Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Salam


What do you understand under "Science"? What is "Scientific Thinking"? What is the "Scientific Process"? What are the variables and elements involved in the process of Science? 

 

What i ultimately want to get to (other than the standard answers you can find on the internet - but are nonetheless very important ), is that there is nothing called fact in science. Everything are theories, hypotheses etc. These are humble expressions, that don't claim to know, but they think they might know based on direct proof. I use this way of thinking in religion and life. Not let the beliefs and outlooks stray too far from direct evidence or observation.

In the end this should get us closer to Allah, and increase our intelligence. Words like Dogma are used in science today, but it actually goes against the essence of science, which is a never-ending process of growth and understanding. Ilm or knowledge are beyond important in Islam. How can we make the true ilm scientific while it is in line with Islam?

 

All the best.

 

wasalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

does the heart pump blood?

 

which heart? the one of the dead man? Or the one described in the quran as being center of understanding? 

this is a heart

 

giphy.gif

 

is it pumping blood? or air?

 

Quote
oun 1. scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

 

science is about accuracy, being specific and detailed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, peace seeker II said:

most human beings are dead . 

 

you must ask me:

does the heart pump blood in a physically living human being (aka clinically alive)?

 

this way you are more accurate, precise and closer to forcing me to answer your question with a yes

is it a fact that the heart pump blood in a physically living human being (aka clinically alive)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's close to being a fact as we know it, but to be technically 100% correct this is only true part of the time, because hearts only pump at an interval of about one pump a second, while the rest of the time they are not pumping.

A scientific "fact" is never final

Are you the only person on here interested in talking about this subject? Masha Allah!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peace seeker II said:

It's close to being a fact as we know it, but to be technically 100% correct this is only true part of the time, because hearts only pump at an interval of about one pump a second, while the rest of the time they are not pumping.

A scientific "fact" is never final

Are you the only person on here interested in talking about this subject? Masha Allah!!!!

Is it a fact that the heart pumps blood rhythmically (approximately once a second) in a physically living human being (aka clinically alive)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is closer to a fact based on our knowledge. Yet to be even more sure we must prove through observation with repeatable experiments. Get 10 humans and perhaps inject them with markers in the blood. See the position over time to establish whether pumping is taking place (while proving somehow that it's the heart responsible for the displacement: some ultrasound study perhaps looking at the contraction happening), then take samples from the vessels around the heart and prove it is blood via the microscope. Study the shape of components in blood such as blood cells. 

Then publish the results in order of hypothesis method results discussion conclusion. 

 

It might sound absurd to make all this for something so simple, but this is the scientific method. In the end it's up to the reader of your paper to believe it as fact or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peace seeker II said:

That is closer to a fact based on our knowledge. Yet to be even more sure we must prove through observation with repeatable experiments. Get 10 humans and perhaps inject them with markers in the blood. See the position over time to establish whether pumping is taking place (while proving somehow that it's the heart responsible for the displacement: some ultrasound study perhaps looking at the contraction happening), then take samples from the vessels around the heart and prove it is blood via the microscope. Study the shape of components in blood such as blood cells. 

Then publish the results in order of hypothesis method results discussion conclusion. 

 

It might sound absurd to make all this for something so simple, but this is the scientific method. In the end it's up to the reader of your paper to believe it as fact or not.

You realise theres literally millions (tens of millions?) of individuals such as doctors and scientists who have been observing the heart pumping blood for thousands of years?

Do you also know that hospitals exist, where its observed every day?

Do you also know the Masumeen (as) mentioned the heart pumps blood in hadith?

So is it a fact or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, peace seeker II said:

It's close to being a fact as we know it, but to be technically 100% correct this is only true part of the time, because hearts only pump at an interval of about one pump a second, while the rest of the time they are not pumping.

I think you do not know what a pump is and how it works.  A pump, by definition, pushes/pulls at intervals. If it doesn't do that, it is a steady force, not a pump.

 

In your proposed test, how would you know the ultrasound results aren't intentionally fake or perhaps measuring something else entirely and being misinterpreted. How would that be more reliable than the reports of hundreds of thousands of doctors who have actually seen living hearts beating and pushing the blood through veins? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Science" is based on measurement and observation.

A "fact" cannot exceed what is observed which may or may not be measure. Example: lights in the night sky is a fact named stars. The magnitude of a star is measured.

The difference between a science and philosophy is that a science is self-correcting.

Then there are meaningful questions related to science. For example: Newton postulated F=ma. Now describe F without using m or a (or the gravitational equivalent, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i too agree that science is very deceiving, there is a lot of conjecture in science , and usually whatever opinion is held as the status quo is held by majority , and this is very anti scientific 

you look at all the theories that were ever discovered or proposed at some point , they were almost all met with resistance by "scientists" because they did not want to break away from the status quo

a new way of thinking , change is what they didnt want , and i personally believe alot of progress is actually blocked by people for this very same reason , it still comes down to opinion 

a lot of things that are measured can be ambiguous, for example in recent days the gravitational waves were detected  at the LIGO set up, however in the past LIGO has actually faked signals which is a known fact in order to get funding because they were losing all funding and didnt want to get shut down, so they faked a signal 

another thing is that the readings that they got recently, even if it is from out of space, the signal was from such a long way away that in reality it could be anything, my physics professor said that it could be from two supernovas instead of two black holes, because they have a very similar reading output from such long distances and furthermore it could even be something totally different 

also they were from what is known as  a"dirty black hole" which doesnt have an "event horizon" 

but even more importantly how do we know its not from one of the things in dark matter or dark energy? or gravitational waves? or gamma rays? or anything else , what do we know is out there? anything could be out there that we have no idea about , literally we are like a dark person in a dark room touching things and trying to make sense of them

data can be made to look like how you want it to look like , just think of simple examples where this can be applied , they always "miss" to tell you the stuff which goes against their data, they always hide that information, and just present to you what they want you to see and think 

it would be like as if we decide to test a fishing spot for example, and we only catch 25 fish, but we fail to say that over what period we caught it, we just say , in all our attempt we caught 25 fish and to the undiscerning mind , they wont think to question it 

scientists can be very dodgy and have hidden agendas and purposes, dont think because they are scientists that they are all honest 

they have their own beliefs that at least sub consciously they push onto others 

so bottom line is that in reality nothing can be trusted until the actual proof is given in front of you which can be repeated and tested by anyone and everyone 

Edited by neverforgotten313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

two years ago, they declared black holes dont exist, and now they are saying that they are detecting gravitational waves from them , it just goes to show that they change their minds and then look for the data to prove their claim 

instead of the data to dictate what is really happening, which with black holes is very difficult cause what your detecting could be anything, but if you go with "assumptions" and enough data is "found" to support your case, then the conclusion must be true, which actually could be far from the truth 

thats like me saying "all Asians are bad drives" and i go and find the data to support my hypothesis, and hence my conclusion could be made as "true" , same thing is happening here, we cant trust these things until it is reproducible and re-creatable, by anyone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" What do you understand under "Science"? What is "Scientific Thinking"? What is the "Scientific Process"? What are the variables and elements involved in the process of Science?  "

 

A lot of questions and they need to be addressed individually and in pieces, and later on we put all the answers and conclusions together. 

Each question will carry a tag. The first tag "1" is for "What do you understand under "Science"?. I will answer it based on my experience with life and it will not have, as you requested, "standard answers". 

Note: Your first question is very different than others as it refers to the pronoun "you". This means that human experience needs to be included. We, as humans, are given tools in the biological sense. These tools can be used to understand what it is going on around you. Indeed, you are, peace seeker, is very different than other creatures in terms your capacity of using your tools. Other creatures may have same tools as what you have, but still cant beat you in thinking and they will never. A group of monkeys will never spell the "constitution" word alone. Look at your self, you have 2 eyes, 2 ears and one mouth. These tools are "meant" to make you doing something by using them.  So, the first question should be asked is this: Why do we have such a universe and all of these tools in our body and why are  we superior relative to other creatures? Then, science's importance comes. Science tries to answer this question by discovering the hidden tools and also tries to answer this question: "why do we exist and why do we do this and that...etc" ?. Although science is a "way" to have a better knowledge but it misses something... Sorry I need to sleep now. 

Edited by Gold_Love

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam alaikum

 

the more recent comments by siblings Golden Love and neverforgotten313 show quality thinking and intention mashAllah. They seem to understand more what this thread was getting at, and use it as a springboard for thought.

 

It is true that most if not all scientists are subjective (biased) and even politically motivated. We see that most obviously with the theory of evolution that is supposed to smash the truth of Adam and Eve. If you go to most people and tell them Adam and Eve were the first humans, they will most likely react very hostile. Unless they are firm believers, but usually don,t have much understanding behind this belief. Not many scientists trying to research in that other direction. Here is one of the only people RIP who scientifically looks at things rather than being brainwashed by scholars:

 

 

 

Then, of course as was mentioned, the tools must be defined and given reason for. As muslims we must use these tools specifically as a worship of Allah. If we are aware of this, we will stop ourselves from trolling, bickering, and being argumentative.

 

Also a very important point raised, is that just because majority is 100% convinced that something is a "fact", it does not make it so. In science there is no space for subjectiveness, or things like "obviously this and that". Science treats everything equally, and does not mock attempts to prove the obvious. What may be obvious to some (like in Religious eschatology)  is far from obvious to others. And science is not biased, or prejudiced. 

 

thanks for answers, and look forwards to more .. in sha Allah.

 

fi amanilah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists are "subjective" because they pursue very narrow questions.

As to "fact", in the early days of nuclear physics, Niels Bohr always began his lectures with,

"Every sentence that l utter should be regarded by you not as an assertion but as a question."

Jacob Bronowski who recited this added, " There is no absolute knowledge, ... All information is imperfect."

Edited by hasanhh
Looked up quotation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah exactly brother hasanhh .. the title of the knowledgeable .. or al alim, belongs to God .. so there is something to the quote of "i know that i know nothing" .. but technically speaking he should,t know that either .. because knowing that is something.  But Allah is the keeper of secrets, the knowing, the knower of the hidden, and so on ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×