrown into this world, into the existence, where one has to make decisions of one's own in various, often adverse, circumstances and no ancestors, no knowledge of your genepool, no (no matter how elaborate) theory of animal/whatever nature is going to help you.

[Aemma]

Not the essence of the issue. Your ancient heathens didn't care about any notion of true "human/animalistic/whatever" nature. Such concepts are of (post)-Christian origin. It is the fruit of objectification of the world, of the human beings, of "nature", so alien to most originally pagan minds.

Of course it is the very essence of the issue. Heathens believe in being part of the natural world and recognising their animalistic natures. To this end, you are right when you state that


Your ancient heathens didn't care about any notion of true "human/animalistic/whatever" nature.

There was no consideration of any such thing since there was no idea of dichotomy between Man and the Natural World.

If anything, Christians have done everything in their power to objectify all and sundry in an attempt to downplay the human being's very animalistic nature.

[Anthropos]

Greek science itself, whilst acknowledging deity, was the first attempt at the creation of a non-religious explanation of material phenomenon.

That's what you say, but why do you think so? Religions do not aim primarily at explaining 'material phenomena', but on the other hand nothing in a normal religion prevents the examination of phenomena that may - more or less correctly - be so labelled. Do you by any chance believe in the modern myth saying that pagan beliefs were nothing but (primitive) explanations of natural phenomena?

[Anthropos]

When I was referring to the non-binding character of this animal nature, I wasn't speaking in terms of "should" or "shouldn't", but merely stating that the very fact that humans can behave in ways different from their animal nature, and that they often do, proves that it's not something so inevitable and essential. Is there any man in the world who behaves according to this animal nature always and in every occasion? There isn't. It's impossible for anyone. Including those who advocate ideas of "animal nature". Not to mention that there is no general agreement on what this animal nature is about, about all of its constituent parts. There are various theories.

Touché.

[Aemma]

The hard truth of life is that one is thrown into this world, into the existence, where one has to make decisions of one's own in various, often adverse, circumstances and no ancestors, no knowledge of your genepool, no (no matter how elaborate) theory of animal/whatever nature is going to help you.

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with the categoricalness of it all. It's presumptious for any human being to think that he has all of the answers to everything in the world. We know nothing.

[Aemma]

That's what you say, but why do you think so? Religions do not aim primarily at explaining 'material phenomena', but on the other hand nothing in a normal religion prevents the examination of phenomena that may - more or less correctly - be so labelled. Do you by any chance believe in the modern myth saying that pagan beliefs were nothing but (primitive) explanations of natural phenomena?

Ah and so the bias rears its ugly head yet again. :mad: "A normal religion"...yikes.

[Poltergeist]

Now I understand you better….but I still disagree.

Greek science itself, whilst acknowledging deity, was the first attempt at the creation of a non-religious explanation of material phenomenon.

Totally different from modern mechanicist materialism which started to develop from 17th century. Not much in common.


As for “desacralized” you seem to be, if I understand you correctly, confusing atheism with science and also assuming that atheists don’t have a concept of the sacred and also that sacred equals profession of belief in God(s).

Sacred comes in different forms, I didn't say sacred was only about belief in God(s).

Nor am I confusing atheism with science. Natural science does no inquiry into the matter of God because it's outside of its scope and of the possibility of its method. A natural scientist can be "theist" or "atheist", it has no bearing on his scientific research as such, it's irrelevant.

However, the important thing is one's attidtude towards the sacred. There is a difference between someone who stands in awe before the sacred and recognizes it as such and someone else who declines the possibility that anything can be sacred. The latter builds idols of sorts as well, maybe inevitably so, but it's his conscious attidtude towards the sacred that makes him different from the former.

[Anthropos]

Ah and so the bias rears its ugly head yet again. :mad: "A normal religion"...yikes.

No, dear momma, you are just assuming things instead of reading properly here.

[Poltergeist]

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with the categoricalness of it all.

Hmmm....I haven't impression I am being especially categorical here.

Much more categorical are those who claim there is some fixed and immutable human/animal nature (I am not saying you are one of those, just referring to a general trend present amonmg such essentialists).


It's presumptious for any human being to think that he has all of the answers to everything in the world.

Indeed. No-one has.


We know nothing.

Or very little, to be precise. The irony is that the more one knows, the more is one aware of their ignorance. As the knowledge advances, new, hitherto unknown questions arise.

[Aemma]

No, dear momma, you are just assuming things instead of reading properly here.

No no dear T-bone, if you used less biased language, I wouldn't be jumping to these conclusions now, would I? :D The word "religion" itself is value-neutral and you just made it value-laden by utilising a most inappropriate adjective, "normal", in such a discussion. :thumb001:

[Óttar]

Interesting point that you bring up though Loki, since this is very true. In most other species, the male is the more colourful and more 'beautiful' specimen. Interestingly though, it has been a large part of Western culture to admire the female human body and this has been done more so by men than women in the past as well.
In classical Greece the male body was considered the height of aesthetic excellence.

In response to Tabiti's (quite possibly correct) claim that female relationships are closer and more intimate than male friendships, while women are more likely to physically express their friendship for one another, brushing each other's hair and so on, male friendships can be very deep on an intellectual level like the relationship between a philosopher and his students, and then there is the friendship between soldiers and comrades.

I believe there needs to be a restoration of a genuine Maennerkultur, an iniatic system and firm social network for men to support one another. Women definitely have us beat in the social support department, which is one of the main reasons imo that men die sooner.


Gin and tonics
Hey, I enjoy my gin and tonic... It's generally much more reliable than a woman.

[Anthropos]

No no dear T-bone, if you used less biased language, I wouldn't be jumping to these conclusions now, would I? :D The word "religion" itself is value-neutral and you just made it value-laden by utilising a most inappropriate adjective, "normal", in such a discussion. :thumb001:

Distinguishing between different things has nothing to do with bias. Pagan beliefs and practices were normal, but neopaganism and modern 'heathenry' are not normal. There is no bias in saying that because neopaganism is something completely different from the pagan mindframe that once was. And mind you, before you issued this silly diversion I was talking solely about authentic paganism, treating it as normal and everything, not seeking to deny it any degree or status.

Here is the 'heathenistic' fallacy that against all reason and all facts you bind yourself to as soon as the topic comes up: To assume that paganism of old and modern 'heathenry' are the same or at the very least to ignore the abyss that parts them. That's exactly how you must have understood what I wrote since you come along whining about 'bias'.

All you ever see when someone says what I just said is a 'bias'. There's no wanting to even understand it on your part. Now that's biased to say the least; that's downright ignorant and arrogant too.

[Aemma]

Distinguishing between different things has nothing to do with bias. Pagan beliefs and practices were normal, but neopaganism and modern 'heathenry' are not normal. There is no bias in saying that because neopaganism is something completely different from the pagan mindframe that once was. And mind you, before you issued this silly diversion I was talking solely about authentic paganism, treating it as normal and everything, not seeking to deny it any degree or status.

Here is the 'heathenistic' fallacy that against all reason and all facts you bind yourself to as soon as the topic comes up: To assume that paganism of old and modern 'heathenry' are the same or at the very least to ignore the abyss that parts them. That's exactly how you must have understood what I wrote since you come along whining about 'bias'.

All you ever see when someone says what I just said is a 'bias'. There's no wanting to even understand it on your part. Now that's biased to say the least; that's downright ignorant and arrogant too.

Are you done preaching me?

Good gods Anthropos, get that chip off of your shoulder. All I did was correct you. You can't take it. So be it. Next time, be clearer in your use of language. It will go far in terms of mutual understanding.

Now enough of your personalising each and everything I add to any discussion. I'm getting quite tired of it. Not to mention it is rude.

[Anthropos]

I was clear and I even replied to your provocation in a civil manner. At your age you should at least tolerate some criticism.

Preaching? Personalising? You are being ridiculous.

Do I have to use YOUR manner of speech on all occasions for you to leave me alone and not persecute me with your moralist crap?

You are way out of your mind.


Are you done preaching me?

Good gods Anthropos, get that chip off of your shoulder. All I did was correct you. You can't take it. So be it. Next time, be clearer in your use of language. It will go far in terms of mutual understanding.

Now enough of your personalising each and everything I add to any discussion. I'm getting quite tired of it. Not to mention it is rude.

[Poltergeist]

Of course it is the very essence of the issue. Heathens believe in being part of the natural world and recognising their animalistic natures.

They couldn't have believed in it because they simply hadn't notion of the "natural world" as people today understand it. They lived in a world imbued with sacred, with different gods, everyone if their own city/tribe which was a sacred universe in itself.

I don't see where ancient pagans tried to imitate beasts or fashion their behaviour after them. If anything, the pagan philosophy is full of precepts of how to live well in a human society, whereas such considerations like "nature" or the "natural world" are shoved aside, with very few people taking interest in it. And even when they do, it's light years away from any modern conceptions of nature and the material universe. It's usually some holistic view where the microsomos corresponds with the macrocosmos, with magical elements etc.


There was no consideration of any such thing since there was no idea of dichotomy between Man and the Natural World.

If anything, Christians have done everything in their power to objectify all and sundry in an attempt to downplay the human being's very animalistic nature.

Don't you see that with what you are saying, it is you who are upholding this dichotomy? You are opposing human real-life behaviour to some imagined ideal of animal-like behaviour. Man is not animalistic enough, according to you, he should behave more "animalistically". Whale shoudld behave in a fishlike manner, because deep down in himself he is a fish, since he looks like fish. It is absurd.

Evenso, putting aside these considerations, how would you live animalistically? Is it possible at all?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
That's what you say,

No that’s what peer reviewed scholars say….

Unfortunately I don’t read ancient Greek, but I have little reason to believe the translations I have read are lies, and I find the interpretations of such academics as Andrew Gregory, Georgia L. Irbie-Massie and Paul T. Keyser to be valid.


Originally Posted by Hermeticist
Totally different from modern mechanicist materialism which started to develop from 17th century. Not much in common.

The methods were not the same, I agree, the intent, however, largely was.

[Poltergeist]

The methods were not the same, I agree, the intent, however, largely was.

It is the larger picture that matters and it was quite different in the two cases.

[Poltergeist]

...

[Anthropos]

Greek science itself, whilst acknowledging deity, was the first attempt at the creation of a non-religious explanation of material phenomenon. That's what you say, but why do you think so? Religions do not aim primarily at explaining 'material phenomena', but on the other hand nothing in a normal religion prevents the examination of phenomena that may - more or less correctly - be so labelled. Do you by any chance believe in the modern myth saying that pagan beliefs were nothing but (primitive) explanations of natural phenomena?No that’s what peer reviewed scholars say….

Unfortunately I don’t read ancient Greek, but I have little reason to believe the translations I have read are lies, and I find the interpretations of such academics as Andrew Gregory, Georgia L. Irbie-Massie and Paul T. Keyser to be valid.


Originally Posted by Hermeticist
Totally different from modern mechanicist materialism which started to develop from 17th century. Not much in common.

The methods were not the same, I agree, the intent, however, largely was.

(Please use the quote function next time.)

To begin with you seem to confuse interpretations, the ideas of some 'peer reviewed scholars' with the actual meaning of the text (whether in translation or in original). Some scholars say this and others say that; that's no argument what you have there, and in any case what they base their conclusions on and how they came to them must be more interesting than their opinions.

Secondly you speak of 'Greek science' as a monolithic entity, and that is perhaps and perhaps not justified. Be that as it may you assessed at best a small part of it, since you looked away from many differences between the sciences of ancient Greece and those of the modern West.

Third, I hinted to the fact that Greek thought was not defined by rationalism (in essence, that is; nor by name of course, but that was not the subject of debate). In Greek thought metaphysics, cosmology and science often cohabited with one another, a point that you completely ignored.

Fourth, admitting that the methods were different doesn't mean everything but it means a lot. If the methods, taken as a whole, of one science, are different from those of another taken as a whole, then you must have some other reason to think that they are the same science. What would that reason be? It would seem that it was here that you inserted 'non-religious science', whatever that means, as some kind of common denominator that would make ends meet. But it goes without saying that I am not in the least convinced, considering especially what I said in point number three.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
It is the larger picture that matters and it was quite different in the two cases.

The "larger picture" being the study of the nature of the universe? In which case I still disagree.....


Originally Posted by Anthropos
Please use the quote function next time.

Pretty sure I did….


Some scholars say this and others say that

Yes they do….although I haven’t yet read one that doesn’t perceive Greek enquiry into the natural world to be the defining moment when we can say “science” began.

To quote Andrew Gregory:

The first steps towards scientific explanation were taken in ancient Greece around 600BC. Prior to that, the Babylonians and the Egyptians had evolved advanced technologies, but had not progressed beyond mythological explanations. The Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine, and begun to produce the first crude theories of how the world might work in an entirely natural manner.......
Eureka! The Birth of Science


Secondly you speak of 'Greek science' as a monolithic entity

Do I?

Science is the study of the natural world or, more to the point, the mechanics of the natural world. Under that title are very many subjects from mathematics to optics.


Third, I hinted to the fact that Greek thought was not defined by rationalism (in essence, that is; nor by name of course, but that was not the subject of debate).

An interesting subject in itself, how far is Greek natural philosophy to be compared to rationalism as developed by the likes of Descartes……..

A topic for inquiry.


In Greek thought metaphysics, cosmology and science often cohabited with one another,

The difference to today is what? Metaphysics is still as vibrant today, probably more so, indeed will science (particulalry cosmology) cross beams with metaphysics, especially on questions of infinity....


a point that you completely ignored.

Ignored….or found irrelevant to the point I’m making, which to recapitulate, is that “science” as a study of the mechanics of the natural world free of religious interpretation is attributed first to ancient Greek civilisation.


What would that reason be?

The reason being that the scientific method developed by men such as Galileo and William Gilbert is the method by which we, with a few tweeks, do some, but not all, of our science today, but the Greeks were natural philosophers (are Quantum mechanists more natural philosophers in the Platonic sense than scientists, hmmm....), science and the method of science are two different things. I would recommend The Philosophy of Science by John Losee for an interesting debate about how science should be done and what conclusions we should draw.


But it goes without saying that I am not in the least convinced

Well there we are then. I can’t do anything about that, but if you can show me a peer reviewed scholar who contradicts the birth of science in ancient Greece I would be interested.:)

[Anthropos]

Sciences existed in all traditional civilizations.

The point of view that you quoted, to the effect that loss of religion signifies progress, is markedly modern; that attitude was at best represented by a minority (even among intellectuals) in ancient Greece, and the modern notion of progress did not even exist.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Sciences existed in all traditional civilizations.

Yes and no.

Investigation into phenomenon existed in most civilisations, this is correct. The difference between what the Greeks did and what the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians and American Indians did is that the Greeks studied these phenomenon as natural events free from a mythological interpretation.


The point of view that you quoted, to the effect that loss of religion signifies progress

I have suggested nothing of the sort. My personal view of Greek science and my view of science vis-à-vis religion in general is not for debate here.

How you interpret the meaning of Greek science and what Greek science represents are two very different things indeed.;)

[Anthropos]

I have suggested nothing of the sort. My personal view of Greek science and my view of science vis-à-vis religion in general is not for debate here.

How you interpret the meaning of Greek science and what Greek science represents are two very different things indeed.;)

But you did say what I said that you said, while quoting one of those 'peer reviewed scholars' that you put your trust in:


To quote Andrew Gregory:

'The first steps towards scientific explanation were taken in ancient Greece around 600BC. Prior to that, the Babylonians and the Egyptians had evolved advanced technologies, but had not progressed beyond mythological explanations. The Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine, and begun to produce the first crude theories of how the world might work in an entirely natural manner.......'
Eureka! The Birth of Science

Please do note that it also said that 'Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine', something that strongly suggests that the Greeks who according to you were accountable for 'The Birth of Science' were actually at best only the third civilization to develop sciences (if Andrew Gregory and his evolutionistic account is to be trusted, that is). Thus you, Liffrea, attributed the progression that brought about that 'Birth of Science' to the loss of 'mythological explanations' from a separately defined field of science, even if nothing in that argument suggests that the Greeks were more advanced than Babylonians and Egyptians. It would appear that from your point of view the loss of 'mythological explanations' equals 'progress' in this instance.


Investigation into phenomenon existed in most civilisations, this is correct. The difference between what the Greeks did and what the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians and American Indians did is that the Greeks studied these phenomenon as natural events free from a mythological interpretation. Phenomena, you mean. Anyways, there we have it again.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
It would appear that from your point of view the loss of 'mythological explanations' equals 'progress' in this instance.

It's progress in the sense that the loss of mythological interpretation created science as we understand it, which is what Gregory implies.

What are you implying?

[Poltergeist]

Funny to see self-styled heathens celebrating the demythologized view of the world and seeing it as "progress".

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
Funny to see self-styled heathens celebrating the demythologized view of the world and seeing it as "progress".

Even more amusing to see so many who think they can tell me what I’m saying better than I can…….

However as far as your statement goes, I find the birth of science to be very much worthy of “celebration” and long may science continue to provide insight for humanity.

Happily, for me, I’m not one of those who see it as our only means of knowing truth nor one who sees it’s answers as a threat……

[Anthropos]

Happily, for me, I’m not one of those who see it as our only means of knowing truth nor one who sees it’s answers as a threat……

Speaking for myself, I don't see science as a threat. But since you chose quite arbitrarily to equal the birth of science with the birth of profane science, the conclusion that you see what was called 'mythological explanations' as a threat to science is only logical. Furthermore there is no reason even from the point of view of profane science (given of course that it is based on a method and not on a profane myth) to single out 'mythological explanations' as unscientific. That is also only logical.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
But since you chose quite arbitrarily

That “arbitrariness” is known as scholarship, the best of which is peer reviewed by people in the respective field qualified to offer a critical analysis of the results and/or interpretation.

Now if you have a problem dealing with that I’m sorry but I can’t help you there.


to equal the birth of science with the birth of profane science……

Do you have evidence that contradicts the statement made by Gregory that I quoted.

For the record it is this one:

'The first steps towards scientific explanation were taken in ancient Greece around 600BC. Prior to that, the Babylonians and the Egyptians had evolved advanced technologies, but had not progressed beyond mythological explanations. The Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine, and begun to produce the first crude theories of how the world might work in an entirely natural manner.......'
Eureka! The Birth of Science

When you do give me a shout, I’m still interested, I won't shout at you or make fun of you, I'm genuinly interested, but it has to be quality scholarship and peer reviewed at that or I'm not likely to take it seriously.

If you don't, fair enough, it would seem we don't have much else to discuss.

[Poltergeist]

That “arbitrariness” is known as scholarship, the best of which is peer reviewed by people in the respective field qualified to offer a critical analysis of the results and/or interpretation.

Now if you have a problem dealing with that I’m sorry but I can’t help you there.

Do you have evidence that contradicts the statement made by Gregory that I quoted.

For the record it is this one:

'The first steps towards scientific explanation were taken in ancient Greece around 600BC. Prior to that, the Babylonians and the Egyptians had evolved advanced technologies, but had not progressed beyond mythological explanations. The Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine, and begun to produce the first crude theories of how the world might work in an entirely natural manner.......'
Eureka! The Birth of Science

When you do give me a shout, I’m still interested, I won't shout at you or make fun of you, I'm genuinly interested, but it has to be quality scholarship and peer reviewed at that or I'm not likely to take it seriously.

If you don't, fair enough, it would seem we don't have much else to discuss.

So for you "science" is only that what has been approved by the official structures of today's Academia?

By the way, there is some terminological confusion here: in English the term science seems to denote merely natural science, whilst in other languages the corresponding word has a broader spectrum of meanings.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
So for you "science" is only that what has been approved by the official structures of today's Academia?

Science should be replicable or the hypothesis reasonable without experimentation……..what that has to do with the origins of science I have no idea…..

My question to Anthropos was:

Do you have evidence that contradicts the statement made by Gregory that I quoted

This would seem a question of science-history.

Does the answer have to be approved by “official structures”? I don’t quite know what you mean by “official structures” but peer reviewed scholarship lends credibility to the conclusion being made. One can argue the impartiality of peer review or the agenda with a certain scholar, but for something as benign as the origin of science I see no real reason to bring the rack out…..unless someone has evidence that there is an agenda within academia to suppress the origin of science?


By the way, there is some terminological confusion here: in English the term science seems to denote merely natural science, whilst in other languages the corresponding word has a broader spectrum of meanings.

I’ll have to take your word for that, I’m only fluent in English, but I believe my point still stands.

[Anthropos]

I read your post, Liffrea. There's nothing new in it and you did not respond to arguments already made against your point of view.


By the way, there is some terminological confusion here: in English the term science seems to denote merely natural science, whilst in other languages the corresponding word has a broader spectrum of meanings.

It doesn't always mean natural science in English either as far as I am aware. I belive that the confusion comes from this idea instead:


So for you "science" is only that what has been approved by the official structures of today's Academia?

But not even that seems to be narrowminded enough, because today's academia is more diverse than some people - whether themselves academics or not - want to believe. It seems that for those who think that 'science' or 'scholarship' signifies consensus it is also required of 'science' that it should be what is most commonplace and most popularized out of everything that was approved by today's academia. And when they are faced with that 'quality scholarship', any argument and any logic fades away.

[Poltergeist]

It seems both of you misunderstood me. I didn't say the word science in the English language meant only natural science, what I wanted to say was that I had some impression regarding the usage of the word in the popular culture, namely, that whenever the word science, without any further specifications, is mentioned, it is usually natural science that is meant.

[Anthropos]

Thread title:
Science vs Religion [SPLIT from "Are you a Homosexual"]

The topic should be 'Sacred and Profane Science', in my opinion; it's not a complaint. At least I did not claim that there is nor that there should be an opposition between religion and science.

[Loddfafner]

The topic should be 'Sacred and Profane Science', in my opinion; it's not a complaint. At least I did not claim that there is nor that there should be an opposition between religion and science.

Fair enough, though I added a question mark in case that framing is itself part of the debate.

[Poltergeist]

The topic should be 'Sacred and Profane Science', in my opinion; it's not a complaint. At least I did not claim that there is nor that there should be an opposition between religion and science.

In fact, there isn't such a thing.