Is Science Just Another Belief System?

[dgoodpasture2005]

Such people fail to recognize that science is very limited in what it can study. For example, science can only reliably answer the question "What IS real?" the question "What WAS real?" cannot be dealt with scientifically because there is no way to experiment with the past. Science can only suggest possibilities that might or might have occurred. Science cannot make a definitive statement about how the universe came to exist or whether life was transferred to Earth by some E.T. or developed here without or without the assistance of some intelligence.

Science also cannot make reliable statements about the nature of the universe as a whole because of insufficient data. For example, science cannot say what is happening in distant parts of the universe in absolute time because data is limited to relative time. If a galaxy whose light is received 2 billion years after it left the galaxy began moving toward Earth a billion years ago, there will be no way for Earth scientists to determine that for another billion years.

I don't agree with everything you say.. but skipping right ahead... i want to ask.. and religion can? And if science can prove "What IS real"... then why can't it prove "what is NOT real?" or was real... i don't get it. kind of contradictive. If you can prove what IS real... then you obviously are proving what is believed to be real...to be wrong.. or in this case... what ->WAS<- believed to be real. We can never prove what WAS real right... that's why we cannot prove dinosaurs ever walked this Earth. (sarcasm) And someday science may be able to make a definitive statement about how life formed here on Earth... but i don't see religion making any efforts. They seem to have it all figured out.

 

[Royce]

Sorry, I do not agree. All of these things I hold by "reason", none by "faith".
We go round and round with definitions here, you cannot just make a statement that "my definition is incorrect", thus logically I must accept that "your definition is correct". So, now I go to the Webster Unabridged Dictionary, and nowhere in any of the recognized meanings of the word by the English speaking people of the world, both past and present, do I find that "faith" = belief without proof. Here are the recognized definitions of the concept "faith" as found in the unabridged Webster:
1. unquestioned belief
2. unquestioned belief in god, religion, etc.
3. a religion
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence
6. faithfulness, loyalty, allegiance
7. credibility or truth [rare]
Thus, "proof" is not a criterion of faith in any way.
Now, let me suggest that if I accept your definition faith = belief without proof,

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

faith
5 entries found for faith.
To select an entry, click on it.
faith[1,noun]faith[2,transitive verb]article of faith faith healing good faith

Main Entry: 1 faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

Okay which reference do you want to use? Your pick.
IMHO belief without question is a good definition for blind faith.

then using your argument I will offer that science = knowledge without proof. I hold this true following the logic of Popper that the methods of science never lead to a prove, only to a falsification. Now, if the above is held by reason, then we can conclude that science is never faith based, because faith is held by "belief" (by your definition) while science is held by knowledge (via Webster : science = scire = to know). Thus I conclude that, even though your definition of faith is logically incorrect, it is also a moot point vis-a-vis science even if held to be true. Thus I reach an answer to the question of this thread, "is science faith based"--the answer is no.

Yet if we use Merriam Webster Online's definition my argument holds and science is faith based as are virtually all human endeavors.

Faith is not a dirty word nor is it always referring to religion; although, to some Science appears to have taken the place of god based religion. The point is really ridiculously trivial. I am just trying to get people to see that Science is not ABSOLUTE but a tool we use to gather knowledge. Yes it is a great tool when used properly and for the right job; but, when used or sited improperly it is a false god.

I site dgoodpasture2005's post #86 just brfore your post quoted here as a prime example of what I am talking about.

 

[Royce]

I agree. I support the basic concept of the Big Bang Theory, but not the popular model in which a perfect explosion or "expansion" creates a uniform disbursement of material. I recognize that the Theory must be accepted by faith because it cannot be verified through experimentation and observation.

Thanks for the support, and here is where Science stops and Philosophy goes on.

Incidentally, the concept of the Big Bang didn't originate with 20th Century astronomers. It is mentioned in the Secrets of Enoch which also appears to be the original source of the Genesis account of creation.

Thanks again, I didn't know this. As Spock would say "Fascinating!"

 

[Rade]

Yet if we use Merriam Webster Online's definition my argument holds and science is faith based as are virtually all human endeavors.

But I did use your Merriam Webster definition to show that your argument does not hold, that is:
faith = belief without proof (Merriam Webster)
science = knowledge without proof, or "uncertain knowledge" (Unabridged Webster)
therefore, by elimination of constant "proof"
faith = belief
science = knowledge
conclusion, science is not faith (e.g. belief) based, it is based on knowledge

 

[Royce]

faith = belief
science = knowledge
conclusion, science is not faith (e.g. belief) based, it is based on knowledge

I concede your point with the following condition. If unproved knowledge is of any use it must be believed to be true within the circumstances of its use.

Also physics makes a few necessary assumptions at the very beginning as I have mentioned. These assumptions are not provable and known to be false under extreme conditions. For example, the assumption that the laws of physics hold and are the same everywhere in the universe. It is known at least mathematically that inside a singularity the laws of physics fall apart. Yet for the most part it is believed or assumed that they are true.

I agree that it is stretching the point but such beliefs without proof is by definition faith. True it is not religious faith; but, faith that our knowledge is true and that our understanding are valid through out the universe.

(I conceded your point. and it was a very good point too. You can't expect complete capitulation from me. )

 

[russ_watters]

I concede your point with the following condition. If unproved knowledge is of any use it must be believed to be true within the circumstances of its use.

No. Besides the many other errors already pointed out, you misunderstand the concept of "proven" as applied to science. There are many different standards of proof. The phrase "not proven" means that a theory is not 100% proven. It is obvious that nothing that involves prediction can be 100% proven, because you would have to know the outcome of every experiment ever to be performed in the future to have that 100% proof. But you must understand that not 100% proven does not mean theories are 0% proven. Indeed, theories must be able to explain a significant fraction of the data already collected, so they must have a significant body of proof.

So this does not mean a theory must be believed because there is proof that theories are right - there must be, otherwise you have an hypothesis, not a theory. "Proof" (the noun) is another word for data or evidence and for a theory to exist, there must be data supporting it. Gravity may not be completely proven, but it is well proven. That is why it doesn't require faith to expect/predict that when I drop my remote it'll hit the ground. I don't have a belief in a theory that is unproven, but rather a confident expectation that a the remote will behave in a way that a well-proven theory says it should.

It almost seems like you are purposely changing definitions of words in order to use a word (faith) that does not apply in the way you want it to. Purposeful or not, your entire argument is based on butchering definitions in order to apply words to science that don't apply. I don't know if you understand what you are arguing about or not, but either way, you need to step back and learn what science actually is before you try to apply words like faith to it - you may just come to understand that science isn't what you think it is.

The ironic thing is that because you don't understand science, it very well may be a matter of faith for you! But for people who understand what science is, it is not a matter of faith.

 

[russ_watters]

Also physics makes a few necessary assumptions at the very beginning as I have mentioned. These assumptions are not provable and known to be false under extreme conditions.

Once again, not correct. You need to learn how science works before you can really tackle this argument. The assumptions that theories are based on are tested by the theory (ie, the assumption that the speed of light is constant) and even in cases where the assumptions are known to be false (Newton's gravity), those theories are used only as special-case approximations, so the false-ness of the assumption does not affect the operation of the theory.

For example, the assumption that the laws of physics hold and are the same everywhere in the universe.

Indeed, that's the other postulate of Einstein's Relativity. But that postulate, too, is tested! It is tested every time a GPS satellite flies over, every time a space probe goes to another place, scientists test that postulate and say "yep, the laws of physics hold there too!"

It is known at least mathematically that inside a singularity the laws of physics fall apart. Yet for the most part it is believed or assumed that they are true.

No! Not believed. Assumed yes, not believed. They are two very different things. An assumption in science requires real-world verification to be valid.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, that's exactly what I am trying to do " knock science down a peg."
Knock it down off of the Mount or Ivory Tower that so many people (young people here?) seem to have placed it. I'm trying to get people to open up their minds a bit. Science is not the "One and Only Truth" nor is it carved in granite and gilded with gold. It is a tool that we use to broaden and acquire knowledge. It can be and often has been wrong and will no doubt be found to be wrong again.

Well, what you are arguing has nothing to do with how science really works, only to do with your misunderstandings of science. It isn't that science needs to be knocked down a peg, it's that your understanding of science needs to be raised up a peg. This argument-from-ignorance thing you are doing is just not productive. It seems like you are trying to avoid dealing with some perceived threat to your belief system and as a result are presenting all of these inaccurate characterizations of what science is all about. Ie - in the above quote:

Science is not the "One and Only Truth" nor is it carved in granite and gilded with gold.

Who says it is?! Certainly scientists would not! Only someone who doesn't understand what science is would think that's what scientists believe. You are arguing against a perceived - in this case, nonexistant - threat.

It can be and often has been wrong and will no doubt be found to be wrong again.

Again - no scientist would argue otherwise. You are arguing against a nonexistent threat here too.

I am also trying to get people to realize that virtually everything we know is at some level based on faith as we do not and cannot do it all ourselves to verify the truth of it.

Certainly, that was already conceded, but that is such a weak version of faith that it has no usefullness in this discussion or in life in general. Worrying about such things would cause a person to never get out of bed in the morning for fear of the floor breaking under his feet!

There are those whose faith in science is just as blind and just as absolute as any Christian or Islamic fundamentalist.

The only "scientists" who are like that are the crackpots and they are typically ostracized because of it. People like Pons and Fleischman who'se belief in cold fusion was so strong it caused them to become dishonest in their effort to convince others they were right - perhaps even without realizing they were being dishonest, so strong was their belief. But once again, that is not a flaw in the process of science, but rather a human flaw of not adhering to what science is all about.

Just as with the religionists we don't dare to question that faith or belief in science without incurring their wrath just as Les and I and "the friend" have here in this thread and every time we dare question the sanctity and sacristy of the "Holy Grail of Science.

You are putting science up on this pedistal yourself, Royce, so that you can then shoot it down. This problem exists only in your head because you either don't understand or refuse to accept what science really is.

Just reread your response to my post. Nothing I said contained a contradiction but since it wasn't science and since it is perceived that I am attacking the sacred cow of science then that warrants attack and false accusations.

No, Royce - it is because your facts are wrong that people are arguing against you. You aren't arguing against what scientists believe - you created this "sacred cow" you are trying to kill and it exists only in your head. And you are welcome to believe what you want - even to be wrong and never learn why. I'll help you learn if you want, but I really don't much care if you do: The only reason I am here is so others don't read your misunderstandings and think they are correct. The misunderstanding of what science itself is is one of the biggest educational problems this country is facing and it is an important issue to me.

Nor does Science invalidate any other faith system nor does it prove or disprove anything about any religion or belief system as has been said here in the past.

Once again - you are attaching an assertion to science that it doesn't have. No good scientist would say that science proves God doesn't exist, because it can't. Many scientists are athiests, not because they think science disproves God, but because science makes belief in god superfluous. And that is what I think you are really afraid of. You set up these strawmen to knock down because you are afraid of your beliefs being irrelevant.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

science is having faith that you will find the answers, religion is having faith that you know the answers. There, just so everyone is happy... now they both consist of faith... but you see the difference as well :)

 

[Royce]

No. Besides the many other errors already pointed out

I don't accept what you pointed out as errors. Disagreements, different view point or understandings yes but, not errors.

you misunderstand the concept of "proven" as applied to science.

I do not misunderstand the concept of proven as applied to science or any other application.

Indeed, theories must be able to explain a significant fraction of the data already collected, so they must have a significant body of proof.

You are misusing the word "proven" and "proof." The word you should be using is empirical evidence or support. If you want to quibble over semantics at least get your terms straight.

So this does not mean a theory must be believed because there is proof that theories are right - there must be, otherwise you have an hypothesis, not a theory. "Proof" (the noun) is another word for data or evidence and for a theory to exist, there must be data supporting it. Gravity may not be completely proven, but it is well proven.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: 1proof
Pronunciation: 'prüf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Main Entry: prove
Pronunciation: 'prüv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en /'prü-v&n, British also 'prO-/; prov·ing /'prü-vi[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French prover, from Latin probare to test, approve, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bEon to be) -- more at PRO-, BE
transitive senses
1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard -- sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

theory
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

My understanding is that:

A hypothesis if the formulation of a speculation in order to test perform experiments and make predictions to test.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and sufficient empirical evidence found to support it as probably true but not yet proven to be absolutely (100%) true.

A law is a theory that is found to be true and predictable 100% of the time such as Newtons Laws of Motion, which are as we know not true 100% of the time but extremely accurate approximations below relativity speeds.

The so called Big Bang Theory isn't a theory at all, not even a hypothesis but a speculation. It can't be tested and makes no testable predictions. There is of course some evidence to support it if we are allowed to make extreme extrapolations. String Theory and all of its manifestations or versions such as Super string theory and M theory are the same way.

Give me a break, russ. You are being semantically pedantic in the extreme. If this is your interpretation, fine. Welcome to it. It is not mine nor a number of others including a number of working well reputed scientist whose work I have read or read about. That does no make me wrong, ignorant, unschooled or self-contradictory. It simply means that I see thing a little different than you. I am not attacking Science or you or your beliefs. I am merely point out that there is another way of looking at things.

Anyway, nuff said. I (we've) belabored this triviality long enough. Just to get out of here I will concede all of your points, even capitulate to your greater wisdom and education, resign the game. You will not however get me to admit that I am wrong!

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

(science)when used or sited improperly it is a false god.
I site dgoodpasture2005's post #86 just before your post quoted here as a prime example of what I am talking about.

?! and explain to me how is this a false God?? Because i pointed out some contradicting things Jesus did... BY USING SCIENTIFIC METHODS(you know that tool used to gather information and knowledge you speak of), yet people believe he is the way and the light to holiness...THROUGH FAITH BASED METHODS, Jesus was never here to convert people to "Jesusism"(Christianity)... he was here for "God"... see what's been done? I am an expert in the Bibles... so if you wish to discuss, i am more than willing. But if you're going to make such a statement as me using science as a false God.. i suggest you take a look at what you're doing first.

Post # 86--------------------------------------------------------------------
Until religion can prove science wrong, i don't see the argument here. Science and reasoning (not to mention your eyes and the ability to see the night sky) prove religion wrong... and science can prove science wrong... science does seem to be on a taller mountain here, as it's the only thing that can give us the answers we desire, whether they be wrong or right, through testing. Religion is completely faith based... it's an ideology. If I were to claim i was Gods son in todays time and place... hung out with drunkards, told people to steal donkeys(cars) for me because "I am the Lord".. (contradiction? what happened to not stealing?) preached to people not to drunken their minds... but drank myself... and gave some wedding recipients enough wine to drunken themselves for a week at a time. Everyone would pretty much say I'm a crazy fool... Religion has EMOTIONAL attatchments... that's the difference here... science does NOT(LOGIC). No one is scaremongered into believing science based on the belief that if they don't they're going to hell. END I Don't want to discuss this matter anymore.. i agree with russ... you have a belief you want to stick to, and you are seeing things very narrowly because you believe in it so much... sometimes you have to utilize Extrospection(take a look at the matter neithre from my view... or yours... a neutral standpoint... then re-evaluate) to get a clear view of what you're talking about, or you tend to get lost in ego, and all knowing powers.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I've addressed this idea in another thread (the social construction of gender and intersexed individuals), and in some ways, science is taking over the functions of previous religions. Science does bring us truths, but it also serves to reinforce cultural ideas about gender, "race," intelligence, etc. Just as Greek philosophy and Catholicism were used to "prove" that men were superior to women, that the white skinned were better than the dark-skinned, so science was used. Obviously, science functions in a different way than traditional religion, but it is a cultural product and as such is not outside of a culture's influences. Many see science as existing in a vacuum, a near perfect tool to obtain truth. Perhaps the scientific method is, but science itself can be said to be a social institution, just like religion.

So, to address the first post, science is a tool which is often used to reinforce cultural beliefs that are also reinforced by religion - hence it appears to be a religion. I don't see any problem with this, but it is funny how similar the reactions of scientists (ones who believe science isn't a religion) are to religious believers who are "defending" their beliefs. Humans Here's some more http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4992705" on the topic.

p.s. this comes from a cultural anthropology view, where all ideas are scrutinized in a cultural context.

 

[Moneer81]

Sorry for intruding and commenting on something a little older

This issue is pretty simple:
Einstein's (and Newton's) gravity predicted my remote would fall: prediction
My remote fell: reality
Conclusion: Einstein's/Newton's predictions were correct and therefore the theories are correct for this domain of applicability.
Therefore, I know that Einstein's and Newton's gravity accurately predicted my remote would fall.

I guess the main argument that I tried to make a few weeks ago when I started this thread is the following:

Let's suppose I am part of a religion that worships and truly believes in an omnipotent god: The Cosmic Micky Mouse. And we believe that the Cosmic Mickey Mouse created everything, and that his will controls everything as well. Check out this analogy of your argument:

We all know that the Cosmic Mickey Mouse controls everything. I will predict that by the will of the Cosmic Mickey Mouse, if I drop the remote it should fall downwards. I perform the experiment, and the remote does indeed fall downards and hit the floor. Praise the Almighty Cosmic Mickey Mouse! He indeed governs the heavens and the Earth and everything in between! and my belief in him did indeed predict the reality!

Now what describes the reality better? The laws of gravity or the divine power of the Cosmic Mickey Mouse?

 

[Rade]

My understanding is that:
A hypothesis if the formulation of a speculation in order to test perform experiments and make predictions to test.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and sufficient empirical evidence found to support it as probably true but not yet proven to be absolutely (100%) true.
A law is a theory that is found to be true and predictable 100% of the time such as Newtons Laws of Motion, which are as we know not true 100% of the time but extremely accurate approximations below relativity speeds.

Until recently, your sequence (but not your logic about predictability) above was what I held to be true. However, on page 11 of Eugenie Scott's book "evolution vs creationism" (2004) is found the following:

MOST IMPORTANT
Theories
Laws
Hypotheses
Facts
LEAST IMPORTANT​

I was taken aback at first, because this is not the sequence in most science textbooks, nor in the many science classes I have taken and taught. But some thought on it clearly shows it must be the correct sequence, because as explained by Scott, "theories explain laws and facts...theories therefore are more important than laws and facts...to explain something scientifically requires an interconnected combination of [facts], laws, tested hypotheses, and other theories. This reliance upon inferential reasoning is the hallmark of theorizing".
So, if nothing else useful comes from this thread, hopefully it will be that science educators will present the correct sequence of the "scientific method" in their classrooms.

 

[Skyhunter]

Faith is the ability humans have to believe more than they can know. Since knowing anything with absolute certainty is impossible, I would have to say yes. Science is a system of faith. It is however faith based on a very high percentage of certainty.

[edit] Science is not dogmatic. It's conclusions are subject to change when new data is discovered. [/edit]

 

[Rade]

We all know that the Cosmic Mickey Mouse controls everything. I will predict that by the will of the Cosmic Mickey Mouse...

Here is where your argument fails from its basic premise. I would like to point out that this is usually the place where all logically false arguments fail, by putting forth a false basic premise. In the above, only Micky can know internal to his mouseness that he controls everything, "we" (that is, humans) cannot "know" with certainty anything about the powers of Micky. Second, while you may predict the outcome of Micky's will, it cannot be tested using the scientific method (that is, you would really have to bring Micky before me and let him show me his powerful "will"...and no, it is not good enough to send me the book he wrote about his power...good enough for "faith" but not for "science"). Yet note that the Law of Gravity is tested and verified each and every moment of every day somewhere on the earth. So, I just cannot see the point of your argument.

 

[Rade]

Faith is the ability humans have to believe more than they can know. Since knowing anything with absolute certainty is impossible, I would have to say yes. Science is a system of faith. It is however faith based on a very high percentage of certainty.

OK, as to your first sentence, suppose you believe with faith that hell exists, clearly, according to your definition this is "more" information than you can pack into your brain than what you can "know" via the scientific method. That is, you have taken a quantum jump one step above knowledge, and that step is called faith based believe.
But, what is the point of this argument, other than to show me that you in fact do not "know" that hell exists (since by your definition faith goes one step past knowing), and all I can say is wow, because this is something as a scientist that I would never attempt...e.g. to "know" or "not know" via the scientific method that hell exists. Do you thus see the unintended consequences of this faith based approach you take ? It logically requires that you go around telling people that you "do not know" that hell exists (since your mind operates one step above knowledge), so you will want to be very quiet on this topic when in church, folks will just not understand.
Now your second sentence is just logically false. You cannot reach a logical conclusion that "science is faith based" because it is based on "uncertain knowledge". Please read my post above to Royce:
faith = believe without proof
science = knowledge without proof
therefore
science is not faith (believe) based, science is based on knowledge.

 

[Skyhunter]

OK, as to your first sentence, suppose you believe with faith that hell exists, clearly, according to your definition this is "more" information than you can pack into your brain than what you can "know" via the scientific method. That is, you have taken a quantum jump one step above knowledge, and that step is called faith based believe.
But, what is the point of this argument, other than to show me that you in fact do not "know" that hell exists (since by your definition faith goes one step past knowing), and all I can say is wow, because this is something as a scientist that I would never attempt...e.g. to "know" or "not know" via the scientific method that hell exists. Do you thus see the unintended consequences of this faith based approach you take ? It logically requires that you go around telling people that you "do not know" that hell exists (since your mind operates one step above knowledge), so you will want to be very quiet on this topic when in church, folks will just not understand.
Now your second sentence is just logically false. You cannot reach a logical conclusion that "science is faith based" because it is based on "uncertain knowledge". Please read my post above to Royce:
faith = believe without proof
science = knowledge without proof
therefore
science is not faith (believe) based, science is based on knowledge.

Knowledge is not absolute. Therefore you cannot know anything absolutely.

 

[Rade]

Knowledge is not absolute. Therefore you cannot know anything absolutely.

There are two ways to know any "thing": (1) from inside the thing, (2) from outside the thing. You, and only you, can know absolutely that "you exist"...see the thread on this discussion. But, there is "absolutely" nothing you can "know" outside yourself, you can come pretty close, but I do not see how any human can have absolute knowledge of that which is external to the consciousness.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Knowledge is not absolute. Therefore you cannot know anything absolutely.

This is true my friend, knowledge is quite the illusion... the more you know, the more you realize you don't know; the more you don't know, the more you realize you know what the truth is. ;) But isn't that better than thinking you know it all?!(religion, laws of physics[another religion]) Stagnant knowledge is not my craze. I'm a human being(i think)... I'm curious. I want to learn, not be told. But perhaps, it would be quite ironic if that was religions purpose all along.

 

[Moneer81]

Here is where your argument fails from its basic premise. I would like to point out that this is usually the place where all logically false arguments fail, by putting forth a false basic premise. In the above, only Micky can know internal to his mouseness that he controls everything, "we" (that is, humans) cannot "know" with certainty anything about the powers of Micky. Second, while you may predict the outcome of Micky's will, it cannot be tested using the scientific method (that is, you would really have to bring Micky before me and let him show me his powerful "will"...and no, it is not good enough to send me the book he wrote about his power...good enough for "faith" but not for "science"). Yet note that the Law of Gravity is tested and verified each and every moment of every day somewhere on the earth. So, I just cannot see the point of your argument.

well all I did here is I constructed a hypothesis, and tested it and it worked. And actually, it turns out that the will of the almighty Cosmic Mickey Mouse will determine how objects fall everywhere and at anytime. Thousdans of experiments have been constructed and they all obey the prediction that Cosmic Mickey Mouse's will causes them to fall downwards. This theory has never been proven wrong to date.

Now how is the law of gravity more credible than my theory ?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

It is no different... And I have proved this in S&D... Only to be called a "speculative pedestrian"... like I don't know anything about physics or something. Don't go against the physics Bible or it's just like going against a Religions Bible... I now know the argument here. Get too smart and question, and be outcast. There are many ways to look at things, and everyone wants to have power in this world... so as humanity we continue to get stuck every time an advancement is made because everyone acts selfishly as if they are the all knowing Gods of the world and forget to be neutral with their fellow humans... Hence the 13% warning... I am being punished for proving that physics is not complete... quite funny :) I'm just going to stop believing in everything, move to an island away from all of humanity, and become the greatest inventor ever, and burn all my methods so they never fall into the hands of selfish primates. Please read it in S&D, it is a prime example.. and please note the moderators quotes under his last message... contradicting eh... ohhh, the things power and knowledge will make a human do. Science has no place for emotions, or it begins to turn into a religion.

 

[Royce]

?! and explain to me how is this a false God??

I used the term "false God" as an ironic metaphor in line with my view point that Science just like all human knowledge is faith based as nothing is 100% proven and we know nothing absolutely and we take others words, work and teachings on faith as we cannot do the work or verification ourselves.

Post # 86--------------------------------------------------------------------
Until religion can prove science wrong, i don't see the argument here. Science and reasoning (not to mention your eyes and the ability to see the night sky) prove religion wrong...

The highlighted statement is absolutely false as science does not and cannot properly address religion. Science is physical and religion is metaphysical. Nor is Christianity the only religion. This is why I sited your post as a prime example.

 

[Royce]

Until recently, your sequence (but not your logic about predictability) above was what I held to be true. However, on page 11 of Eugenie Scott's book "evolution vs creationism" (2004) is found the following:

MOST IMPORTANT
Theories
Laws
Hypotheses
Facts
LEAST IMPORTANT​

I don't think that I can accept this. Maybe its just that I am too old and this is too new, like the new math being used by banks, credit card companies, mortgage companies and insurance companies etc.

IMHO it has in the past been facts, data gathered verified and tested that, was and is the most important and the starting point from which speculation or a hypotheses would be formed to explain the data collected. Then from the hypotheses tests, experiments and predictions would be formulated to test the hypotheses. Once successfully tested against all relevant data available, a theory might be formed. If the theory contained parts that were shown to be supported by mathematics and experiment it might then become named a Law.

I never have been very clear about Laws. Why some things remain theories such as electron theory in electricity and electronics Where it always (well almost always) works that way. It has logical and mathematical solutions that are verifiable and constant and electronics theory has Laws within it yet is still only a theory. But, I digress.

Anyway facts and data have always been the basis for all scientific theory and hypotheses.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Faith is the ability humans have to believe more than they can know. Since knowing anything with absolute certainty is impossible, I would have to say yes. Science is a system of faith. It is however faith based on a very high percentage of certainty.
[edit] Science is not dogmatic. It's conclusions are subject to change when new data is discovered. [/edit]

That is only true of what science can study directly such as the functioning of various physical processes and the interaction of chemicals. Study of the distant past or distant areas of the universe involve too little data or unknown reliability to provide any degree of certainty.

Stephen Hawking demonstrated how a real scientist works a year or two ago. He had previously stated that he believed that information could not escape from a black hole. He reversed his opinion and suggested that some information might be able to escape. Unfortunately, many others in the field aren't open to changing their views.

 

[reasonmclucus]

OK, as to your first sentence, suppose you believe with faith that hell exists, clearly, according to your definition this is "more"

I know it exists because I spent 11 months there. You call it Vietnam.

 

[-Job-]

I know it exists because I spent 11 months there. You call it Vietnam.

Of course in that case you sent yourself there.

 

[Son Goku]

I don't know about others, but I for one begin to find these kind of arguements pointless after a while.

"Nothing can be 100% proven", "Physics is incomplete".
The only response I have to these kind of statements is to just shrug my shoulders.

I can't prove the computer I'm typing at exists, but the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt or indeed sensible doubt, so I don't care.
It's a similar case for physics.
Sure Newtonian Gravity is just simplified case of General Relativity, but it can still tell me things, it can still predict things.
So again it's immaterial to me. I'll use General Relativity when I need to.

Similarly General Relativity breaks down inside black holes and at the quantum mechanical level.
Sure that's a gap in the theory, but so what. It has shown itself to be valid in its intended region and I'll comfortably use it there and take what it says as correct. There is a chance that it's wrong, but again it isn't within reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to physics as a religion or that physicists use physics as a religion to gain authority.
This is just a boring "postmodern" thought that comes up again and again.

Take somebody who proposes that the speed of light isn't constant.
They'll be told why it is constant from a theoretical basis due to special relativity and the evidence for it.
At which point they'll respond with "You priestly physicists and your holy special relativity can never be wrong can they?" and the person will go away convinced that physicists are dogmatic.

However they miss the point that coming on to a forum and saying "The speed of light isn't constant" isn't much of a physical arguement.
All a physicist can do with it is say that all evidence and theory thus far say otherwise.
Physicists will argue for current theories not because they are dogmatic, but because they're the theories the evidence supports.
I think people forget that physics or science in general isn't a debate where the most logically water-tight reasoning wins out. It's about making models from assumptions or principles and then seeing if that model holds out under experimentation. So if you say the speed of light isn't constant, physicists aren't being arrogant by arguing against it.
They're just quoting what nature has said so far.

Stephen Hawking demonstrated how a real scientist works a year or two ago. He had previously stated that he believed that information could not escape from a black hole. He reversed his opinion and suggested that some information might be able to escape. Unfortunately, many others in the field aren't open to changing their views.

Some people will belong to side A on an issue and some people will belong to side B on an issue and some will move between A and B until the issue is resolved, that isn't being closed minded though. Physics has shown that when there is enough evidence the majority of physicists will move over to the hypothesis that is experimentally supported.

As well, there may be some bias here as to what is being viewed as physics. People are only discussing the "sexy" areas of physics.
Are the Fluid Dymanics physicists anymore arrogant for holding on to the Navier Stokes equation than Relativists are for holding onto Einstein's theories?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Yeah and up 'till 500 years ago the Earth was flat, and God was controlling the weather, because that's what was proven at the time... yes it is dogmatic. Think ahead and beyond... and we'll progress as a race.. otherwise we're stuck here with our oil embargos.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Scientists are the most important people in the world... They should view themselves as a family. I'm saddened to always see it the other way around. Don't we become scientists to make things better? Right now we're having wars, and we're addicted to oil... We need to start questioning things in order to move forward. If there is one thing wrong about a law or a theory, then in my eyes the whole thing is wrong (sure it might be fine for it's intended purposes still, which I'd have no problem with keeping those theories the way they are) Just as if there is one thing wrong in a religion... that's what led me to stop believing.. there's so many things wrong about it's history, and the way it has been manipulated for power, the "conversion" factor now days, that has taken away from it's true intents and purposes, which was the message of love.. sometimes you just have to leave things and do it on your own, because you know what is right and what isn't. Do you go around wearing shirts with holes in them? I don't want to go around wearing a shirt that says scientist, and it explains GR and SR and every 5 letters there's a hole in it because it doesn't apply to all scenarios.