How does it follow that science was developed by conscious beings with a conscience (Con-Science)?

This questions is so full of false premises that it is overflowing.

1. What does consciousness have to do with conscience?

2. How does anything you have posited suggest that conscience is without knowledge?

3. How does anything you have posited suggest that science is without conscience?

4. It seems that instead of using the actual meaning of the word conscience, you are making some weird play on its spelling.

5. Where do you get that the true purpose of science is to convince us that we are nothing more than physical flesh, blood and bone, without properties of a Mind with Conscience?

The etymology is not con + science.

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conscientia, from conscient-, consciens, present participle of conscire to be conscious, be conscious of guilt, from com- + scire to know – Merriam Webster

I will just assume that this is supposed to be a joke based on some sort of warped etymlogy.

I’m confused… wait, does that mean I am without fuses? Because I am without fuses.

I ordered Chili con Carne but they put meat in it anyway, what the hell?!

Al Quaida con spired against the twin towers.

also, con is derived from “cum”, meaning “with”

@marinelife
“What does consciousness have to do with conscience?”

One must be conscious to have a conscience. As @jaytkay points out “conscious of guilt”.

“How does anything you have posited suggest that conscience is without knowledge?”

Science meaning Knowledge. Con meaning negative… Negative Knowledge.

“How does anything you have posited suggest that science is without conscience?”

It seems too obvious. Negative Knowledge…

Is not science limited to the standards of materialism? Therefor, conscience (a property of mind) is insisted upon by science as being nothing more than neurons firing in a physical brain. Science refuses to acknowledge an immaterial state. Therefor, mind, consciousness, and conscience must be a physical action or thing produced by the brain.

But this is not how an immaterialist views the mind, consciousness, or conscience at all. Insisting instead that these properties of mind are non-physical, and therefor not produced by the brain. Instead, viewing the brain as merely a physical medium which allows the non-physical agents to become expressed into physical reality.

Science would view the immaterialist as without knowledge (basically stupid), and thus embracing con-science… against science… instead, allowing emotion and feeling to rule the day, without true knowledge.

“It seems that instead of using the actual meaning of the word conscience, you are making some weird play on its spelling.”

Well that’s what I’m trying to figure out here. I appreciate your help on this. Words are spelled the way they are for very specific reasons.

“Where do you get that the true purpose of science is to convince us that we are nothing more than physical flesh, blood and bone, without properties of a Mind with Conscience?”

I’m unfamiliar with any widely accepted science that suggests otherwise. And the contrast between the two words seems to support that. Key term, seems.

@jaytkay and @ragingloli
“I ordered Chili con Carne but they put meat it anyway…”

Thanks for the clarification of the etymology of conscience. I had only looked up “con” and “science”. My bad.

Though I’m still greatly confused as to why con can have both meanings of “with” and or “against”. Anybody know why?

For instance, @crazyivan wants to know if he’s “without fuses”. It’s not such a conceptual leap to consider fuses as a union, and con as without, therefor, without union of thought could easily be confuse.

Yeah, funny, it has the exact opposite meaning. ”With knowledge” is what it literally means.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

The reason why “con” can have the meaning of “against” and “with” is because the prefix “con” has two etymological roots. The main one is from the Latin word cum meaning “with” or “together”, which is what the word “conscience” comes from. The other root is the Latin word contra meaning “against”.

“Confuse” literally means “poured together” in Latin.

Thanks! Makes sense, in a con-fusing sort of way.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Science is just the seperation of that which we can all be certain of and that which might only be true for one of us. It LOOKS at the “world” we live in and really doesn’t claim anything.

You mad bro?

I guess that’s one way of looking at it. Thanks @Zyx.

Merriam and Webster say that Conscience is the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good (among other similar definitions). Essentially this is being knowledgeable of the rightness of ones own actions. Science and Conscience are thus completely compatible.

The purpose of science is to know things that are knowable. It is not the purpose of science to “convince” us of anything.

I know I’m off topic here but I couldn’t resist. This reminds me of the term con-fidence though I don’t think the term “fidence” is a word by itself.

@Paradox Interesting. You got me wondering and I realized my library gives me online access to the Oxford English Dictionary and I found confidence comes from:

con Latin intensive prefix
fidere Latin ‘to trust’

It’s related to the word ‘fidelity’.

@jaytkay Cool! Thanks for verifying that for me. Con means to oppose so I found that interesting. Con-science is like opposing science and con-fidence is like equal to opposing fidere or trust. You see I knew it! It’s always the people that are con-fident in themselves that are usually the most incompetent. Abilty and confidence are not necessarily synonymous with each other.

Well, upon @DominicX‘s clarification, con can either mean for or against. Such is my interest in language. It seems a crime to punish our thinking in this way. Why isn’t this more apparent in basic humanity? How can words be manipulated so, as to confuse any issue that is upon us? When will we stop allowing words to be bent into antonyms of themselves?

Humanity is ridiculous!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You’re ridiculous!

Nah, that was uncalled for…. People don’t understand eachother because though their senses tell them the same, their instincts tell them differently. This cannot be overcome and in fact it’s sometimes quite useful. Different tribes will take different approaches to problems and the species will survive.

Yes, I am ridiculous, I have been, and I will be again most assuredly. But that shouldn’t bother me in the slightest. For when people can bend any word to mean whatever they want it to mean, then ridiculous becomes favorable in an affectionate sort of way (which I’m sure is how you meant it), and not the synonym of an ignorant absurdity.

I can see a clever fashion designer launching a new brand of Ridiculous Jeans and being quite successful. But why am I even speaking on this matter, for truly my words have no meaning beyond what others would give them… right? If so, that’s so wrong. And that would be a good thing, to be bad like that. It’s very cool indeed, so cool it’s hot!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I actually figured out that communication is impossible a while back so I’m bored with this conversation. And there’s a billion ways to get rich, they all require luck.

I’m sorry… did you say something?

up to you fool

@Zyx Contrary to popular belief, there are only 628,331,218 ways to get rich. But they do all require luck. Or a complete lack of ethics. Or both.

Thanks @Zyx. Thus far you’ve tagged me as a “ridiculous” “fool” who “bored” you. I certainly appreciate your analysis. But it does leave me wondering why you keep returning, especially when you “actually figured out that communication is impossible a while back”.

I’m blushing from all your undeserved attention. It tickles. Thanks chum! Keep it coming!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’m sorry, you mad bro?

Nah… just attentive. Thanks for the conversation.