Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on December 03, 2002, 03:53:31 AM
-
This isn't meant to be the start of yet another long evolution vs creationism thread. Rather, see this as a starting point regarding a limited subject: what constitutes a scientific theory. Due to recent discussions, I found it pertinent to show that there misconceptions have existed in both camps.
The following is taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
For a more indepth discussion evolution being both a theory and a fact (due to the word being used to describe two different things; a fact (that change in allele frequency happens over time) and a theory (why that happens, and what consequences it has) see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I've snipped parts away so as to not make the discussion revolve around evolution, but rather scientific facts, theories vs what we usually regard as facts and theories.
-----------
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
-------------
So, are there people here that question that change in allele frequency (I guess simplisticly one could call it change in gene 'markers') occurs? If so, I can point you to studies done to (amongst other things) bacteria and banana flies.
Another question: how many of you equate scientific theories to theories about, say, the assassination of JFK? If you see this to be inaccurate, we're a good way towards a reasonable discussion.
I also think it's worth noting that 100% knowledge is not required before calling something a fact - that a fact is not set in stone. Some argue that this is the downfall of science and points to the cases where science have been proven wrong. they seemingly forget, however, that science was proven wrong by science. That's the beauty of it - it is self correcting.
I guess my main question is this: can we agree on the distinctions made in the text above? If not, where do 'we' disagree? (with we being the mainly secular scientific community combined with the mainly theistic one).
Please, let's not let this turn into a discussion about evolution vs creationism. I've purposedly removed most references to evolution and only allowed one or two where it serves to highlight a principle or idea.
Looking forward to here your response :)
-
I'll go first.
Science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.
Science will never know whether science has access to all available parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anything with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.
-
So due to your supposed view of the limitations of the scientific process you chose to replace it with a thousands year old fairy tale written by a bunch of desert dwelling nomad goatherds?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So due to your supposed view of the limitations of the scientific process you chose to replace it with a thousands year old fairy tale written by a bunch of desert dwelling nomad goatherds?
I thought we were trying to avoid the E vs C debate in this thread? I'm simply pointing out the shortcomings of science. Or rather, one of its shortcomings.
Did you know, Grunherz, that science has never been able to answer one "why" question? All that science is able to do is observe and predict probable outcomes of future observations.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'll go first.
Science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.
Science will never know whether science has access to all available parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anything with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.
Are you 100% certain about that?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Are you 100% certain about that?
Well, since my argument is a logic/philosophical one, yes.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'll go first.
Science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.
Science will never know whether science has access to all available parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anything with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.
A nice description...
What's the point??
Since nobody of us "science guys" have never said that science is "THE TRUTH", instead a lot of us have pointed the fact that "a scientific theory it's the best explanation we have as far as we know, for the phenomenon we observe, at the moment, and since be disproved by a new contradicting fact, and hence the need for a new, more complete theory", I dont see why your post is different from Santa's one, with the exception of the lenght (and the preparation for the next rethoric battle ;) ).
It's the "religion guys" that have pointed the science as "a truth that you infidels want to force on our throat", because you need to put it on the same field and assiomes of your religion that you feel (mistakenly) attacked.
And, BTW, the one you pointed is'nt absolutely the shortcoming of the science, instead it's the great force it have.
The capability to adapt and improve, something that other metods to have an answer fail to do.
-
Very well put, Naso.
I would add that the reason for science not answering 'why' questions (as you perceive them to be, since there are plenty of why questions out there that are answered - but they all eventually boil down to the great philosophical 'why') is because it is a mode of thinking not designed to answer that question.
That is wisely left to philosophy and theology.
-
Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of science.
It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "scientific evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.
One huge problem is when those with their faith in science chose to disregard the basic scientific method in their defence of the current theorem. One example of this is the reaction one often gets in the E vs C discussion where people will do pretty much anything to fit any new observation into the current theroem.
Sidenote: Personally I feel that it is a shortcoming, the fact that science is not able to provide facts, or "tell the truth".
-
Yes, and it is a shortcoming of a fork that you cannot eat soup with it...
So you just eat your soup with a spoon, and go to church to find the Absolute Truth.
-
Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of science.
It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "scientific evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.
Fair enough, but let me say:
Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of religion.
It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "faith-based evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.
Voila! Le point de counter est finit!
Scientific evidence is at least tangible - phenomena requires independent verification and repeatibility before acceptance. Compare and contrast with faith based evidence, which not only tries to answer the bigger question, but does so often on the say so of a few anachronistic individuals, writing in an age when rain baffled everyone and the night-day cycle was too wondrous to comprehend.
Stick to believing 2000 year old goat-herders for an explanation on the mechanics of the universe or the teachings of a book edited according to 1500 year old political considerations - I'll stick to Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking. ;)
-
Actually I must admit that I havent seen any "creationist" try to prove anything.
Have you seen any "faith based evidence" Dowding? Can you give any good examples of that?
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
I'll stick to Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking. ;)
Einstein -
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Newton -
Sir Isaac Newton had skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton's home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.
One day while Newton in his study, a friend came by who happened to be also a great scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."
Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."
"You must think I'm a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he's a genius. I want to know who he is."
Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder, saying:
This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?
Hawkin-
"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God."
Seems like your heroes have more in common with the "2000 year old goat-herders " than you might realize...
-
Hortlund: Sidenote: Personally I feel that it is a shortcoming, the fact that science is not able to provide facts, or "tell the truth".
Provide facts? What does that mean? Science explains facts and predicts facts and discovers laws governing the naturap phenomena but does not "provide" them.
Which definition of the word "fact" are you using? Do you confuse "fact" with "truth" by any chance?
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Have you seen any "faith based evidence" Dowding? Can you give any good examples of that?
The book of Genesis? It's used to precisely determine the age of Earth anong other things.
miko
-
Hortlund, you're not taking it a step further and suggesting that scientific theories are on par with opinions or JFK murder theories?
I'm reading you a bit like "since scientific theories cannot be known to be 100% correct, they can be discarded when they conflict with your moral codex or other issues of great importance".
The limitation on science - or one of them, rather, is a philosophical one. It's about absolutes, and in this case absolute knowledge. Absolutes are few and far between and usually require faith to work, which in turn makes the absolutism faith-dependent - and then not a true absolute :).
What I'm trying to do here is build some common ground. If we define and accept what science and scientific theories are, what they offer and what their limitations are, we can actually have *scientific discussions* without the need to resort to "just a theory", "not absolute" and so forth.
The thing with science is that you cannot pick and choose. You cannot use the methodology of science to explain or defend one view, and then throw it away because it conflicts with personal beliefs on another. What you can do is use science against (or rather FOR science).
Once in agreement here, we can move on. Then we have separated misconceptions about science and won't have them fouling up good discussions.
I'll make a post about the methodology of science a bit later, and then we can discuss a) whether I've presented it correctly and b) advantages, disadvantages, potential and limits. And after THIS we have a *mutual* understanding of the subject, a shared one, and this will allow us to attack problems directly without misunderstandings about science itself.
Keep them posts coming :). Would also like to hear from the more spiritual posters :).
Edit: Gould has something interesting to say too. I have a snippet that adds to the differentiation and explanation of fact and theory (scientific). Again, evolution is just used as an aexample, just as gravity, and focus should be on the explanation, not evolution.
---------
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
---------
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of science.
The problem is that you dont want to see that that is not a limitation, for the use that science has born.
As Takeda said, you are (maliciously, I bet ;) ) using (or assuming, pretend the others use) a tool for a purpose that it's not intended to be used, to have a definitive answer.
And this is the mistake at the roots of your attacks.
It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "scientific evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.
scientific evidence it's not an illusion, it's a fact.
The theory that try to explain the scientific evidences can be an illusion, but never pretend to be different.
(Are you mixing the evidence concept from your work? :) )
Science.
A piece of wood stay on surface of water. <---- this is an evidence.
There can be an explanation of this evidence? <---- the question of the science
Maybe it's related with density. <----- scientific theory
A piece of steel sink <----- experiment, more evidence.
A piece of cave steel stay on surface <----- contraddicting evidence.
Maybe it's related with medium density of the entire body volume inclosed inside the transitional surface <---- improved theory.
and so on....
Religion.
A piece of wood stay on surface <--- evidence.
A piece of steel sink <---- evidence.
The steel it's in sin ;) the wood go to paradise :) it's God will, stop asking questions. :D <------ Religious Dogma.
One huge problem is when those with their faith in science chose to disregard the basic scientific method in their defence of the current theorem. One example of this is the reaction one often gets in the E vs C discussion where people will do pretty much anything to fit any new observation into the current theroem.
I must admit that there is people that seem to adhere to science in the same way as it is a religion, and this is a big mistake, but no one of theese is a scientist (even if he pretend to be).
And I have missed where someone have introduced new observations in the question, unless you want to use "it's written in the book so it must be true" as an evidence (and it's not, it's faith).
What you posed 'till now are only objections, based on no-scientific presumes, and not supported by evidences of any sort.
Sidenote: Personally I feel that it is a shortcoming, the fact that science is not able to provide facts, or "tell the truth".
Again, Science it's not intended to "provide the truth", if you want to see it in that way it's you that are giving the science a religon-like behaviour.
The science objective it's "to have a good approximation of the limited vision that we can have of a too complex truth to be known completely".
If you seek the truth, it's better you ask some religion, have faith that the answers they give you are the truth, and leave the science do his work, to try to understand how it works....
Mmmm... yeah.... this is a good one:
religion it's the answer to the question "WHY ?"
science it's the answer (or a try) to the question "HOW ?"
:)
-
Let me try to explain my concern with the theory of evolution from a scientific method-approach.
I have stolen this definition of the scientific method from MT (thanks MT)
1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.
The problem with the evolutionists and their claim to fame is that the theory of evolution got stuck on p4. Suddenly they were faced with a number of observations that was not consistent with the theory.
But instead of modifying the theory, they either ignored the observations or they drew amazingly wild conclusions from other observations (for example, the tooth that turned into an evidence of the missing link, and then reverted back to being a pig tooth)
Anyway, after a number of years the number of observations inconsistet with the theory rose, and the evolutionists realized that they had to do something. They applied p5, and along came the punctuated equilibrium.
The problem is that this new theory is inconsistent with the original theory. While darwins theory requires a slow and steady evolution, the new theory suggested sudden jumps in evolution.
This is something that is ignored by evolutionists, and from that day on, they used a combination of Darwins "slow and steady" evolution, and the punctuated equilibriums "jump" evolution to explain every new observation they found that contradicted the basic theory.
That is just bad science. It gives the wrong results, and it is simply put, not scientific at all.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Einstein -
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
MEGA SNIP!!!!!
Seems like your heroes have more in common with the "2000 year old goat-herders " than you might realize...
Here you go!!
Tell me when I, or some other "science guys" have stated that science and religion are mutual exclusive.
It's you that seem to suggest, before this last post, the opposite.
I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
What a big man he was.
We are lucky you were'nt the judge that had to decide if burn Galileo.
:D
...Or cream Albert.
:eek:
Ouch... tongue in cheek, mate :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Let me try to explain my concern with the theory of evolution from a scientific method-approach.
I have stolen this definition of the scientific method from MT (thanks MT)
1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.
The problem with the evolutionists and their claim to fame is that the theory of evolution got stuck on p4. Suddenly they were faced with a number of observations that was not consistent with the theory.
But instead of modifying the theory, they either ignored the observations or they drew amazingly wild conclusions from other observations (for example, the tooth that turned into an evidence of the missing link, and then reverted back to being a pig tooth)
Anyway, after a number of years the number of observations inconsistet with the theory rose, and the evolutionists realized that they had to do something. They applied p5, and along came the punctuated equilibrium.
The problem is that this new theory is inconsistent with the original theory. While darwins theory requires a slow and steady evolution, the new theory suggested sudden jumps in evolution.
This is something that is ignored by evolutionists, and from that day on, they used a combination of Darwins "slow and steady" evolution, and the punctuated equilibriums "jump" evolution to explain every new observation they found that contradicted the basic theory.
That is just bad science. It gives the wrong results, and it is simply put, not scientific at all.
I ask you gentle to move this post in the other megathread, Santa asked to avoid the E. vs C. arguments.
(J/k)
:p
-
Regarding Einsteins quotes about God: he believed in Spinoza's God, i.e the universe as a deity. The following quotes makes it very clear:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"
Another quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
A more complete quote from "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."
Hortlund, your sources misrepresent Einstein, and he states this quite clearly.
Darwin on the other hand was a deeply religious person. Still, he felt that the science was so compelling it lead him to believe that parts of the bible were not to be taken literally - and did he get a bashing for holding that view.
And please Hortlund, we can discuss evolution and scientific methodology in great detail later. You're quite wrong and I'll show you where and how. For now, let this thread be about theory and facts in science. We'll move on to evolution after we've covered this and the scientific methodology. Your 7 step argument is fallacious because its too simplistic to describe the scientific methodology - or rather, you make some assumptions about step 4 and evolution that aren't true. But more on that later in ANOTHER thread. We'll go into details there.
-
Ok, to sum it up, are we in agreement that there are scientific facts, which need not be absolute, and that there are scientific theories which tries to explain facts? Furthermore, that scientific theories aren't JFK murder theories, but rather substantiated through a rigorous verification process (which will be the enxt thread of discussion).
Can we also agree that a theory doesn't necessarily have to be true; it is what is concluded based on the *available evidence* at the time.
This distinction between scientific facts, scientific theories and ordinary socalled 'theories' is extremely important, and unless we have a common understanding and are in agreement on this, it is useless to go further.
Mind you, I'm not trying to present MY views on it: rather, I'm trying to describe some concepts in science as they are defined. Just a prelude for something bigger. There's a need to convey just what this stuff is - otherwise we'll just get stuck later on.
-
Well, personally I think it becomes a bloody pointless discussion actually.
What is the use in having a philosophical discussion about what is theory and what is fact, when everyone has agreed that science can provide theories but not facts? <-- =discussion over.
You are the one bringing evolution into the debate by using quotes defending the theory of evolution as base for the discussion. Frankly I fail to see how it would be possible to draw general principles about theory and thruth from those quotes without looking at how the author of the quote arrived at his conclusions about theory and truth. For example the statement "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. " is simply ludicrous. But we are supposed to take that for granted because we are discussing what is theory and what is fact? We have already agreed that science cannot provide us with facts, only theorys.
Now you want to have an argument about "when does theory become fact" or "is there such a good theory that it should be considered a fact"?
Well, the answer to both is never and no (unless we are talking about mathematics, which we aint).
-
But go ahead and start your other threads where you will prove that I'm quite wrong and I'll show me that., There you can show me why MT's (it is not mine) 7 step argument is fallacious.
PM me or something when you want me to reply in those threads, because apparently I should not have posted in this one.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
Well I take issue with that bit - my dictionary defines a proposition as "an act of propounding (offering for consideration): an offer: a statement of judgement: a premise (a proposition stated for after reasoning): a statement of a problem or theorem for (or with) solution or demonstration (math.): a possibility, suggestion, course of action for consideration" all of which seem to me to very much imply tentativeness or lack of certainty.
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
I feel labelling something that is not 100% certain "a fact" a gross dishonesty, no matter how well intended. In my view, science can not afford anything less than scrupulous honesty and this labelling of the uncertain as a "fact" while understandable,seems ultimately unforgivable. It may well slow down progress and lead to very sloppy thinking, both of which seem undesireable to me. Every theory in science should be open to the possibility that the theorist may have got it wrong.
To accept this shorthand labelling of theories as facts also raises an interesting and thorny problem - who decides what constitutes "enough evidence" and when we have it? Do we treat each theory on a case by case basis? Or should we apply blanket rules? How often do we have to review the evidence? And who reviews it? On the whole just not labelling theories as facts, no matter how solid they currently seem, looks like a much easier course of action.
So, are there people here that question that change in allele frequency (I guess simplisticly one could call it change in gene 'markers') occurs? If so, I can point you to studies done to (amongst other things) bacteria and banana flies.
Science can only benefit from people always questioning theories. If someone disproves a theory, science benefits - if they fail to disprove it, science still benefits. Either way our knowledge increases. We should not treat science as a point-winning exercise.
Another question: how many of you equate scientific theories to theories about, say, the assassination of JFK? If you see this to be inaccurate, we're a good way towards a reasonable discussion.
A correctly framed scientific theory generally requires that we should have the means to prove it false, because if we maintain scrupulously honesty, we must accept that we probably cannot ever prove a theory true. I see no reason why one cannot frame a conspiracy theory using scientific methods - making it no different from any other scientific theory - although the theorists rarely, if ever, do so.
I also think it's worth noting that 100% knowledge is not required before calling something a fact - that a fact is not set in stone. Some argue that this is the downfall of science and points to the cases where science have been proven wrong. they seemingly forget, however, that science was proven wrong by science. That's the beauty of it - it is self correcting.
As stated above, labelling a theory as a fact can really only slow down the process of disproving that theory if someone finds faults in it. A "fact" seems much more unassailable than "a theory". Indeed a fact according to my dictionary is "a deed, act or anything done (arch.): anything that comes to pass: a truth: truth: a reality, or a real state of things, as distinguished from a mere statement or belief: an assertion of fact". Better to be scrupulously honest and call a theory "a theory" - a label which encourages people to keep an open mind. Science has nothing to lose from people questioning theories, nor from people finding flaws in theories. Treating theories as facts - mistaking them for "the truth" - on the other hand seems to me not only sloppy thinking and dangerous because of it, but also a sure fire way of slowing knowledge advancement up. Scientific method seems our best shot at impartiality and should eventually correct its own mistakes, but the science gets done by scientists - as irrational, passionate, self-serving, prone to short-sighted empire-building or protecting their vested interests, and kow-towing to the dominant alpha male as any other group of primates. I reckon we should give them as little chance as possible to proclaim their pet theories "facts". After all - can anyone think of a serious downside to calling a theory "a theory"? I can't. But I can see the downside to calling a theory "a fact". It may seem like semantic nonsense, but in these primitive times, most people still seem to behave as if words do have magic powers (How else does one explain the fact that the word diddly "is" dirty while the word coitus "is" clean? Note: this seems to apply mostly to Saxon words - Latin words appear to avoid the label "dirty"), and many get confused by the premises that "the map is not the territory".
-
I agree with Hortland, science and it's "theories" are useless for the most part.
*He typed, communicating with people all over the world.*
-
I agree thrawn.
* he answered some minute later, being 6.000 km away *
-
Well, it is pretty apparent that the ability to communicate with people all over the world, hasnt done any improvements for the reading comprehension of some people.
-
Ah, finally some autocritic, Steve!!
:D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Let me try to explain my concern with the theory of evolution from a scientific method-approach.
I have stolen this definition of the scientific method from MT (thanks MT)
1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.
The problem with the evolutionists and their claim to fame is that the theory of evolution got stuck on p4. Suddenly they were faced with a number of observations that was not consistent with the theory.
But instead of modifying the theory, they either ignored the observations or they drew amazingly wild conclusions from other observations (for example, the tooth that turned into an evidence of the missing link, and then reverted back to being a pig tooth)
Anyway, after a number of years the number of observations inconsistet with the theory rose, and the evolutionists realized that they had to do something. They applied p5, and along came the punctuated equilibrium.
The problem is that this new theory is inconsistent with the original theory. While darwins theory requires a slow and steady evolution, the new theory suggested sudden jumps in evolution.
This is something that is ignored by evolutionists, and from that day on, they used a combination of Darwins "slow and steady" evolution, and the punctuated equilibriums "jump" evolution to explain every new observation they found that contradicted the basic theory.
That is just bad science. It gives the wrong results, and it is simply put, not scientific at all.
Steve has made a point here, but it is not the one he meant to make. The real value of the scientific method is in the ability to go back and change the hypothesis.
As you have stated, when the facts failed to mesh with the hypothesis, the hypothesis was reworked. This isn't a failure of the scientific method, it is a triumph.
Creationists cannot change the hypothesis.. ever, so there can never be by definition a Creation science.
Regarding the 100% statement, Hortlund is correct. However he neatly ignores the fact that some scientific "theories" approach certainty so closely that people have stopped trying to disprove them. Pythagorus comes to mind.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As you have stated, when the facts failed to mesh with the hypothesis, the hypothesis was reworked. This isn't a failure of the scientific method, it is a triumph.
Creationists cannot change the hypothesis.. ever, so there can never be by definition a Creation science.
Actually, my major beef with the theory of evolution right now is the un-scientific methot they use to defend their theory. Simply put they are ignoring observations that are different from their hypothesis. OR they are drawing too far fetched conclusions from observations so that these observations support their theory.
Creationists cannot change the hypothesis of evolution? Maybe, but there are other hypothesis about the history of life than just the theory of evolution. Most evolutuionists tend to disregard that pesky little fact.
I disagree with your statement that there never can be any creation science. Why not?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually, my major beef with the theory of evolution right now is the un-scientific methot they use to defend their theory. Simply put they are ignoring observations that are different from their hypothesis. OR they are drawing too far fetched conclusions from observations so that these observations support their theory.
Creationists cannot change the hypothesis of evolution? Maybe, but there are other hypothesis about the history of life than just the theory of evolution. Most evolutuionists tend to disregard that pesky little fact.
I disagree with your statement that there never can be any creation science. Why not?
Why not?
Are you serious? Do you think a Creationist would be willing to toss God out of the equation if he/she was proven to be uneeded?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I disagree with your statement that there never can be any creation science. Why not?
Because science has to be provable/disprovable - creation science's main hypothesis is that an invisible man who is everywhere but can't be measured or proved to exist made everything. Science deems gods as meaningless and indeterminate as Santa and the Easter Bunny. So a theory which involves any god creating stuff by definition fails to make it as a scientific theory. God may have a place in creation, but he's definitely not on the guestlist of the nightclub of scientific theory. "Omnipresent are we, sir? Well we're not having any of that here, sunshine."
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Because science has to be provable/disprovable - creation science's main hypothesis is that an invisible man who is everywhere but can't be measured or proved to exist made everything. Science deems gods as meaningless and indeterminate as Santa and the Easter Bunny. So a theory which involves any god creating stuff by definition fails to make it as a scientific theory. God may have a place in creation, but he's definitely not on the guestlist of the nightclub of scientific theory. "Omnipresent are we, sir? Well we're not having any of that here, sunshine."
I KNEW there were still intelligent people left on this board!!
-
Where did Dowding go?
I'm still waiting for him to explain away the beliefs of his heroes.
-
the admitted limitations of science are a sign of the beginning of our 'coming of age' as a species, they're not a short-coming.
once you stop trying to come up with absolutes and 'comfort-food' answers and take on the ugly responsibility of figuring it out from the ground up, you have to be willing and humble enough to be wrong along the way. and you have to be ready to accept that the universe doesn't revolve around humans or even earth.....
how many times have i heard science written off because it doesn't provide for an afterlife or an external being that cares about us.....those thoughts should be transcribed into a time capsule for future, less frightened generations to laugh at.
most scientific advances don't negate the last held idea anyway they just modify it or give us a more complex view of the same thing.
in a few thousand years science will still be chugging along slowly, working for answers the hard way by thinking and experimenting and religions will hopefully just be a bad memory of a more primitive time.
i can't wait for the day when you can tell a kid that people used to actually fight because they believed in different imaginary friends and they look at you like "no way!" that'll be the day, i'll be long gone before that though given the current world....
-
Thats funny, cuz I see a different trend. People are migrating from "hard science" back to "soft issues" like religion, self fulfillment, morals, values.
Personally I think that man can advance only when we learn to merge the two, science and religion.
Someone once said "man lives not on bread alone" (direct translation from German, thats why it may sound weird)
Meaning that there is more to life than the bare neccesseties of survival. The previos decades, the 80s and 90s were hard, materialistic, driven by science. I think people are tired of that. I dont know how it is in the US, but over here I see a trend back towards the un-materialistic, towards deeper meaning, deeper values. Back to faith, back to religion.
That trend must scare you.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Personally I think that man can advance only when we learn to merge the two, science and religion.
whose religion do we use for that? do we make a new one? what is it's doctrine?
people can come back to soft issues, values and fulfillment all they want - why in the world would you need a religion to do that? don't you know wrong from right by now?
yes a trend toward religion does scare me since no one can agree on one and each seems to assign righteousness to itself alone minimizing the rest of the world - the last thing we need is another obstacle on our way to enlightenment and another few centuries of useless deaths and conflict.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Where did Dowding go?
I'm still waiting for him to explain away the beliefs of his heroes.
I think that StSanta already covered that quite thoroughly.
Look up^
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think that StSanta already covered that quite thoroughly.
Look up^
Only Einstein, not Darwin, Newton or Hawkin.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Only Einstein, not Darwin, Newton or Hawkin.
Hawking:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
-
Someone asked for links to some of the 'facts' I talked about in the other thread, well heres a start:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/02articles/Grant.html
These people are pretty confident they've completely anaylyzed and proven evolution and natural selection in finches.
-
Personally I'm sick of the trouble religions cause this world.
I can't wait to be rid of them. I know there are good Christians, and good Muslims, but the bad ones far outweight the good ones.
Well, except for the budhists, they're cool :) but then they don't believe in a diety and shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Personally I think that man can advance only when we learn to merge the two, science and religion.
-
Newton was just a man of his times:
-
Thank you! that was what I was trying to explain in some of my last posts!
Everything is more of a theory than a fact, in fact a fact is more like a theory then a fact I'd say, at least how we look at a fact.
Nothing is ever 100% certain, or allmost nothing.
"If a tree falls and nobody or nothing is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?"
Sounds crazy, and I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999 9% certain it does, but unless u heard it without anything/anyone that can hear it around its not 100% certain that it actuelly made a sound!
-
Ok, here comes Hawkin. Hold on to yer hat Hortlund:
One used for Hawking is the following:
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
As in the Einstein case, it's a matter of figure of speech. in fact, he's reffering directly to Einsteins statement which Einstein of course later had to explain for reporters and theists who misunderstood it.
Let's see what Hawkings says about the human race. It could be interesting to see if he thinks Genesis has it right and whether mankind is something other than an animal:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special. "
About the Big Bang and the omnipotence of God:
"One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
On the necessity of a God for the creation of the universe:
"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."
One more:
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
There's much more, but I suppose this will have to suffice, as it proves without a doubt that Hawking have strong reservations about the Christian deity. Let me know if you need more: undernet #atheism has some more direct ones. Would have to install an irc client though.
-
About merging science with religion: it cannot be done. Religion is about faith; it's about something which is to be taken as truth without direct og indirect evidence to back it up. With religion, you have a statement as a basis; i.e you have the answer, and then one tries to adjust the knowledge and facts to meet the answer. With science, you have a question, which you then try to answer. The former is absolute while the latter is deals with probability.
An example: religion with a statement that is set to be true: Man was created by God and infused with a soul. Animals were also created by God but not infused with a soul.
Fact: As far as we know, humans are the only living creatues with a very high level of self awareness. While it can be found in primates it's not to the same degree.
Conclusion:This is proof that God did it and that the bible is correct.
WIth science, using the same fact: is mankind different from animals, or can be it shown that, indeed, there are so many common factors that mankind itself must be delcared to be an animal, all be it with superior capabilities within limited areas? Then research, for example with genes of behavior. Then a conclusion.
You can have religious scientists however. Science cannot be religious per se; it may deal with subjects within religion, but always according to the scientific principles and therefore by definition it's just science; not religious science. Duh, that's self explanatory, don't chide me for writing it :D.
The current trend doesn't scare me. We have programs called 'Power of the Spirits' here during which clairvoyant people go around to houses where people have been murdered and explain what has happened. The spirits tell them, you see. The same show also does demon purges and stuff like that.
What must be a little scary to Christians however is that people aren't flocking to the established religions. It's New Age stuff that's pulling people. Ghosts, spirits, paganism. You're right that spirituality is on the rise. I don't find that scary at all, as long as they're not trying to impose their values on me. Most of all I find ignorance such as New Ageism funny.