MooNiNite Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) i believe that there should be like a scientific section. Edit: Oops used the wrong "there". Edited October 16, 2015 by MooNiNite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted October 17, 2015 Interesting idea but I think such topics need to find their place within the existing areas... unfortunately off-topic in most cases. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) I think it's a good idea. At least for a subsection. Edited October 17, 2015 by Michael Sternbach Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted October 17, 2015 I agree with Dawei. Some people's idea of "science" is pretty far-fetched and more closely related to religion than they may be aware of. I think it would quickly turn into a dumping ground for conspiracy theories. Off-Topic is the place for that. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 17, 2015 I agree with Dawei. Some people's idea of "science" is pretty far-fetched and more closely related to religion than they may be aware of. I think it would quickly turn into a dumping ground for conspiracy theories. Off-Topic is the place for that. Maybe a sub-section in The Pit? BS is allowed there. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) I agree with Dawei. Some people's idea of "science" is pretty far-fetched and more closely related to religion than they may be aware of. Well, you can't get away from that, no matter what. But where are the two supposed to unite if not on a website like this one? (If the text is too small on your screen to read: The scientist's book has the title "Global Warming". Below: "Science and religion finally agree?") I think it would quickly turn into a dumping ground for conspiracy theories. Off-Topic is the place for that. How about a subsection in "off topic" then? Edited October 17, 2015 by Michael Sternbach 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geof Nanto Posted October 17, 2015 I don't like the idea of a specific science section because I think it's important for Dao Bums to maintain at least a loose focus on its core areas, namely Daoism, Buddhism and spiritual paths in general. I would actually like to see the holding of respect for such paths and traditions added to the guidelines for members. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted October 18, 2015 What would a 'scientific section' consist of? The scientific method can be applied in almost any area.. Science is not just lab experiments. The above should be the basic procedure we apply to each opinion/belief we hold, all the way down our spiritual path (or any other path). Ask a question, research, experiment, see if it works, perhaps tell others about it. (People follow the process to different degrees of strictness, of course, and some just believe what they want for no logical reason. Oh well.) 'Science' should not be thought of as a specific field of study; it refers to all 'knowledge' uncovered using the scientific method. In my opinion, 'good' Daoism, Buddhism, and any other -ism, require good science. Just a thought. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leth Posted October 18, 2015 I can see the point of discussing the philosophy of science in this site, but perhaps not the idea of devoting subforum for science. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) . Edited October 18, 2015 by Taomeow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) . sorry, double Edited October 18, 2015 by Taomeow 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted October 18, 2015 Imo. We can't be all things to all people. Better to concentrate on a philosophical bend and let science arguments come and go in Off-Topic. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted October 20, 2015 Imo. We can't be all things to all people. Better to concentrate on a philosophical bend and let science arguments come and go in Off-Topic. I think this guy is totally wrong. There seems to be some amazing differences in what is considered every day common knowledge. That maybe we do need to discuss it. See Off Topic -Earth is flat thread. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miffymog Posted October 23, 2015 Did we land on the moon? DID WE!!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) Did we land on the moon? DID WE!!! Actually lots of times- at least 75! We've been landing and crashing things on the moon since 1959! Since the USSR crash landed the Luna 2 on it on September 13th 1959. on YouTube, US newsreel Ten years later the U.S landed men and walked on it America astronauts landed on the moon a total of 6 times between 1969 and 1972: * Apollo-11 * Apollo-12 * Apollo-14 * Apollo-15 * Apollo-16 * Apollo-17 There was a failed attempt by Apollo-13. They never landed, though they did go into lunar orbit. Footprints from these 12 people are on the moon (http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walked-on-the-moon/)- Besides Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin – who were the first two astronauts to leave their bootprints on the Moon — there were also Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison Schmitt. If you're thinking of going up there, you'll find quite a few man made objects, from 5 different countries, literally 100,000's of pounds worth. Some of it landed, some intentionally crashed, some accidentally crashed. For a fascinating list and pictures - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon including not 1, not 2, but 3 U.S space rovers. Oh, and in 2014 we crashed the LADEE into the moon because it's 7 month mission and fuel was over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Environment_Explorer The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE, pronounced /ˈlæd.iː/[5]) was a NASA lunar exploration and technology demonstration mission. It was launched on a Minotaur V rocket from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on September 7, 2013.[6] During its seven-month mission, LADEE orbited around the Moon's equator, using its instruments to study the lunar exosphere and dust in the Moon's vicinity. Instruments included a dust detector, neutral mass spectrometer, and ultraviolet-visible spectrometer, as well as a technology demonstration consisting of a laser communications terminal.[7] The mission ended on April 18, 2014, when the spacecraft's controllers intentionally crashed LADEE into the far side of the Moon,[8][9] which, later, was determined to be near the eastern rim of Sundman V crater.[10] China launched 2 high tech probes in 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang'e_3 With a landing mass of 1,200 kg (2,600 lb), it also carried and deployed the 140 kg (310 lb) rover.[3] It serves double-duty as a technology demonstrator to be further refined for the planned 2018 Chang'e 5 sample-return mission.[34][35] The stationary lander is equipped with a radioisotope heater unit (RHU) in order to heat its subsystems and power its operations, along with its solar panels, during its planned one-year mission. It has a scientific payload of seven instruments and cameras. In addition to their lunar scientific roles, the cameras will also acquire images of the Earth and other celestial bodies.[1] During the 14-day lunar nights, the lander and the rover will go into 'sleep mode'.[22] Lunar-based ultraviolet telescope (LUT) The lander is equipped with a 150 mm (5.9 in) Ritchey–Chrétien telescope that is being used to observe galaxies, active galactic nuclei, variable stars, binaries, novae, quasars and blazars in the near-UV band (245-340 nm), and is capable of detecting objects at a brightness as low as magnitude 13. The thin exosphere and slow rotation of the Moon allow extremely long, uninterrupted observations of a target. The LUT is the first long term lunar-based astronomical observatory, making continuous observations of important celestial bodies to study their light variation and better improve current models.[36][37][38] Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) camera The lander also carries an extreme ultraviolet (30.4 nm) camera,[39] which will be used to observe the Earth's plasmasphere in order to examine its structure and dynamics and to investigate how it is affected by solar activity.[25] Lander cameras Three panoramic cameras are installed on the lander, facing different directions. The lander is equipped with a single descent camera that was tested on the Chang’e 2 spacecraft.[36] Rover The development of the six-wheeled rover began in 2002 at the Shanghai Aerospace System Engineering Institute and was completed in May 2010.[41][42] The rover has a total mass of approximately 140 kg (310 lb), with a payload capacity of approximately 20 kg (44 lb).[1][43] The rover may transmit video in real time, and can perform simple analysis of soil samples. It can navigate inclines and has automatic sensors to prevent it from colliding with other objects. Energy was provided by 2 solar panels, allowing the rover to operate through lunar days, as well as charging its batteries. At night the rover was powered down to a large extent, and kept from getting too cold by the use of several radioisotope heater units (RHUs) using plutonium-238.[44] The RHUs provide only thermal energy and no electricity. Stereo cameras There are two panoramic cameras and two navigation cameras on the rover's mast, which stands ~1.5 m (4.9 ft) above the lunar surface, as well as two hazard avoidance cameras installed on the lower front portion of the rover.[36] Each camera pair may be used to capture stereoscopic images,[53] or for range imaging by triangulation. Monitoring by other lunar missions The descent of the Chang'e 3 spacecraft was expected to increase the content of lunar dust in the tenuous lunar exosphere, as well as introduce gases from engine firings during landing. Although there is no formal cooperation between NASA and the China National Space Administration, the landing provided an opportunity for NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission to examine possible changes to the baseline readings of the Moon's exosphere, and will allow it to study how dust and spent propellant gases settle around the Moon after a landing.[54][55] For example, one of the lander's combustion byproducts is water vapor, and LADEE may be able to observe how lunar water is deposited in cold traps near the poles.[54] NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) took a photograph of the landing site on 25 December 2013 in which the lander and the rover can be seen.[56] LRO also attempted to photograph the lander and rover on 22 January 2014, and on 18 February 2014.[54] Status The rover was still intermittently transmitting as late as 6 September 2014.[50] As of March 2015, the rover remained immobile and its instruments continued degrading,[57][58][59] but was still able to communicate with Earth radio stations.[60][61][62][63] While amateur observers were unable to detect transmissions from the lander, Chinese officials reported that the craft was still operating its UV Camera and Telescope as it entered its 14th lunar night on 14 January 2015.[64][50] The Yutu rover ceased to transmit data in March 2015.[51] "NASA Images of Chang'e 3 Landing Site". 30 December 2013. Retrieved 1 January 2014. "Chinese lunar rover alive but weak". icrosschina.com. "China's ailing moon rover weakening: designer". October 2014. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter circled the moon and took many high res pictures making a 3D map during its mission - It also has picture of the landing sites where you can see the abandoned part of lunar modules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter GalleryLunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission photos First LRO image (June 30, 2009) Apollo 11 landing site Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3 landing site Apollo 14 landing site Apollo 15 landing site Apollo 16 landing site Apollo 17 landing site Close up of Apollo 17 Edited October 24, 2015 by thelerner 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted October 24, 2015 Did we land on the moon? DID WE!!! 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AussieTrees Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) .? Edited July 19, 2016 by AussieTrees Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geof Nanto Posted October 24, 2015 Science is not, indeed, a perfect instrument, but it is superior and indispensable one that works harm only when taken as an end in itself. Scientific method must serve; it errs when it usurps a throne. It must be ready to serve all branches of science, because each, by reason of its insufficiency, has need of support from the others. Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is. The East has taught us another, wider, more profound, and higher understanding, that is, understanding through life. We know this way only vaguely, as a mere shadowy sentiment culled from religious terminology, and therefore we gladly dispose of Eastern 'wisdom' in quotation marks, and relegate it to the obscure territory of faith and superstition. But in this way we wholly misunderstand the `realism' of the East. (From Jung’s commentary to The Secret of the Golden Flower.) There is a wonder that flows naturally from full immersion in the experience of life. Hence Daoist praxis aims at enhancing our attunement to life This is what Jung refers to as the wisdom of the East. It is a realism that many people have never experienced and therefore label it as mysticism with the negative connotations of faith and superstition. Our education focuses on enhancing the intellect and hence many people put their faith in science as their primary source of knowledge. And the scientific method is undoubtable a powerful tool on any path, but as Jung states, “Scientific method must serve; it errs when it usurps a throne.” 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooNiNite Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) it is ok to combine science with religious belief Edited October 31, 2015 by MooNiNite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) it is ok to combine science with religious belief Two ways to describe the miracles of creation. But there is only one reality out there. It's scientific and mystical at once. The distinction only exists in the human mind. Hopefully, one day we will arrive at a Unified Theory of Science and Mysticism. (And if you think now that by saying "Theory", I am emphasizing the scientific side over the mystical - well, let me remind you that the word means "viewing God".) Edited October 31, 2015 by Michael Sternbach 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 31, 2015 I think that "viewing God" is not a very scientific endeavor. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted October 31, 2015 I was taught good science tells us what makes up the world. And good religion tells us how to relate to it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miffymog Posted October 31, 2015 You don't go to a physics book if you want to learn how to treat other people, and you don't go to a spiritual text to learn how an internal combustion engine works. I'm definitely attracted to some unified theory, however, part of the appeal of mysticisms is that it's beyond comprehension. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted October 31, 2015 I was taught good science tells us what makes up the world. And good religion tells us how to relate to it. Yes, but that should be based on an explanation of how beings and things relate to one another. Unless you are only talking about conventional moralistic conditioning here, this doesn't require a lot of reasoning. I don’t like to talk of religion, I prefer "metaphysics". Good metaphysics in fact treat the construction of the world, be it in the Daoist Yijing or the Jewish Kabbalah. They are a kind of science, from my perspective. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
