The argument of whether or not God exists has been going on for some time. However, I have never seen anyone atempt to present reason for the existence of God in an organized fashion using the scientific method. And seldom have i seen the same for the opposite side. If the existence of God cannot be proven using the scientific method, then as far as I'm concerned, God does not exist.
PaulBored: Your problem seems to be that "the scientific method" is your "god". If you ever decide to do things God's way, then you'll have all the proof you'll need. If not, well...enjoy your "god".
Science cannot address anything immaterial, untestable or unverifiable such as the spiritual or that based upon myth and superstition. If it could be, then many would have already provided evidence one way or another.
Science is not a god. No one prays to science. There is no church of science (the cult scientology not withstanding). Science is continuing to undergo self evaluation and correct.
All of these place science outside of the realm and practices associated with gods, deities and/or of religion. The only reason theists claim that science or evolution is a religion is an attempt to level the playing field so that religion and science are considered equally valid points of view from opposing sides.
The simple fact is that religion cannot compete with science or the pursuit of knowledge since religious adherence would result in stagnation of learning and research. After all, why research that which is addressed by the religion as the domain of the religion's deity or deities?
QUOTE
PaulBored: Your problem seems to be that "the scientific method" is your "god". If you ever decide to do things God's way, then you'll have all the proof you'll need. If not, well...enjoy your "god".
Science is not a god. No one prays to science. There is no church of science (the cult scientology not withstanding). Science is continuing to undergo self evaluation and correct.
All of these place science outside of the realm and practices associated with gods, deities and/or of religion. The only reason theists claim that science or evolution is a religion is an attempt to level the playing field so that religion and science are considered equally valid points of view from opposing sides.
The simple fact is that religion cannot compete with science or the pursuit of knowledge since religious adherence would result in stagnation of learning and research. After all, why research that which is addressed by the religion as the domain of the religion's deity or deities?
QUOTE
The argument of whether or not God exists has been going on for some time. However, I have never seen anyone atempt to present reason for the existence of God in an organized fashion using the scientific method. And seldom have i seen the same for the opposite side. If the existence of God cannot be proven using the scientific method, then as far as I'm concerned, God does not exist.
The fact is science can't disprove god. What science can do is attempt to quantify the 'actions' of god. As was done by the study with praying on heart transplant (?) patients. However what does this tell us? To me it says, if there is a god, he did not make a significant statistical contribution to this group of patients who were being prayed for. And what does this say about the existance of god? Absolutely nothing! What does this say about the actions of god? That statistically they were insignificant. But from what I know about god, is that he helps individuals, for.....well, reasons that I have no clue about. From that knowledge you can't predict if there would be a significant statistical contribution. Science could in essence find out gods 'actions' with us, but I think it would be way to hand wavy to have any value anyways.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The argument of whether or not God exists has been going on for some time. However, I have never seen anyone atempt to present reason for the existence of God in an organized fashion using the scientific method. And seldom have i seen the same for the opposite side. If the existence of God cannot be proven using the scientific method, then as far as I'm concerned, God does not exist. |
The fact is science can't disprove god. What science can do is attempt to quantify the 'actions' of god. As was done by the study with praying on heart transplant (?) patients. However what does this tell us? To me it says, if there is a god, he did not make a significant statistical contribution to this group of patients who were being prayed for. And what does this say about the existance of god? Absolutely nothing! What does this say about the actions of god? That statistically they were insignificant. But from what I know about god, is that he helps individuals, for.....well, reasons that I have no clue about. From that knowledge you can't predict if there would be a significant statistical contribution. Science could in essence find out gods 'actions' with us, but I think it would be way to hand wavy to have any value anyways.
All of these place science outside of the realm and practices associated with gods, deities and/or of religion. The only reason theists claim that science or evolution is a religion is an attempt to level the playing field so that religion and science are considered equally valid points of view from opposing sides.
And that is completely ridiculous because they don't even address the same questions. Science wants to know how things work, how we came to be, etc.... and religion tells us why....and teaches us about morality. Trying to make them comparable is just dumb.
QUOTE
The simple fact is that religion cannot compete with science or the pursuit of knowledge since religious adherence would result in stagnation of learning and research. After all, why research that which is addressed by the religion as the domain of the religion's deity or deities?
This isn't true in all cases. If both are practiced the right way, they do not interfere with one another, and can even aid one another. The common notion of the electric field, with its circularish field lines was directly influenced by Faraday's religious conviction. It seems to me a lot of people expect to much out of certain things. Like science should be the answer to everyone of life's questions.....or that religion should be the answer to everyone of life's questions. Its not neccessary for something to hold all of the answers!
You are correct Steveo.
I should have been more specific in my post. The research I consider that would be in conflict with religion would be along the line of biomedical research fields. There exists today religions where operations are considered against the wishes of god. Also consider genetic research, the use of animals in biomedical and biotech research, GM foods and stem cell research.
As far as needing all the answers, how many here have stated both the recognition and comfort with the fact that we are not in possession of all the answers? How many need a worldview that is complete be it with science, religion or both? I understand the all too human need for perceived order and structure to one’s existence. I just think there is a better way to view the world without having to complete certain aspect of it especially in the area of “meaning”.
I should have been more specific in my post. The research I consider that would be in conflict with religion would be along the line of biomedical research fields. There exists today religions where operations are considered against the wishes of god. Also consider genetic research, the use of animals in biomedical and biotech research, GM foods and stem cell research.
As far as needing all the answers, how many here have stated both the recognition and comfort with the fact that we are not in possession of all the answers? How many need a worldview that is complete be it with science, religion or both? I understand the all too human need for perceived order and structure to one’s existence. I just think there is a better way to view the world without having to complete certain aspect of it especially in the area of “meaning”.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Science is not a god.
GeneSplicer: Here we go, again. I never said that "science is a god". Here is what I said:
And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered.
And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered.
As far as needing all the answers, how many here have stated both the recognition and comfort with the fact that we are not in possession of all the answers? How many need a worldview that is complete be it with science, religion or both? I understand the all too human need for perceived order and structure to one’s existence. I just think there is a better way to view the world without having to complete certain aspect of it especially in the area of “meaning”.
Its interesting, often scientists are pegged as the people who NEED all of the answers....I don't need any of the answers, but I want them. If I can't get them I will be ok. It seems that others, often not scientists NEED answers though.
NewGuy,
Fine, then lets be uber specific. Scientific method of research and verification by multiple sources following the research processes and steps the original researcher followed are used where? Science in general, be it the various type of research.
Either way, science or the tools of science are not god(s). Science is not science without the scientific method(s). That’s like saying your are a devoutly religious person but are totally devoid of faith of any kind.
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
Its interesting, often scientists are pegged as the people who NEED all of the answers....I don't need any of the answers, but I want them. If I can't get them I will be ok. It seems that others, often not scientists NEED answers though.
I’ve met research engineers who could easily be classified as having a need to find the answers, but that was what motivated them into the field to begin with.
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
G.S.:
I think I'm with Steve on this one. I think that some reactions can be "reactionary and irrational", but despite this, they're necessary. They're what force us to consider the consequences and ethics of new technologies and the like.
GeneSplicer: Here we go, again. I never said that "science is a god". Here is what I said:
QUOTE (newguy+)
Your problem seems to be that "the scientific method" is your "god". If you ever decide to do things God's way, then you'll have all the proof you'll need. If not, well...enjoy your "god".
Personally, I have no problems whatsoever with science. The point that I was making was in reference to "the scientific method" of measuring things, as if that is the only measuring system in the world(it isn't). "The scientific method" has been exalted to "godhood" in many people's eyes...at least, in my opinion, for whatever that is worth. It is the "method" of measuring things that I was addressing, not "science" itself. I know that many of us have already addressed this issue in the past, but I was speaking directly to PaulBored as I have never, to my knowledge, dialogued with him directly on this topic before. Just thought I'd clarify my comments for all. Thanks.
Personally, I have no problems whatsoever with science. The point that I was making was in reference to "the scientific method" of measuring things, as if that is the only measuring system in the world(it isn't). "The scientific method" has been exalted to "godhood" in many people's eyes...at least, in my opinion, for whatever that is worth. It is the "method" of measuring things that I was addressing, not "science" itself. I know that many of us have already addressed this issue in the past, but I was speaking directly to PaulBored as I have never, to my knowledge, dialogued with him directly on this topic before. Just thought I'd clarify my comments for all. Thanks.
QUOTE
I should have been more specific in my post. The research I consider that would be in conflict with religion would be along the line of biomedical research fields. There exists today religions where operations are considered against the wishes of god. Also consider genetic research, the use of animals in biomedical and biotech research, GM foods and stem cell research.
And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I should have been more specific in my post. The research I consider that would be in conflict with religion would be along the line of biomedical research fields. There exists today religions where operations are considered against the wishes of god. Also consider genetic research, the use of animals in biomedical and biotech research, GM foods and stem cell research. |
And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered.
As far as needing all the answers, how many here have stated both the recognition and comfort with the fact that we are not in possession of all the answers? How many need a worldview that is complete be it with science, religion or both? I understand the all too human need for perceived order and structure to one’s existence. I just think there is a better way to view the world without having to complete certain aspect of it especially in the area of “meaning”.
Its interesting, often scientists are pegged as the people who NEED all of the answers....I don't need any of the answers, but I want them. If I can't get them I will be ok. It seems that others, often not scientists NEED answers though.
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: Here we go, again. I never said that "science is a god". Here is what I said:
Your problem seems to be that "the scientific method" is your "god". If you ever decide to do things God's way, then you'll have all the proof you'll need. If not, well...enjoy your "god".
Your problem seems to be that "the scientific method" is your "god". If you ever decide to do things God's way, then you'll have all the proof you'll need. If not, well...enjoy your "god".
NewGuy,
Fine, then lets be uber specific. Scientific method of research and verification by multiple sources following the research processes and steps the original researcher followed are used where? Science in general, be it the various type of research.
Either way, science or the tools of science are not god(s). Science is not science without the scientific method(s). That’s like saying your are a devoutly religious person but are totally devoid of faith of any kind.
QUOTE
And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered.
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered. |
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
Its interesting, often scientists are pegged as the people who NEED all of the answers....I don't need any of the answers, but I want them. If I can't get them I will be ok. It seems that others, often not scientists NEED answers though.
I’ve met research engineers who could easily be classified as having a need to find the answers, but that was what motivated them into the field to begin with.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 26 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE
And some of that research is also opposed on certain ethical grounds. Which is understandable. I don't follow to many of those issues, but for the ones I have learned a bit about, some of the opposition is valid and should be considered.
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
G.S.:
I think I'm with Steve on this one. I think that some reactions can be "reactionary and irrational", but despite this, they're necessary. They're what force us to consider the consequences and ethics of new technologies and the like.
QUOTE (PaulBored+)
The argument of whether or not God exists has been going on for some time. However, I have never seen anyone atempt to present reason for the existence of God in an organized fashion using the scientific method. And seldom have i seen the same for the opposite side. If the existence of God cannot be proven using the scientific method, then as far as I'm concerned, God does not exist.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Your problem seems to be that "the scientific method" is your "god". If you ever decide to do things God's way, then you'll have all the proof you'll need. If not, well...enjoy your "god".
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Fine, then lets be uber specific. Scientific method of research and verification by multiple sources following the research processes and steps the original researcher followed are used where? Science in general, be it the various type of research.
Either way, science or the tools of science are not god(s). Science is not science without the scientific method(s). That’s like saying your are a devoutly religious person but are totally devoid of faith of any kind.
GeneSplicer: My comments were not intended to separate "science" from "the scientific method", but rather, my comments were in regards to PaulBored's desire to "prove God's existence" by "the scientific method". You, yourself, have acknowledged the "limitations" of "the scientific method".
Either way, science or the tools of science are not god(s). Science is not science without the scientific method(s). That’s like saying your are a devoutly religious person but are totally devoid of faith of any kind.
GeneSplicer: My comments were not intended to separate "science" from "the scientific method", but rather, my comments were in regards to PaulBored's desire to "prove God's existence" by "the scientific method". You, yourself, have acknowledged the "limitations" of "the scientific method".
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Science cannot address anything immaterial, untestable or unverifiable such as the spiritual or that based upon myth and superstition. If it could be, then many would have already provided evidence one way or another.
In your particular case, you more than likely find "the scientific method" not to be "limited" at all, as you believe that the "spiritual" doesn't exist, except in the weak minds of the fairy tale believing theists(the opposite of the "strong minded atheists).
In your particular case, you more than likely find "the scientific method" not to be "limited" at all, as you believe that the "spiritual" doesn't exist, except in the weak minds of the fairy tale believing theists(the opposite of the "strong minded atheists).
QUOTE (beam+)
huh?? I don't see where Genesplicer said he doesn't care to make his life meaningful, on the contrary, he simply chooses not to have his life's meaning dictated to him by a religious fairy tale...
Atheists choose the meaning for their lives, that's why it takes a strong mind to be an atheist...
Science is limited to the material and verifiable. Its limitation only exists within these parameters.
You are putting words into my mouth. I never stated that theist have weak minds. I have met far too many people, of faith and not, to make such a broad a sweeping castigation.
As far as what Beam stated and my agreement goes, you are taking it out of context. Of the atheists I have met, many have stated a common struggle to overcome the faith they were indoctrinated with since childhood.
Take this scenario for example NewGuy. You are indoctrinated from birth with a set of “facts” from your parents. As you grow older and enter an age where you begin to reason, you notice inconsistencies and flaws in what you have been indoctrinated with from your parents. As time goes on, you come to the realization that what you have been indoctrinated with is false. How strong of mind, conviction and reason must you be for you to not only reject this indoctrination but the conflict created by rejecting that which your parents told you was fact?
If you can understand this point of view, then you can understand why Beam made that comment and why I agreed.
As I said, most of those issues I don't follow, but the one that comes to my mind when we talk about biomedical type of research is cloning, and there are definately some ethic questions that should be raised with something like that. I don't know what the correct answer to the question is....but I want it to be thought about and considered. Some of the issues I don't follow are probably not nearly as complicated and don't really need much if anytime to be discussed ethically, but as I said, cloning is usually what comes to my mind.
As I said, most of those issues I don't follow, but the one that comes to my mind when we talk about biomedical type of research is cloning, and there are definately some ethic questions that should be raised with something like that. I don't know what the correct answer to the question is....but I want it to be thought about and considered. Some of the issues I don't follow are probably not nearly as complicated and don't really need much if anytime to be discussed ethically, but as I said, cloning is usually what comes to my mind.
I think I'm with Steve on this one. I think that some reactions can be "reactionary and irrational", but despite this, they're necessary. They're what force us to consider the consequences and ethics of new technologies and the like.
And the irrational reactions at least make the expert formulate their arguements better, so to communicate to us lay people why its ethically ok
Also, the more its thought about ethically, the less likely some nasty surprises are to come out of it.
Kaeroll
So protestor groups like one(s) responsible for third world countries rejecting golden rice are necessary? I think not.
Again, I’m not talking about justifiable skeptic or even people who are overly cautious regarding the implementation of new technologies. I would not classify these individuals as reactionary.
What I am talking about are the uninformed ideologues who predictably seek to limit if not outright ban certain types of research and technologies. Most of these people blindly believe anything negative regarding the research or technology based upon fearful and totally uninformed points of view.
I may be wrong, but considering the real harm these types of people have and will continue to cause, I see no useful purpose or outcome to their protests or reactionary stance.
If you want potential controversy, forget cloning. Look into ectogenesis if you ever get time to do so. It was because of a heated debate over that topic that I decided to record my first podcast.
During my research into the topic, there were a few social issues I thought of that should be a controversy to say the least.
If you want potential controversy, forget cloning. Look into ectogenesis if you ever get time to do so. It was because of a heated debate over that topic that I decided to record my first podcast.
During my research into the topic, there were a few social issues I thought of that should be a controversy to say the least.
And the irrational reactions at least make the expert formulate their arguements better, so to communicate to us lay people why its ethically ok Also, the more its thought about ethically, the less likely some nasty surprises are to come out of it.
You may have a point.
That's basically what I was trying to say. I'm not great at expressing myself, heh.
Atheists choose the meaning for their lives, that's why it takes a strong mind to be an atheist...
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Beam,
Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Anyways, I trust PaulBored will understand what I meant. If not, I trust he'll ask.
Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Anyways, I trust PaulBored will understand what I meant. If not, I trust he'll ask.
QUOTE
In your particular case, you more than likely find "the scientific method" not to be "limited" at all, as you believe that the "spiritual" doesn't exists, except in the weak minds of the fairy tale believing theists(the opposite of the "strong minded atheists).
Science is limited to the material and verifiable. Its limitation only exists within these parameters.
You are putting words into my mouth. I never stated that theist have weak minds. I have met far too many people, of faith and not, to make such a broad a sweeping castigation.
As far as what Beam stated and my agreement goes, you are taking it out of context. Of the atheists I have met, many have stated a common struggle to overcome the faith they were indoctrinated with since childhood.
Take this scenario for example NewGuy. You are indoctrinated from birth with a set of “facts” from your parents. As you grow older and enter an age where you begin to reason, you notice inconsistencies and flaws in what you have been indoctrinated with from your parents. As time goes on, you come to the realization that what you have been indoctrinated with is false. How strong of mind, conviction and reason must you be for you to not only reject this indoctrination but the conflict created by rejecting that which your parents told you was fact?
If you can understand this point of view, then you can understand why Beam made that comment and why I agreed.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
If you can understand this point of view, then you can understand why Beam made that comment and why I agreed.
GeneSplicer: Fair enough. I can certainly understand the "point of view" that you described. In fact(at least from my own life's experiences), I have personally met quite a few people within professing Christendom that chose to follow the teachings of their pastor/church even though they knew that they were incorrect, just because they lacked the "strength of mind". This is just one of many different reasons why Christianity, for the most part, has never been lived and shown to the world in it's true, intended light. Pity.
GeneSplicer: Fair enough. I can certainly understand the "point of view" that you described. In fact(at least from my own life's experiences), I have personally met quite a few people within professing Christendom that chose to follow the teachings of their pastor/church even though they knew that they were incorrect, just because they lacked the "strength of mind". This is just one of many different reasons why Christianity, for the most part, has never been lived and shown to the world in it's true, intended light. Pity.
QUOTE
I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help.
As I said, most of those issues I don't follow, but the one that comes to my mind when we talk about biomedical type of research is cloning, and there are definately some ethic questions that should be raised with something like that. I don't know what the correct answer to the question is....but I want it to be thought about and considered. Some of the issues I don't follow are probably not nearly as complicated and don't really need much if anytime to be discussed ethically, but as I said, cloning is usually what comes to my mind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I find most objections are reactionary and irrational. Take the term “frankenfoods” for example. I’m not saying that we should not be cautious and examine the full ramifications of these technologies, I just think religious and reactionary points of view do more harm than help. |
As I said, most of those issues I don't follow, but the one that comes to my mind when we talk about biomedical type of research is cloning, and there are definately some ethic questions that should be raised with something like that. I don't know what the correct answer to the question is....but I want it to be thought about and considered. Some of the issues I don't follow are probably not nearly as complicated and don't really need much if anytime to be discussed ethically, but as I said, cloning is usually what comes to my mind.
I think I'm with Steve on this one. I think that some reactions can be "reactionary and irrational", but despite this, they're necessary. They're what force us to consider the consequences and ethics of new technologies and the like.
And the irrational reactions at least make the expert formulate their arguements better, so to communicate to us lay people why its ethically ok
Also, the more its thought about ethically, the less likely some nasty surprises are to come out of it.
QUOTE
G.S.:
I think I'm with Steve on this one. I think that some reactions can be "reactionary and irrational", but despite this, they're necessary. They're what force us to consider the consequences and ethics of new technologies and the like.
I think I'm with Steve on this one. I think that some reactions can be "reactionary and irrational", but despite this, they're necessary. They're what force us to consider the consequences and ethics of new technologies and the like.
Kaeroll
So protestor groups like one(s) responsible for third world countries rejecting golden rice are necessary? I think not.
Again, I’m not talking about justifiable skeptic or even people who are overly cautious regarding the implementation of new technologies. I would not classify these individuals as reactionary.
What I am talking about are the uninformed ideologues who predictably seek to limit if not outright ban certain types of research and technologies. Most of these people blindly believe anything negative regarding the research or technology based upon fearful and totally uninformed points of view.
I may be wrong, but considering the real harm these types of people have and will continue to cause, I see no useful purpose or outcome to their protests or reactionary stance.
QUOTE
As I said, most ... what comes to my mind.
If you want potential controversy, forget cloning. Look into ectogenesis if you ever get time to do so. It was because of a heated debate over that topic that I decided to record my first podcast.
During my research into the topic, there were a few social issues I thought of that should be a controversy to say the least.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I said, most ... what comes to my mind. |
If you want potential controversy, forget cloning. Look into ectogenesis if you ever get time to do so. It was because of a heated debate over that topic that I decided to record my first podcast.
During my research into the topic, there were a few social issues I thought of that should be a controversy to say the least.
And the irrational reactions at least make the expert formulate their arguements better, so to communicate to us lay people why its ethically ok Also, the more its thought about ethically, the less likely some nasty surprises are to come out of it.
You may have a point.
QUOTE
And the irrational reactions at least make the expert formulate their arguements better, so to communicate to us lay people why its ethically ok Also, the more its thought about ethically, the less likely some nasty surprises are to come out of it.
That's basically what I was trying to say. I'm not great at expressing myself, heh.
Yes, all of this is very true, but then I didn't expect anyone to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. I think that most of us see that God and science should not be connected. When religion steps on the grounds of science, conflict arises. The church doesn't want science to expand because it contradicts their teachings at times. This thread is just more proof of what is already obvious.
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Apr 26 2006, 02:46 PM)
That's basically what I was trying to say. I'm not great at expressing myself, heh.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.