Quote from: Freddy on November 28, 2014, 14:27:39 PM
I don't really see science as something that was dreamt up.

Science evolved (and is still doing so) from like minded people who had solid ideas about describing the world and understanding what's in it. Sure the ideas have to come from somewhere, but like Snowy says and I agree; science is a method.

Science has taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop to where it is now. It wasn't just dreamt up over night and is not some whimsical fantasy. The ideas are grounded by the things we record and observe in reality. And these things need to be demonstrable and proven to be accepted as what we see as true of the universe at that time.

I say at that time because things change and science doesn't always get it right. Things often get re-thought when new evidence comes to light. Just think of the Earth orbiting the Sun and not the other way around. Evidence is the watchword here.

But yes, the ideas have to come from somewhere, but the important distinction over mysticism is that those ideas cannot just be blindly accepted as fact - they have to earn it via thorough experimentation and other ways of proving that they are true.

Maybe some scientist woke up one morning after a particularly good dream that explained black holes. That's all very well and good, but it's not the dream itself that draws the truth. It's what he does with that idea. In other words; the dream is not the proof.

Science still has a lot of questions to answer though - but it has never claimed to explain it all. Mystics and the like can accept any old explanation and to be honest; they are the ones that have been dreaming things up and that can be a problem.

Solid ideas came from the mind, I never once said mysticism but I think you guys did, and took it off topic 

It is loosely mysticism that you are describing...

Not from my point of view, the mind works on many levels from fully awake to fully asleep, it's just natural and not mystical in any form. 

I'm trying to keep this grounded too.

I thought this topic included other recent topics sorry.

It sounds as if you two are trying very hard to keep science and mysticism in their own little compartments, but is that truly necessary? Granted, a cool wind from the north is not necessarily a sign from the gods that it's time to attack the mountain tribe, and a two-headed goat doesn't signify the death of the king, but it's been said (I'm paraphrasing here, of course) that sufficiently advanced technology (science) is indistinguishable from magic (mysticism), so who's to say that they aren't the same, on some level? Just a thought.

By the way, we seem to have moved into the realm of philosophy here, which is a vital part of  "science", IMHO.

I'm not sure if that is what I am trying to do Dave. I find some aspects of what I call mysticism fascinating.

If science can't explain it, I guess one has the choice to believe in something else.

I like alchemists because they had a calling. Some of it was mumbo jumbo but a lot of what they did paved the way for Chemistry.

You make a good point Dave, something can appear to be Mystical simply because we don't understand the science behind it yet. It would probably be better just to call in "unknown" for now. When the word mystical is used it comes packed with preconceptions both positive and negative. 

Freddy mate, you don't have to be sorry, we are just debating. 

We know that the mind is still not fully understood by science, trying to prove or disprove anything we are talking about isn't going to be easy here chaps.   

Just to remind you all though, I am a firm believer is science, nothing has changed 

You know, science has shown that alchemy is actually possible, to an extent. A couple of decades ago, a group of scientists at (I think) MIT were able to use high energy neutrons to transform another element into gold. The trouble is that the other element was Platinum (far more expensive than gold), and the process consumed vast amounts of power, so while it was possible, it certainly wasn't practical.

That is interesting Dave, so it might be possible to downgrade an element to a lesser element, makes sense to me, you can't get something for nothing. So they say.   

Theoretically, it's also possible to use fusion, rather than fission, to create gold, but the tech to do that isn't quite there yet. And until we can come up with a way to make fusion both safe and sustainable, it's just not going to happen. But on the day that goal is achieved, making gold from other elements just won't matter, given all of the other opportunities that present themselves at the time.

Quote from: Freddy on November 28, 2014, 17:03:17 PM
If science can't explain it, I guess one has the choice to believe in something else.

I would prefer to think that Science hasn't worked out how to explain it yet. Whatever "it" is.

You know what I'm going to type now  

No one has dreamt up the method to explain "it" yet.

I'll get me coat 

 

 

Quote from: DaveMorton on November 28, 2014, 17:09:11 PM
You know, science has shown that alchemy is actually possible, to an extent. A couple of decades ago, a group of scientists at (I think) MIT were able to use high energy neutrons to transform another element into gold. The trouble is that the other element was Platinum (far more expensive than gold), and the process consumed vast amounts of power, so while it was possible, it certainly wasn't practical.

Wiki page. You can make it from Mercury as well as Platinum. Very expensive (energy wise) and the Gold produced is often radioactive.

There will always be the unknown. We must be diligent (as a species) to make sure we don't try to explain the unknown using fancy words (like quantum and homeopathy) and imagine experiments that can test our understanding.

NB
I mention quantum here as mystics often hijack the word to explain nothing. Quantum mechanics is a good use of the word.