Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
May be:
Why do atheists oppose religion to science? Are they antonyms? Are they incompatible?
How do sciencepop and modern science in general differ from religion?
What do science and religion have in common?
Why is it customary to contrast science and religion, if it can be that any scientific processes occur according to God's will?
Will science replace religion?
Is there a fundamental difference between “science” and “religion”, apart from the methods used?
Can religion and science not contradict each other?
Is it reasonable to contrast science with religion?
What should I believe, “religion”or ” science”?
If you are engaged in knowledge, but your conclusions do not follow from the initial premises, then such knowledge, as a rule, is not considered scientific, that is, people call science an activity in which knowledge occurs, at least with the help of logic. For example, such reasoning: “if a person exists, then he was born out of mud” – this abductive inference is a logical error. The correct abductive inference should be in the form of an assumption: “if a person exists, then perhaps he was born out of mud, or perhaps he was blown by the wind, or perhaps he descended from Shambhala, or spontaneously appeared, or was born in cabbage” and so on, an infinite number of assumptions that can be eliminated deductively, based on already constructed models and premises obtained empirically. If, according to your scientific theory, the wind is such that the person could not be inflated by it, then you can weed out the hypothesis that the person was blown by the wind. Hypotheses that you cannot test because of the lack of empirical data are obviously not based on empirical data in themselves and are just a fantasy. Although it does not follow that they are necessarily wrong, they are not considered in science for practical reasons.
If you want to learn through religions, then you just need to draw conclusions based on faith. For example, “I believe that a person was blown by the wind, so a person was blown by the wind.” Some religions assume only a fixed set of statements that are supposed to be believed. You will not be able to learn through a particular religion, such as electricity, if that religion does not specify what to believe about such a phenomenon. As in the case of science, when the theory does not correspond much to reality, if the belief about something does not correspond much to reality, then the practical application of the results of such knowledge may not be satisfactory.