The theory of General Relativity was inspired by pure imagination (affected by philosophy) followed by mathematical formulation and then experimental validation.

I think that the most trascendent truths for the life of a person come from history, tradition, deposed truths which are not fruit of successive experimentation and observations in the same or similar conditions necessarily. But other aspects of the life, food, innovation, etc. yes, it could and can be a good way for advancement of science.

The phisical sciences had evolved through the postulation of mathematical theories based on what is known from practice.

Knowledges is the cause of repetitive experiments, not a consequence. The source of sciences is intuition validated by experiment, but I think the limit is the way we define the experiment. 

The theory of General Relativity was inspired by pure imagination (affected by philosophy) followed by mathematical formulation and then experimental validation.

This question ties in with the previous one about saints and heaven.

So yes, as Cristian-Mihai said, scientific discovery consists of some clever intuition, which might also be described as obstinate skepticism about the "common wisdom" of the day, which MUST be followed by experimentation and independent verification of results. This is what makes science different from religion. Claims must be verified, by independent sources. And attributions to supernatural causes cannot be simply proclaimed as fact. (Hence, the tie-in to the previous topic.)

I don't think that history is substantially different. Historical events too have to be corroborated, no? Before they become accepted as historical fact? And certainly, the historical veracity of events can and is constantly challenged, very much like one does with science.

Philosophy attempts to be very rigorous, and yet different philosophers can come to radically different points of view, without any of them being "wrong." Philosophy depends on a rigorous logical thought process, but by the way, that logical process might simply not reflect reality. This is why the scientific method includes independent verification of results. Otherwise, there is a risk that the logically constructed hypotheses, no matter how rigorous and believable, might simply not hold in the real world. So I think philosophy is between science and religion, on matters of scientific rigor.

So, I am in the camp of those who think that the scientific method, which includes experimentation and repeatability of results, is the way humanity builds its base of factual knowledge. But we also have a base of unproven conjecture, speculation, of philosophical models, of religious beliefs, which are also part of the human experience, but do not constitute the factual knowledge aspect of the human experience. And in my view, it is imperative that people remain aware of these differences.

Experiments with ability to replicate are fundamental for knowledge, but not necessarily exhaust the sources thereof. In certain fields of knowledge it has arrived to reductions in solid foundations that allow the formulation of principles and hypotheses that can be operationalized to enable the realization of conclusive and replicable experiments. In other fields of knowledge yet it has not arrived at a consolidation of its conceptual basis for Thereduction of its foundations to a solid single formulation and approach of hypotheses amenable to experimental corroboration. Some of these fields hardly arrive at these stages by the very nature of its object of knowledge, which caters more to the search for explanations of unique events, determined in time and space and with individual and unique circumstances. In these fields of knowledge, experimentation has less and even irrelevant for purposes of accumulation of knowledge and corroboration of hypotheses place.

Experiments will do usually with the specific field of studies. In sport activities we can do repeatly with the same methods with different subject or media

Researches in social sciences are important as well as in natural sciences and technology. As the society is also being complicated and interrelated at present.

Some hundred years back, a village was a complete unit of production. A village was producing all it needed such as food, clothes, utensils etc. Now the nation (moreover the world) is a complete unit of production. Computer hardware is made at one place, software at different, clothes at  different and foods at different.

Therefore researches in both area are required.

Any science without experimentation is like tea without sugar . To formulate a hypothesis and that hypothesis  is tested through standard protocols of experimentation to prove a hypothesis or disprove it . therefore, science will never prosper , if science runs without experimentation .

How far? I would not dare to pinpoint a mileage.

It has problems, sure, and Lyotard outlined them masterfully:

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition : a report on knowledge. Manchesterr: Manchester University Press.

Scientists look at very specific scientific and technological issues and this makes them unable to oversee problems from a wider perspective

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf

Science itself of the subject of experiment & right from oxygen to H2O it has given the experiment interest to the student of school level education.Subsequently it has become the subject of laboratory & being the research original the science has all the time mode with experiment.

All the subject just from History & Geography to literature ,psychology ,philosophy & religion have an important part for the human beings to get the knowledge for the both the natural environment & with the  related subjects to come in closed proximity with the nature & the sky ,SUN,MOON & related planets regularly move in the cosmic environment .

In this line our science join with human being nature,cosmic environment covering in the entire universal .

This is my personal opinion

Science itself of the subject of experiment & right from oxygen to H2O it has given the experiment interest to the student of school level education.Subsequently it has become the subject of laboratory & being the research original the science has all the time mode with experiment.

All the subject just from History & Geography to literature ,psychology ,philosophy & religion have an important part for the human beings to get the knowledge for the both the natural environment & with the  related subjects to come in closed proximity with the nature & the sky ,SUN,MOON & related planets regularly move in the cosmic environment .

In this line our science join with human being nature,cosmic environment covering in the entire universal .

This is my personal opinion

Agree with Prof. Rohit Sir's View.

Dear Albert,

The empirical verification is not only a domain of science. The history and the religion is also based on independent testimonies of witnesses. In fact, I believe that the revision for referees pairs for publishing a paper in a journal is based on the testimonies of two or three witnesses of his credibility and correction. Something based on the Jewish and Christian religions and cultures.

What does empirical verification mean, if the testimonies are from a couple of people that are then published and can be believed or rejected by the rest of the human population. 

Even if the experiment is replicated you not more than double the number of observers, which remains a very tiny fraction of the human population.

I really do not see a substantial difference between 'science' and 'religion' from the believer/non-believer point of view.

It´s the first time that I see a comparision between science and religion, and I am astonished.

Great to be astonished! Think about it!

Dear Talib,

General Relativity: What could it be else than imagination? What is the definition of experimental validation in a vast spatial world that cannot be experimentally manipulated by humans? 

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-how-ligo-forged-the-path-to-victory-1.19382

I would state with 100% certainty that these people have a lot of imagination! Did you see the beauty of the colors?

Cheers

Dear Anoop Srivastava,

I think I understand your point. For me tea should go without sugar as a rule, and the same does not happen to science and experimentation.

An answer of Guillermo Enrique Ramos:

Yes indeed there are other disciplines that do not involve experimental sciences and may be more important to us, like philosophy, theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. Meanwhile, other sciences as economy, medicine, education or sociology, may be in part objects of experimentation but they should be supervised by the sciences mentioned above, because if we do not get them supervised we may end as guinea pigs of the experiments of others.

Limitation in Experimental approach in Social Sciences

https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/policy_briefs_series/pb2013n04.pdf

Dear Mariano,

The reference in Spanish you cited; your strong response to writers here.  If you have such a strong stance, a religious conviction and phobia of experimental science, why do you need to make a question here in RG?

Let me ask you: When a person trust and believe in experimental science and its claims, is h/she automatically against philosophy, theology, metaphysics, and epistemology? I might take for valid many results from experimental science but I do not think that they all (everyone in your view, perhaps)  have an agenda, a dark one, against philosophy, theology, metaphysics, and epistemology.

Are you trying to do a dialectics of experimental science and humanities? To what end? Is it fair or even logical? It seems to me that they are simply two different areas of truth

The fruit of experimental research is the innovations and discovery.The facilities we enjoy today is the product of experimental research , Although virtutal experiments are becoming the order in educational institutions with computer friendly teacher-taught ratios increasing ,the importance of experimental research is worth mentioning

Experimentation is not always possible.   How can we experiment with phenomena that take million of years such as the evolution of new species?  How can we experiment with theory of star evolution?  We are there limited to observations, not experimentation. Observations are also limited.  In social and medical researches , experimentation is limited by ethical considerations.  Experimentation is also limited by cost considerations.  

Dear Brenda

I do not know why my answer appear below Mariano's name.

I do not ignore the great merit of scientist in medicine or nursing. We are very indebted to you and your medical colleagues. My comment is about the same matter that your concluding remarks. Because your clients are actual living human persons, a science as Ethics limiting what may be done to them and what have to be experimented before on other irrational animals, must not be disregarded!.

Dear Guillermo,

I have put your answer with my name. I wanted how ask your inclusion as an answer or your consent to put it, but RG did not admit this possibility of mails for me today. Sincerely,

Mariano

Dear Brenda,

I am not according with free experimentation without ethics or without moral. In the recent history there are many examples of abuses with patients in Africa, prisoners in the Second World War, black and Hispanic people in America, which are documented with perfection in some cases. We must not scorn other knowledges.

No all technically possible is ethically and morally acceptable.

I consider that the experimental science will always be limited in its discipline. With the continuous progress of civilization, the limits in experimentation undoubtedly change, providing the opportunity to confirm (or reject) more theories and hypotheses. But limits will continue to exist. This existence is not necessarily 'bad' and confirms that in our 'limited' world, there is not and there will not be a statistical test/s for everything. Thus, other disciplines e.g. history, as Dr. Mariano Ruiz Espejo referred, are and will continue to be important, more or less, according to personal belief.   

there is a dialectical relation between theory and application experiments, in application field as agriculture we need to result such as parameters of growth from the field, also in social sciences, we need to statistical result such as a referendum, but in philosophy we need to expert thought.

Dear Mariano,

When you say, "The history and the religion is also based on independent testimonies of witnesses," I can partially agree. In my post, I did include history along with science, as requiring independent verification, and as being constantly challenged.

But with religion it's not quite the same thing. We may even have independent verification of the historical event occurring, but we do not have independent verification of the explanations offered by the religious texts. Such as, this event can only have been caused by a supernatural power, and here are the records to prove it. That part is based only on faith.

See Hussein's post above. I totally agree with his point. In philosophy, and in religion (I added the religion part), we do not require verification of results.

Mon cher Marcel, in science, testimonies from a couple of people are not sufficient. Think for example of cold fusion. Everything is questioned, and everything must be independently verified.

Now, it may well be true that the public at large is not verifying everything. It may well be true that the public at large frequently treats science and religion as equally being matters of "faith," but that's just because the layman is not equipped to do the verifying himself (or herself). Still, they can read the independent reports, the results of independent experiments, and even the amount of ambiguity and questioning that may still exist. All of that is in the literature. Religion does not need to meet such criteria.

I agree with Louis.

A lot of science is done by observation without 'experiment'. For example, social science (although not everybody takes it seriously as science) is by systematic observation of social realities. Meta-sociology of Gidden's kind overlaps with philosophy and quite a bit.

There are also research that rely on experiments (e.g. particle physics). It is here that I find Mariano's generalized assumption problematic. If I measure cosmic photons' impact on heavy water and lead, I do not see how my research is problematic against tradition, values etc.? I am not using even animal labs.  

Dear Albert,

Religion does not requires repetitive verifications, for example, of the resurrection and the ascensión near Betania of Jesus Christ. The testimony of his apostles is sufficient, which are compromised with the truth.

However, a science at hands of lying scientists, I think that it is not science. Religion helps to the scientist to do good science. If you indicates the necessity of independent scientists of the truth too, I cannot be according to you. Religion is based on faith and facts. Faith without facts could not save the person always.

“How far do the experimental sciences arrive?”

It depends of the field of knowledge and subjects. Some subjects in some areas can be reachable through fundamental research. In other areas this is practically impossible and experimental research is currently indispensable for the advance of knowledge. In another areas is possible a mix of both. Nevertheless all require, as much as possible, scientific approaches with validation or rejection of hypothesis and confirmation and verification of successive results in an iterative process that minimizes the errors resulting from the approximations considered. Many subjects in Hydraulics are extremely complex and were developed mainly on the basis of experimental research. Turbulence and solid transportation, for example, are not yet (totally) solved. There are several histories known. It is known, for example, that Albert Einstein advised his son for studying physic quantic, instead of solid transportation in rivers, because physic quantic would be much easier. I suspect that areas related with biology and communities of living beings may be even far more complex. In hydraulic engineering, for example, flow resistance laws merely empirical are still currently applied.

This has been one of my scientific concerns since many years ago. See the related RG question

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_empirical_methods_and_correlations_useful_in_the_context_of_the_current_scientific_developments_and_in_the_Engineering_practice_or_other_areas

In terms of experimental science Michael Schrage (2014) wrote an interesting paper on testable ideas being better than good ideas. I think he is right in that respect because testing demonstrably helps understanding proceed. 

https://hbr.org/2014/12/a-testable-idea-is-better-than-a-good-idea

I think that doing correct experimental science based on repetitive experiments is much more difficult than learning the sincere knowledge of the tradition, history, and experience. These things help more and more easily. Only when there are unknown parameters or parametric functions, successive experiments can help to know the unknown.

Looking at liberal arts research, one may observe that the majority of the work goes toward using qualitative methods, while basic sciences and applied sciences are based more on parametric research. Although the philosophy of the research chosen in both fields leads to build up enough outcomes to know more, the factor of time is more on the side of experimentation as for reaching to conclusions and decisions about the concepts faster.

@ all, good response.

The experimental science comes up to where the qualitative begins

The myth of science was born with the Renaissance, when the verbal aristotelian knowledge was  gradually replaced by a logical-mathematical knowledge suitable to formalise the events of nature, and, subsequently, the experimental facts, according to the criterion of the arch of knowledge (Facts, events, generalization, new facts, events, and so forth up to develop a theory). Science, thanks to Newton and Bacon, becomes more and more the place of certainty, replacing the already decadent medieval theology. In our time, the ancient schools of thought that were opposed in the philosophical agorà: idealism/realism (Plato and Aristotle) and scepticism (Gorgia and Protagora) are in our time found respectively in the phenomenological current and in that of analytical philosophy. It is thanks to the latter that science has developed in the sense of "scientific myth": the predominance of technology. The phenomenology instead has assumed the task of investigating the meaning (Bedeutung). They are therefore two sides of the same coin. The paradigm of normal science corresponds to what the old Greeks called téchne, science in deep sense corresponds instead to what old Greeks called epistème, that means ontology, the science of being, the knowledge of die Bedeutung. It has to do with the form, with the qualitative appearance of the world. In this view, experimental science in itself is not suitable to know reality. Experimental science in itself is just adequate to manipulate reality.

Dear Daniele

May you abound in what you means when you wrote about the "scientific myth":  how  this myth may be formulated?

Dear Guillermo,

your question is very important, because, words can often be taken for granted. With the term "scientific myth" I mean the ontological statute of science from Renaissance till our time. Kurt Hübner in his book die Wahrheit des Mythos, München 1985, does distinguish the "ontology of science" and "the ontology of myth". The first is founded on models, the latter is founded on symbols. With the words "scientific myth, I mean that the science has grown into the symbol of every certain truth. Science has become myth. Children after some years of school look at the see, they know that see is water and the water has an atomic structure, and so they lose the magic. They see categories (as synthesis of similars) and don't see more the face of reality (as synthesis of differences). The scientific myth  is a myth empty of magic.

Thank you Daniele for your clarification. I think that the scientific myth is indeed very empty of magic or of savour, but it is also more danger for us than that, because it produces a lack of acknowledgement to the Creator from whom all the good things are originated. It also pretend to be the explanation of all the reallity, when most of the interesting things are out of the field of experimental sciences.

Dear Daniele,

Experimental science is for knowing and for manipulating realities. Knowing them we can manipulate better certain realities. For example, knowing the best method for treating an infection by experimental research, we can elect such method over others to treate future cases of infection. This is natural, knowledge induces optimum experimental treatments. But no all is experimentation. Theoretical knowledge, logic, ethics, unscientific experience, other facts, etc. contribute to the best solution too.

In addition, the experiment has also the role to change / modify “something” via direct intervention of the researcher (a procedure, a risk factor reduction, behaviour change, prevention measures, ergonomics, safety, preservation, etc…). The effort to control the risk is permanent, and solutions come both from observational and from experimental studies, using multidisciplinary / holistic approach. After all, it is about the importance / the hierarchy of the levels of scientific evidence …..      

KDear all, I think that experimental science is only a part of the Science. I did say that in my previous comment. Experimental science can help humanity (I am a MD specialist in anesthesiology and intensive care and I know how much useful are medicine and surgery in healing sick people), but science can also destroy (see the research of new armaments). Above all science creates technology often without knowing the meaning of its procedures. In his last book Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie 1936-37, Husserl affirms that the world stays under the visibility threshold, even when it is filtered through a grid of formal structures. The entities involved are in fact often abstract variables, usually referred to empirical objects (except for the case of quantum mechanics with its formal self-consisting networks) and defined through algorithms (statistical-probabilistic, logical-cybernetic or anyway derived from a particular choice of models). The nature is hidden behind algorithms, behind theories... On the contrary, the mesocosmic sphere represents the level where thought and perception can meet to bring to light the form considered as a symbol within consciousness. In the sense used by Goethe, the archetypal phenomena are those events that immediately reveal the ideal content of nature to us. They can be found directly in nature, as the magnet, or they must be brought to reveal themselves through the scientific experiment, whose object is to arrange them, as the signs of an ancient language, in runes apt to express their symbolic content directly. As for the runes, also for the forms of nature the means by which they are produced do not matter so much; their arrangement rather is relevant, the semantic relationships that constitutes them. Morphology, phenomenology represent the other part of the Science, the qualitative part, the part that brings to light the meaning, the sense...

The love is the most great experience for the human being. The experimental sciences are important but they are not the most great milestone of humankind.

Dear Mariano,

I totally agree with you, but if science was really, as philosophy in ancient time, an experience of  "thaumazein", then you could go in a forest feeling to be in a tale or in a legend. This has to do with love.

Mariano,Daniele,

Love is opening to love one and only through this opening communication with the love take place and only then can some revelation can occur.  Empathic love is essential in human relation but also for significant scientific discovery of nature or for anykind of artistic creation. 

Yes dear Louis also for scientific discovery of nature and for any artistic creation love is essential. Scientists who build weapons or make experiments to lobbies of power, with the purpose of producing money, are not real scientists, not love nature, do not have epistemological awareness...

Dear Daniele,

Although creation comes from Love unfortunatly can be used by hate, i.e. the shutting down of Love.  We can do both; it is our Nature to do both.  But when we betray Love we kill ourself , we self-destroy ourself litteraly.  Soldiers that are forced to do that and come back from war are very often unable to feel anything and are profoundly wounded.  But not only solders shutt down love, we are constantly pressure to do that in our daily life.  Instead of feeling and loving things we are forced to see them through the utilitarian societal mind and to do that we very often have to shutt down our own real feeling of the situation.  The constant repetition of this shutting down of our interior life and killing us, producting all kind of cancers and desease in our bodies and pushing life out of it.  All the societies on earth are profoundly sick, pushing humans to go against Nature which is to love each other.  Husserl and many other person of his time in 1938 felt the coming killing field because he felt the profound sickness of his society.  Nowaday the situation has got much worse, the earth is sick as well, life on earth is rapidly exterminated, and the era of mass migration aways from poverty, wars and desperation is only beginning and the only way out of this is to feel this sickness that is killing us.

Dear Louis I totally agree with you and i could not find better words than yours...

The experience of be loved is better than the experience of know more. For this, an experimental science without love is a monster.

I would say a science without spirit is a monster. 

Dear Talib,

in the case of both special and general relativity Einstein used the same deductive method used by Galileo and Keplero that  dates back to the Platonic mathematics and the pythagorean: imagination, mathematical thought, experimental verification. Unlike the science of normal paradigm derives from the method of Newton and Bacon, i.e. the method of' arch of knowledge that represents an inductive method, named empirical induction: facts, generalization, other facts up to build a theory. 

Dear Daniele,

I would say a science without good spirit is a monster. Because there are bad spirits who create monsters in science. Thanks.

Dear Daniele,

I think special relativity was stimulated by  Michelson–Morley experiment result. 

Dear Talib, I agree with you, but I did think only of the general method of the great Einstein...

Dear Mariano, I totally agree with you, There are spirits called, in the Tradition, "Asuras" that are in action just in our time, they are "powers of obstacle" and they kill the human spirit. Materialists will laugh for this my consideration, but only a true epistemological consciousness can help scientists to find the correct way.

Dear Daniele,

I believe in the Church tradition which teaches the Holy Spirit or the "spirit of the truth". Other bad spirits are of the rebellious angels against God, they are condemned for their rebellion, unservice to God and homicide spirit. The demon and other followers are an example of this. But other angels are to service of God and love to humans as the guardian angel of each one of us according to the words and teaching of Jesus.

We must find the relation with these spirits in our own life and consciousness. Experimental science is not only an individual ideal of knowledge, but is a system where knowledge, manipulation of nature, lobbies of secret power, politics are connected together. A research needs money... and this is the key  to understand the develpment of knowledge through science... Any way with Tradition I mean the secret tradition, like Templarism, Rosicrucianism and, in our time,  Anthroposophy. I surely don't mean Catholicism, for which I have the greatest respect... Anthroposophy is no more a secret tradition society, but a kind of knowledge totally free and with a rigorous methodology, for that in german is named Geisteswissenschaft (Science of Spirit).

Developing an experiment depends on various variables and protocols, each has limits

http://www.hometrainingtools.com/media/reference/science-fair-guide.pdf

The Michelson-Morley experiment is only one of several factors that put

Einstein on the way to the special theory. I recommend the following article to elaborate on this:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.1545.pdf  

Experimental sciences could be unlimited, but the life of the man over this world is limited, and hence, his experimental science is also limited for each man. So, put all his hope in something limited does not seem intelligent of all when there are other knowledges and traditions which talk of eternal salvation, for example. And proofs of this there are.

Popper in 1978, in a lecture, described his theory of three worlds,  the world of physical objects and events,  the world of mental objects and events,  objective knowledge. moreover In an interview that Popper gave in 1969, he said : "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." We may call this way of thinking "tolerance" and "broadmindedness". Many scientists, with their fanaticism for expermintal science as the only kind ov knowledge, often forget the depth of spirit. It seems that for Popper "Do not take the name of God in vain" is more important than the "not falsifiability" of the existence of God

Dear Daniele,

Religion is based on persons and facts, also in beliefs derived of them, but not on ideas only.

Dear Mariano,

I think to have been unclear. I know that religion and generally "spirituality" Is based on person and fact, but do not forget what Paul says of faith and works, don't forget the scholasticism of Thomas of Aquin. If a kantian philosopher as Popper said "However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." That shows a tendency to feel (not only to think) respect and this kind of feeling has to do also with the relation with the other! 

Dear Daniele,

One of the first things that Jesus preached is "Convert you and believe you in the Gospel". I think that the religion begins with this fact of conversion to the Gospel, and does not begin with theoretic discussions about religion or religions, philosophies, or other preachers. Scientific experimentation does not guide to conversion directly, but to work for getting some knowledges. But, I think, the best knowledge we must not forget is the teaching of God. Science could be limited and approximate, but the wisdom of God has not got limits and is secure and perfect.

Dear Mariano,

your original question concerns with the limits of experimental science. Barbara Sawicka explained very well how experimental science works. Conversion is a totally different  experience and it has to do with Erlebnis, that is the interior experience we live in our conscience, in our soul. It is true that for many scientists experimental science has the structure of a conversion and they forget other kinds of experience and of knowledge, like art, philosophy and so on...

Dear all:

I am somewhat baffled by this discussion. I went to visit Mariano's profile and saw that he is not familiar with the "hard sciences" to which this question is addressed. Maybe that is the reason for the confusion of terms and experiences here, like trying to mix apples and oranges. 

Science and religion do not mix either on method or on the object of proof. Science is based on experimentation and hard evidence, and religion is based on prayer and belief. I see nothing wrong with that. The thing is that scientists can usually separate their beliefs from their science when they are devising an experiment and when interpreting their results, while, according to what I have read here, religious believers have a hard time separating religion from anything else. Einstein's words about god are not part of his experiment notes or his theoretical papers. His religious phrases are part of his public manifestations or diary comments. Apparently Einstein was able to separate his science from his beliefs.

Mariano's idea of "conversion" worried me. As Wittgenstein famously said in his Philosophical Investigations, feelings and emotional/spiritual experiences cannot be conveyed to an other, as neither pain, love, etc, or can only be expressed through a language that is already coded in order to be comprehensible to others. Religious experiences are famously unspeakable, as my multiple readings of mystical literature have shown me time and again. Science deals with the material, with that which anyone can see, with results anyone may understand if properly trained in that specific science. Any narrative of spiritual experience must be believed by the listener and there is no way of telling if the person narrating the story is telling the truth. It so happens that there is no truthworthy evidence of those experiences.

Besides, all experiments start with an hypothesis, followed by the devising of an experiment, then go to experimentation and then to examining and interpreting results. If the repeated experiment has repeated results, then we might have a theory, and eventually, a law. As you, see, any and all experiments derive from a thought, are guided by thought, and its results are interpreted by thought. Nothing we do is excepted from the action of thinking and decision-making. We can even decide not to decide. So, there is no separation between thought and experimentation. That division is false.

And thank you dear Barbara for your precise description of the experimental method.

In short, it is not fair for science and religion to exchange their methods, objects of inquiry or modes of confirmation. I do not agree with the Idea that when science stops, God comes in. No, when science falls short, it must keep on working for the betterment of humanity devising a better experiment or going back to interpret its results in some other scientific way. Let religion comfort and console the lonely, the ill, the poor, and let science do its work of searching for cures, finding better sociological ways to combat poverty, and finding a better psychological method to restore a person to society. To each, its own. 

Sorry for the typos.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear all:

As a reader of history, I find that religion has caused more deaths than anything else in the world. Scientists do not hate non-scientists as as religious people hate non-believers. I find this long discussion intriguing. What I see behind it is the impossition of religious belief at all cost, and not of any religion, but of Catholicism, to which we owe recent persecution and the killing of so many bright minds. I do not see love here, but just raw power and intransigence. I really do not belong here. This is like talking to a wall. I believe in God, but I do not need to force others into believing. People who are forced to believe will never believe. Free will should be able to protect all the people who want to be free from religion. Religion should not manifest itself as harassment.  

Lilliana

Dear Lilliana,

The conversion and believe in the Gospel is not my idea, it is a commandment of Jesus in the begining of his preaching. Thank you very much for your points of view.

I do not see that Catholicism is coactive in anywhere. Catholicism respects the personal will always. This is not common in many other religions or sects which need of coactive methods with the persons. When they need these methods, it is an index of its falsity because the truth is freely understandable and does not require coactive treats to be understood.

Dear Daniele,

The conversion is not for the limits of experimental science. For God, it urges our conversion. It is not necessary to arrive to the limits of his/her science for the conversion of a person.

To bring Jesus into the realm of science is your idea, Mariano.People cannot be forced to believe, nor can be condemned by anyone because of not believing.

Lilliana 

I totally agree with Lilliana, Mariano does mix up two plans of reality that cannot be mixed up. Thomas of Aquin did try to analyze chatolic doctrine using the most rigorous rationality. But he used the thought. Conversion has to do with personal experience

Dear Barbara and Daniele,

The experimental sciences do not prove hypothesis, only they test them. This signifies that scientific experimentation is subject to two types of errors: accept a false hypothesis. and reject a true hipothesis.

Conversion is a more secure way because one confides in the God word and believing in it one gets the salvation, according to Jesus word. And God does not lie, He cannot lie us.

Dear Mariano,

how can you be "sure" that your conversion is not an illusion?

Dear Daniele,

I can be sure of my conversion for my consciousness. However, how can you be sure of an affirmation of experimental sciences?

You can be sure of a good transmission of the God word (the Catholic Church does great efforts for it), of logic (when the reasoning is correct), etc. but is it possible say the same thing of experimental sciences? I think no.

Dear Mariano,

all we are closed in our own conscience, and we are aware of that, after kantian critical philosophy and also more after idealism. This is the problem of the so called solipsism.

Only perception can be the starting point of knowledge. As for experimental science I can only believe in empirical results, not of necessity in theories... but this is a diffficult epistemological problem...

Dear Daniele,

The experimental science is based on theories, it needs of them to say anything about the reality with scientific treatment. The conversion needs a good information of the God will, and act according with it; our conscientiousness cannot lie us in this conversion.

For this, it is important to be sincere and search, consult, ask, etc. to find the God will. I do not understand to dedicate all the life to science and do not dedicate time to know the God will. Sincerely, I cannot understand it.

Dear Lilliana,

People cannot be forced, the Catholic church does not force to anyone. But the resurrected Jesus word said that who believes and is baptized will be saved; and who does not believe will be condemned. And in other part of the Gospel, Jesus said that we will be judged for His word. I was and am believer before scientist.

Jesus is not only a man without divinity because his glorious resurrection is a proof of his divinity for the Christians and for all sincere person. His word is the most credible, more than the word of other person in the world.

dear Mariano,

you are really stainless

Dear Daniele,

I am a man as yourself are.

The experimental sciences, as human form, are limited. But with the will of God and following his ways we can have an unlimited life. Why do we have to be limited to the finite and we do not open us to the great and unlimited? In the Catholic Church this is possible, to be open to the eternal life with Jesus. This does not exempt of our responsabilities in our family, work, etc.

Dear Colleagues

Let me share with you a quote of a philosopher that may illuminate our discusion:

"How Many Scientists can dance on the Top of a Pillar

It seems to me that these days many a modern intellectual has abandoned the house of wisdom and set up his camp on top of but one of its pillars, like a modern-day secular St. Simon Stylites (a fifth-century ascetic who lived for thirty-seven years atop a small platform on a pillar!). By this I refer to the worship of science, and science in the restricted sense of 'that which the folks with the lab coats, beakers, microscopes, and telescopes do.' Some have called this scientism, a belief that science can address all questions relevant to human living. This is the view of science that feeds into the science-versus-religion debates, complete with bestselling books by scientists moving outside the fields of their expertise to attack religious beliefs (and believers) as gullible and puerile (if not insane and dangerous).

There are actually two fields outside their expertise that modern atheistic scientists wander into when they propagandize for worldly wisdom and deny that the wisdom of God exists. The first field is religion itself. Many set up ancient straw men to blow to pieces with their nuclear-era scientific arguments, because they lack both the knowledge and understanding of that which they attack. My heading here, mind you, is a play on the classic taunt that medieval scholastic theologians spent vast amounts of time and energy trying to figure out how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. (I 've yet to come across this angelic dilemma in the Summa Theologica, although since angels are spiritual, rather than material beings, I doubt the scholastics would have thought that the question made much sense.)

To attack religion, scientists often enter a second field outside of their expertise. It is sometimes completely ignored, and it is most directly relevant to the intellectual virtue of wisdom. This field is philosophy, the very word meaning, 'the love of wisdom.'

Science can tell us how things work and whether we can control them. It cannot tell us whether we should control them. Science can tell us how to make bombs, but it cannot tell us whether and when we should use them. Science can tell us that human life begins at conception, but it cannot tell us whether it is right to end that life. Science is not self-reflective; it cannot judge itself. For this, we need philosophy. We need a field that looks at the big picture, that looks for reasons and meanings and purposes, as well as the causes and effects; that looks at what we ought to do, as well as what can do; seeking out what is true, and good, and beautiful." (From: Unearthing your ten talents. By Kevin Vost ).

1 Corinthians 3,20:

Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthians this text of the Scripture: "The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that it is useless".

What is useful is the wisdom of God.

Buddha's realization message is that living should be by embracing sympathy and a deep concern for the poor and the oppressed, in favour of the equality and abused the caste system.

http://www.ancient.eu/Siddhartha_Gautama/

Prophet Isaiah, who was born around the year 765 before Jesus Christ, announced the liberation of oppressed, the view to the blind, etc. and Jesus said that these prophecies were complimented with Him (Luke 4,16-22).

Buddha was born between years 563-483 before Jesus Christ. See the link.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda_Gautama

Historically there are two ways, the way of Peter, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the way of Johannes, the individual form of Christianity, which is linked to the ancient Mysteries. This last way is an esoteric way. It is represented for example by Templarism, Rosicrucianism and in our time by Anthroposophy. I belog to this second way, I am a Christian but not through a conversion, but through a sort of call. The new Mysteries use the thought and the spiritual self-consciousness not the psychological one, they not depart as Catholicism from the heart but they arrive to heart through the spiritual self-awareness. This kind of Christianity is a Geisteswissenschaft, a science of spirit. Dear Mariano I respect your conviction. But I do not understand why you do not differentiate between the objective plan of which deals with science, not seeking the equation of God, but is limited to producing technology, and the subjective plane to which belongs the conversion as well as the vision of the world and the research of meaning.

Dear Daniele,

The conversion is an objective way. For example, it is complimented with the sacrament of the Baptism or of Christian iniciation which is public and with witnesses, objective too.

Say "I am Christian" and "I do not believe in the word of Jesus Christ" is a contradiction, and in this there is not any mystery. Jesus put to Peter as the basis of his Church, tradition which arrives today to Francis, his successor.

The equations are human forms, not of God. Jesus Christ told clearly of conversion and to believe in the Gospel as the begining to entry in the Kingdom of God. This requires to be as a child without complications but pure and simple, humble. This is the unique way to follow to God.

Science is human form as itself is limited, but the Kingdom of God is unlimited.

this is the chatolic point of view, Gospel chatolic interpretation for me is not important. Others read Gospel from an esoteric point of view. Don't confuse Jesus with Christ...! I believe in Christ not in the Church with its dogmas. Roman Chatolic Church did persecute heretics and in Vatican wisdom the jewish people were obliged to be converted till the second half of IX century... Conversion? We must search "αλήθεια", ie, the "Not-hiding".

Dear Daniele,

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If you would believe in Jesus Christ, you would believe in the Church and its dogmas, because Jesus Christ gave power to the Church to do such things. You can read it in the authentic Gospels transmitted by the Catholic Church.

You talk of the Church as if the persecuted Church since the begining and their people could not defend of precedent persecutions or systematic attacks against the most pacific Catholic people. And what religion or politician does not treate of convince with these or other worse methods. See the defect of the almost perfect and do silence of the multiple defects of others is not to be objective.