Joke's on you, IQ does not measure intelligence. However you're right on the labmonkey part. Science can never give objective knowledge about reality, it can only offer new ways of creating mechanisms, industrial processes, weapons, etc. The scientist is just a monkey looking in the dark for new bananas (that might not even be there) for the engineer to peel so the businessman/government can eat the fruit.
Richard Phillips Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics. For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world.
Feynman's family originated from Russia and Poland; both of his parents were Jewish. Richard Feynman believed, that existence of a God is a "consistent possibility": "A young man, brought up in a religious family, studies a science, and as a result he comes to doubt – and perhaps later to disbelieve in – his father's God. Now, this is not an isolated example; it happens time and time again. This young man has learned a little bit and thinks he knows it all, but soon he will grow out of this sophomoric sophistication and come to realize that the world is more complicated, and he will begin again to understand that there must be a God. This young man really doesn't understand science correctly. I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God – an ordinary God of religion — a consistent possibility?"
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. -- Richard Feynman
"Objective" is a buzzword. Science is an applied statistics. Science can tell you that under conditions C, proposition P holds N times out of M. Everything else is interpretation and religion.
>>8 Truth is above, superior, and existent unlike probability and ``facts''. Not only do you insult your beloved science but you show it for what it truly is. Nothing more than probabilities of lowly physical phenomena. This is a recent post-modernist view though as physics (the only truly valuable and supreme science) is objective and factual and does not operate on probabilities though it still is nothing more than the study of lowly physical phenomena. How do you expect to show the mind, sentience, intelligence, has anything to do with brains beyond that of being like a radio receiver with your idiotic probabilities and statistics? You cant. Your subjectivity and relativism is false, as there is an objective reality with a physical sub-aspect (not the main or only aspect) that can be peered into by minds (human, alien, intelligences, etc) and discovered. As we can see there is a thing known as Reason (that seems to be unknown to you) that allows this to happen, there is no ``interpretation'' or ``religion'' here, only Reason. This is known as Philosophy (and its child Pure Mathematics) and it deals with Truth and not your arbitrary probabilities and facts. Science is overrated. Everything else is retards like you. You clearly aren't a Lisp programmer.
>>13 I think Gravity was severely ``overrated''. I get that it's some foreign director shooting it, and had some great takes, but it was very ``cliched''.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-25 6:30
>>8 Science can't tell if the Universe is just a simulation on someone's computer. It can't tell what the purpose of the Universe is, it can't tell what the true interpretation of events is, it can't give an objective basis for judgement of good and bad. And your shitty applied statistics are precisely just a means for creating new industrial processes, materials, weapons, etc. I.e. new approaches that engineers can turn into practically-applicable and mass-produced goods and services.