Science - What is it? Can it be trusted?

[Robert Maxwell]

"From that fateful day when stinking bits of slime first crawled from the sea and shouted to the cold stars, "I am Man!", our greatest dread has always been the knowledge of our mortality. But tonight, we shall hurl the gauntlet of science into the frightful face of death itself. Tonight, we shall ascend into the heavens! We shall mock the earthquake! We shall command the thunders, and penetrate into the very womb of impervious! nature! herself!"

I obviously model my life on Young Frankenstein, so I approve.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Science and Religion:

If scientists want to come out with a statement such as "Our goal, which we fully believe that we can one day achieve, is to explain everything from a scientific standpoint," that's all well and fine. It might happen, it might not. But, along the way, it would be best to approach it as an aim to explain the 'how' that Goddess/God does things, rather than an exclusion of all deities unless/until there is conclusive proof that none exists.

 

[ThankQ]

Science and Religion:

If scientists want to come out with a statement such as "Our goal, which we fully believe that we can one day achieve, is to explain everything from a scientific standpoint," that's all well and fine. It might happen, it might not. But, along the way, it would be best to approach it as an aim to explain the 'how' that Goddess/God does things, rather than an exclusion of all deities unless/until there is conclusive proof that none exists.

So since it cannot be proved that god does not exist, we should assume he does?

There will never be conclusive proof that god does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. Prove to me that you haven't watched Voyager in the last six months. You can't do it.

I can no more prove that god doesn't exist that you could prove that I am not god.

 

[Lindley]

But, along the way, it would be best to approach it as an aim to explain the 'how' that Goddess/God does things, rather than an exclusion of all deities unless/until there is conclusive proof that none exists.

The notion that science precludes a God comes much more from the religious side of things than the science side, since, as has been mentioned, you can't prove such a thing scientifically.

That some scientists scoff at religion is to be expected because their worldview eschews belief without evidence, but that is not the same as proving religion irrelevant.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Science and Religion:

If scientists want to come out with a statement such as "Our goal, which we fully believe that we can one day achieve, is to explain everything from a scientific standpoint," that's all well and fine. It might happen, it might not. But, along the way, it would be best to approach it as an aim to explain the 'how' that Goddess/God does things, rather than an exclusion of all deities unless/until there is conclusive proof that none exists.

So since it cannot be proved that god does not exist, we should assume he does?

There will never be conclusive proof that god does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. Prove to me that you haven't watched Voyager in the last six months. You can't do it.

I can no more prove that god doesn't exist that you could prove that I am not god.

All of this is said from the standpoint of how things are right now, at this point in time. No one knows what the far future could hold, as far as proving or disproving anything. We are all operating according to conditions as they exist right now.

Be careful with the word 'never' when discussing anything. The far future might be different from anything that you could possibly imagine in the here and now.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Science and Religion:

If scientists want to come out with a statement such as "Our goal, which we fully believe that we can one day achieve, is to explain everything from a scientific standpoint," that's all well and fine. It might happen, it might not. But, along the way, it would be best to approach it as an aim to explain the 'how' that Goddess/God does things, rather than an exclusion of all deities unless/until there is conclusive proof that none exists.

So since it cannot be proved that god does not exist, we should assume he does?

There will never be conclusive proof that god does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. Prove to me that you haven't watched Voyager in the last six months. You can't do it.

I can no more prove that god doesn't exist that you could prove that I am not god.

All of this is said from the standpoint of how things are right now, at this point in time. No one knows what the far future could hold, as far as proving or disproving anything. We are all operating according to conditions as they exist right now.

Be careful with the word 'never' when discussing anything. The far future might be different from anything that you could possibly imagine in the here and now.

Meaningless platitudes. Science works here and now. Something else might work in the future, but we can't pin all future progress on vague "what ifs." We use science because it works--period. If something else worked better, we'd use that instead.

 

[TrickyDickie]

So since it cannot be proved that god does not exist, we should assume he does?

There will never be conclusive proof that god does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. Prove to me that you haven't watched Voyager in the last six months. You can't do it.

I can no more prove that god doesn't exist that you could prove that I am not god.

All of this is said from the standpoint of how things are right now, at this point in time. No one knows what the far future could hold, as far as proving or disproving anything. We are all operating according to conditions as they exist right now.

Be careful with the word 'never' when discussing anything. The far future might be different from anything that you could possibly imagine in the here and now.

Meaningless platitudes. Science works here and now. Something else might work in the future, but we can't pin all future progress on vague "what ifs." We use science because it works--periods. If something else worked better, we'd use that instead.

I don't disagree with using science when it works. That's common sense. All I am really trying to say is that while we are doing that there is nothing wrong with setting non-scientific things on a sort of little back burner in our minds so as not to completely dismiss them. I am in no way saying that non-scientific things should consume us or take away from logical and tested methodology.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

All of this is said from the standpoint of how things are right now, at this point in time. No one knows what the far future could hold, as far as proving or disproving anything. We are all operating according to conditions as they exist right now.

Be careful with the word 'never' when discussing anything. The far future might be different from anything that you could possibly imagine in the here and now.

Meaningless platitudes. Science works here and now. Something else might work in the future, but we can't pin all future progress on vague "what ifs." We use science because it works--periods. If something else worked better, we'd use that instead.

I don't disagree with using science when it works. That's common sense. All I am really trying to say is that while we are doing that there is nothing wrong with setting non-scientific things on a sort of little back burner in our minds so as not to completely dismiss them. I am in no way saying that non-scientific things should consume us or take away from logical and tested methodology.

I don't think people have any problem considering non-scientific thought. Unfortunately, some people will consider anything, no matter how absurd or baseless. There has to be a balance.

 

[TheGodBen]

If scientists want to come out with a statement such as "Our goal, which we fully believe that we can one day achieve, is to explain everything from a scientific standpoint," that's all well and fine. It might happen, it might not. But, along the way, it would be best to approach it as an aim to explain the 'how' that Goddess/God does things, rather than an exclusion of all deities unless/until there is conclusive proof that none exists.

If that's the way that you want to view existence then fine, nobody is going to stop you from holding that point of view. But to suggest that science should presume the existence of something for which there is no evidence and which cannot ever be falsified... well, that's a ridiculous idea. That's like saying that science should stop being science.

Science is science and religion is religion. Just because religion likes to incorporate science to back up its point of view does not mean that science should, or even can, do the reverse.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Meaningless platitudes. Science works here and now. Something else might work in the future, but we can't pin all future progress on vague "what ifs." We use science because it works--periods. If something else worked better, we'd use that instead.

I don't disagree with using science when it works. That's common sense. All I am really trying to say is that while we are doing that there is nothing wrong with setting non-scientific things on a sort of little back burner in our minds so as not to completely dismiss them. I am in no way saying that non-scientific things should consume us or take away from logical and tested methodology.

I don't think people have any problem considering non-scientific thought. Unfortunately, some people will consider anything, no matter how absurd or baseless. There has to be a balance.

Seems like the problem sometimes is that people might think that my willingness to consider something for a minute is stronger than I really feel. Maybe that's the way I come across.

Wait a minute....You mean The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy isn't a real book?

 

[auntiehill]

Science adjusts it's understanding on the basis of what's observed. Religion denies what's observed so that faith can be preserved.

The two do not seem compatible to me.

 

[Franklin]

Science adjusts it's understanding on the basis of what's observed. Religion denies what's observed so that faith can be preserved.

The two do not seem compatible to me.

Even religion has to adapt to science and what is observed in order to stay relevant. How many people would be Catholics today if the Church still maintained that the sun revolves around the Earth? Even religion can't deny science.

 

[Kestra]

I find science highly suspicious. Also sneaky.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I find science highly suspicious. Also sneaky.

Did science crawl in through your window and touch you at night?

 

[Kestra]

Yes, and I liked it.

 

[RandyS]

Science is one half of the argument.

We're waiting....

Yep me too.

You mean it isn't obvious? Okay, I'll give you the answer:

Religion is the other.

 

[TheGodBen]

Eh, science and religion aren't really involved in any argument. Science just tries to get on with what it does without commenting on religion as it is not within its purview, while certain religious groups try to pick a fight with science because they believe that science is trying to insult them when it's really not. Sure, there's a couple of famous scientists that go after religion, but most of the time science just gets on with the important work it has to do and leaves the religious to whatever they want to believe.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Did science crawl in through your window and touch you at night?

Yes, and I liked it.

 

[ThankQ]

Eh, science and religion aren't really involved in any argument. Science just tries to get on with what it does without commenting on religion as it is not within its purview, while certain religious groups try to pick a fight with science because they believe that science is trying to insult them when it's really not. Sure, there's a couple of famous scientists that go after religion, but most of the time science just gets on with the important work it has to do and leaves the religious to whatever they want to believe.

Dawkins would be the most well-known current example. I bet ya if religion would leave evolution alone he'd have a lot less to say about it.

But even Dawkins said to Bill'O (I'm paraphrasing) that if religion is something that brings you comfort, that's your own business and all well and good. It's when religion tries to bring down scientific findings that the problem begins.

What most religious people would see as scientists attacking religion is really just scientins responding to attacks from the other side. And many scientists who are talked about as anti-religionists really only make their views known when asked the question during lectures or interviews. It's just not that big a deal to many of them.

The attack on religion is really quite small, in my view. Personally, if you want to worship a race of purple doorknobs from the planet Bluto, I really couldn't care less. If you want to tell me about, I might even listen. My problem starts when you try to force it upon children (Intelligent Design) or force it into my law.

 

[Captain_Nick]

My first thought was to have a massive original post, but if this thread happens to catch on, I imagine several people will have many views to contribute, so I think it's best just to get the ball rolling and leave a little bit of thunder for everyone.

I just read, from first post to last, the Ancient Aliens thread, and that's what brought this to the front of my mind this morning.

The idea of not "trusting" science was voiced, as was the idea that scientists circle the wagons to protect prevailing theory.

Well, to me, those thougths, (this is not directed at or limited to the handful of posters from that thread--the number of people is in the millions, possibly billions) show a total lack of understand of what "science" is.

First, what it is NOT:
Science is NOT a body of knowledge.
Science is NOT a belief or set of beliefs.

Science is an algorithm. That is, science is a system of steps for solving a problem--or, if you'd rather, for answering a question.


I could go on for paragraph after paragraph, but I'll leave it there and start the discussion.
-----------------

The word "theory" is likely to appear in this thread. So we're all on the same page, let's start by standardizing some definitions so we all know what we're saying to each other:


Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a proposed explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

That is all very nice, and true, and it completely misses the point of why average joes don't 'trust' scientists.

1. Most people aren't able to think effectively enough to understand the fine difference between 'theory', 'hypothesis', and 'what the Herald Sun says happened'.

2. Most people are too lazy to observe events, devise experiments, learn about the world they live in, and think for themselves. They're happier being fed bite sized truths such as 'Celery Causes Cancer' and 'WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT? TAKE THESE MAJIC PILLS ONLY $200 EACH'

3. Scientists are people too and they are as untrustworthy as everyone else.

Quid pro bono, my friend