|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4189
Location: Evolving
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:22 am
|  |
| vanhart wrote: | | Science is tainted by the fact that it needs theories, observations and observers. Most widely held scientific theories have been proven wrong over the ages. |
I'd love to see how that has been determined ... In any case, a theory is just one way of explaining an observed set of facts. There may be more than one explanation that fits the facts. Once more observations are made, the theory may prove to be either wrong or in need of revision.
If I tell you a man has been shot you could hypothesise that a) he shot himself, b) someone else shot him. If I tell you that no gun is beside the body you might come down strongly for hypothesis b) but when I add that this was because the police took it away you swing back to uncertainty. When I add that he left a suicide note and was in a locked room you come down firmly for (a). If we added the possibility of (1) accident vs (2) deliberate then you start off with four possible hypotheses: a1, a2, b1 and b2.
Now, three out of four of those hypotheses must be wrong, and will be discarded as the evidence emerges. According to the "most science is wrong anyway so nothing it says can be believed" brigade, this would mean "most police theories are wrong so none of their conclusions can be trusted".
See the flaw?
The more theories that are discarded to account for new facts, the better the current theory becomes. If "most" scientific theories have been discarded, those that are left should be pretty good.
However, the statement about theories being wrong is designed to carry this message: "Scientists keep having to admit their wrong so they can't be trusted to tell the truth; we religious people have never admitted we are wrong so our faith must be more reliable than their science", which is an argument than has no merit whatsoever. |
|
fotomak
Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 992
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:58 am
| |
Science moves along with, and in many cases defines, the common knowledge and human advancement. Unlike the popular belief scientists aren't always thick glass wearing 63 year old man in corduroy pants, neither a mean looking persons dressed in black holding the finger on the On button of shiny world crashing machine made to extort money. They are smart people working in teams, doing endless research and communicating with each other in order to conceive, prove and put to use theories.
For centuries now they have been working relentlessly to prove that God exists, but somehow nobody has. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist but He, She or It hasn't found a way to communicate existence to the smartest hard working people of the world in a manner that could be proven.
Unlike that one, most of the other theories has been proven and tried over and over in practice. That's how they become scientific facts.
People constantly come up with theories that relativity is wrong or gravity is wrong or this and that is wrong, only to make a name for themselves and make a couple of bucks by writing a book for the masses with Hollywood sounding names. By now even elementary kids know that the nature of the universe is such that some theories work for the small things and other for very large. If somebody comes with a new theory that covers all of them, it still doesn't mean that the first two theories were wrong, but got upgraded.
So we shouldn't compare science of 12th century done in a dark room of a monastery and science today.
Unfortunately high science is in 99.99999999% financed by governments, so the fruits of the research are somehow turned into ones of destruction and war by the financiers. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3302
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:58 am
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | vanhart wrote: | | Science is tainted by the fact that it needs theories, observations and observers. Most widely held scientific theories have been proven wrong over the ages. |
I'd love to see how that has been determined ... In any case, a theory is just one way of explaining an observed set of facts. There may be more than one explanation that fits the facts. Once more observations are made, the theory may prove to be either wrong or in need of revision.
If I tell you a man has been shot you could hypothesise that a) he shot himself, b) someone else shot him. If I tell you that no gun is beside the body you might come down strongly for hypothesis b) but when I add that this was because the police took it away you swing back to uncertainty. When I add that he left a suicide note and was in a locked room you come down firmly for (a). If we added the possibility of (1) accident vs (2) deliberate then you start off with four possible hypotheses: a1, a2, b1 and b2.
Now, three out of four of those hypotheses must be wrong, and will be discarded as the evidence emerges. According to the "most science is wrong anyway so nothing it says can be believed" brigade, this would mean "most police theories are wrong so none of their conclusions can be trusted".
See the flaw?
The more theories that are discarded to account for new facts, the better the current theory becomes. If "most" scientific theories have been discarded, those that are left should be pretty good.
However, the statement about theories being wrong is designed to carry this message: "Scientists keep having to admit their wrong so they can't be trusted to tell the truth; we religious people have never admitted we are wrong so our faith must be more reliable than their science", which is an argument than has no merit whatsoever. |
Nicely argued. |
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6384
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:23 pm
| |
| vanhart wrote: | | Susan wrote: |
Right now I am searching for solutions for my brother who has MS and we are making progress... he bought a bike last month and has been riding in the mountains. Something he has not be able to do for 6 years. If he did not have an open mind he would believe that there is no hope and thus continue to accept that decline is inevitable. Instead he is willing to try new approaches to improving his health. |
It sounds that you are following a tradition of science by being open minded and looking for new approaches. We recently went through a lesser but similar ordeal and medical 'science' seems to be mostly intent on seeking a fast diagnosis and a prescription.... When we went our own way towards recovery the medical science postulated the 'miraculous recovery'. |
That is great news Menno, I hope your news is regarding some of our past conversations :) |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:45 pm
| |
| woodyone wrote: | | So Jeff you're equating early christian with catholic or, in other words, early dark ages establishment thinking. Columbus had set foot in america before Martin Luther was 10 :) |
Since the center of Christianity was the "Holy Roman Empire" which moved its center from Rome to Constantinople around 400 AD and subsequently back to Rome as the "Roman Catholic Church", I suppose I was equating early Christianity with Catholicism.
Other early Christian groups were not as powerful nor influential.
As a point of correction, Columbus actually never put foot in the Americas, he found a few of the islands in the Caribbean. The first European who set foot in the Americas was Leif Ericson a Norse explorer some 500 years before the Italian upstart mistakenly claimed he had found the East Indies.
Those of us in the USA of Nordic descent celebrate October 9th as Leif ericson day.
Last edited by jeffbanke on Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3921
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:46 pm
| |
There tend to be two major problems that I see regularly with regards to Scientific "debates"
1. Most people have extremely little knowledge of the scientific process. Much of the info floating around is heavily tainted with stereotypes. Frankly, even alot of "scientists" don't understand the implications of the scientific method on their own work or they choose to ignore it. Yes, most theories have been discarded but that is a part of the process. Every time someone comes up with a better (often more specific or detailed) description of something that becomes the gold standard (until it too is improved). The review/criticism/judgement and revision process is at the heart of everything. It isn't a weakness, it is a strength.
2. Most people think that science "proves" things or that it is a way of finding "truth". Particularly in some fields (biology, climate research etc) the systems that are being studied are complex with many interacting elements. Also, there is a heavy dose of chaos involved too. The fact that we can't predict things with 100% into the futire (and even into the past) with the models of understanding that we have makes some people throw out everything and suggest that science just doesn't know the answers and therefore scientists are fraudsters. This is rediculous. You could in theory predict the movement of all of the balls on a billiard table based on well known theories. Reality is that you could never measure all elements of the system perfectly so eventually your predictions on where a given ball will end up will be off. This doesn't mean that the theories on colliding bodies is junk. But certain elements of society will have you believe that.
Ultimately, there is alot of misunderstanding out there. Some use that to their advantage. None of this is as simple as often presented. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10700
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:59 pm
| |
"Most People"...... hmmm..
It is a way of finding "truth". If not, why bother |
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3921
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:04 pm
| |
| rudyumans wrote: | | "Most People"...... hmmm.. |
I'd say 95% of the general population has no clue really. They go by the filtered information they are provided by media of various types and never actually do any sort of digging or analysis of how the information they are digesting was produced (besides maybe checking who paid for the research just so they can claim that it is biased). Not that I'd expect anyone to be able to understand the fundamental principles of a field they don't work in. But we trust our sources more than we should IMHO.
"truth" is a very difficult thing to find. Sometimes it is even difficult to define. |
|
maxim1110
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 294
Location: Nijmegen, the Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:28 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | vanhart wrote: | | Science is tainted by the fact that it needs theories, observations and observers. Most widely held scientific theories have been proven wrong over the ages. |
I'd love to see how that has been determined ... In any case, a theory is just one way of explaining an observed set of facts. There may be more than one explanation that fits the facts. Once more observations are made, the theory may prove to be either wrong or in need of revision.
If I tell you a man has been shot you could hypothesise that a) he shot himself, b) someone else shot him. If I tell you that no gun is beside the body you might come down strongly for hypothesis b) but when I add that this was because the police took it away you swing back to uncertainty. When I add that he left a suicide note and was in a locked room you come down firmly for (a). If we added the possibility of (1) accident vs (2) deliberate then you start off with four possible hypotheses: a1, a2, b1 and b2.
Now, three out of four of those hypotheses must be wrong, and will be discarded as the evidence emerges. According to the "most science is wrong anyway so nothing it says can be believed" brigade, this would mean "most police theories are wrong so none of their conclusions can be trusted".
See the flaw?
The more theories that are discarded to account for new facts, the better the current theory becomes. If "most" scientific theories have been discarded, those that are left should be pretty good.
However, the statement about theories being wrong is designed to carry this message: "Scientists keep having to admit their wrong so they can't be trusted to tell the truth; we religious people have never admitted we are wrong so our faith must be more reliable than their science", which is an argument than has no merit whatsoever. |
Very interesting and elaborate post. I'd like to add that, according to Karl Popper's falsificationism, in order for a theory to be called scientific, it must actually be able to be wrong.
See it like this: a scientist has a theory about how something in the world works. In order to test that that specific theory, he runs a series of experiments to test if his theory was right, but in order to do that, he must actually be able to prove his theory wrong. If not, he won't find anything that proves his theory wrong, and consequently, we would have to conclude it was right. This would give anyone the opportunity to put forth whatever theory they like and call it scientific and proven as long as nothing proves them wrong. And nothing ever will, because that's impossible.
And that's where religion goes wrong. Religion has the doctrine of a being so great that man is never able to have any empirical knowledge of it, and they call it god. Needless to say, any theory that assumes the existence of a god or other supernatural being can never be called scientific. Consequently, every theory that assumes a god not to exist can also not be called scientific, because this can also not be proven wrong.
So in the end, agnosticism is reasonably the best option.
Something to read on falsificationism and Karl Popper: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ |
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6384
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:31 pm
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | | rudyumans wrote: | | "Most People"...... hmmm.. |
I'd say 95% of the general population has no clue really. They go by the filtered information they are provided by media of various types and never actually do any sort of digging or analysis of how the information they are digesting was produced (besides maybe checking who paid for the research just so they can claim that it is biased). Not that I'd expect anyone to be able to understand the fundamental principles of a field they don't work in. But we trust our sources more than we should IMHO.
"truth" is a very difficult thing to find. Sometimes it is even difficult to define. |
I agree the truth is hard to dig up... right now I am looking at studies in regard to soy derived phosphatidylcholine as a deliver system for agents that have the potential to ameliorate inflammation in autoimmune disorders. Decided to look into it because of studies which implicate soy lectins in autoimmune disease for some predisposed individuals. Most of the studies I have found to date involve the scientists who came up with the delivery system and they are only looking at deliver results. So far I have only found one which looks at possible downsides and it does not look at autoimmune related markers. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4189
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:18 pm
| |
| maxim1110 wrote: |
So in the end, agnosticism is reasonably the best option. |
Yes, in absolute terms. But given the complete lack of evidence for the god hypothesis (and the confusion of believers who proclaim absolute certainty that their version of religion is the right one to the exclusion of others, based almost entirely on which social group they were born into) isn't it reasonable to have a very sceptical agnosticism?
In other words, isn't the argument "my God exists because I say so and you can't disprove it" much weaker than the argument "your God doesn't exist because there is no evidence in support of your claim".
I don't suppose that science could disprove it if I announced that life was started here by alien spacemen who arrived and seeded the Earth with complex organic molecules. But would I be entitled to demand respect for my theory and to insist it should not be rejected by scientists because of their inability to disprove it?
To put it another way: isn't it incumbent on people presenting a hypothesis to produce evidence in support of it, rather than on others to disprove something for which there is no evidence? |
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3921
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:43 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | maxim1110 wrote: |
So in the end, agnosticism is reasonably the best option. |
Yes, in absolute terms. But given the complete lack of evidence for the god hypothesis (and the confusion of believers who proclaim absolute certainty that their version of religion is the right one to the exclusion of others, based almost entirely on which social group they were born into) isn't it reasonable to have a very sceptical agnosticism?
In other words, isn't the argument "my God exists because I say so and you can't disprove it" much weaker than the argument "your God doesn't exist because there is no evidence in support of your claim".
I don't suppose that science could disprove it if I announced that life was started here by alien spacemen who arrived and seeded the Earth with complex organic molecules. But would I be entitled to demand respect for my theory and to insist it should not be rejected by scientists because of their inability to disprove it?
To put it another way: isn't it incumbent on people presenting a hypothesis to produce evidence in support of it, rather than on others to disprove something for which there is no evidence? |
Enter stage left: the flying spaghetti monster... |
|
greenfield54
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2635
Location: Philippines
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:17 pm
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Come on now most scientists think they are greater then anyone else and they know everything!
|
And so do old time car mechanics. That is until EFI and on board computers came along.;) |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26831
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:45 pm
| |
| greenfield54 wrote: | | ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Come on now most scientists think they are greater then anyone else and they know everything!
|
And so do old time car mechanics. That is until EFI and on board computers came along.;) |
Except for me i specialized in BUS communication systems and On Board Computers as well as EFI.
Not to bad really as long as you understand the EFI is based on the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7 to one and that the BUS communication is based on the old BUS Bars for the old fuses and in our houses as well.
But then of course there is the SCI, PCI, CCD, CAN A, CAN B, CAN C and each system has it's own termination location and each system has it's own baud speed that they operate on.LOL |
|
greenfield54
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2635
Location: Philippines
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:07 pm
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | greenfield54 wrote: | | ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Come on now most scientists think they are greater then anyone else and they know everything!
|
And so do old time car mechanics. That is until EFI and on board computers came along.;) |
Except for me i specialized in BUS communication systems and On Board Computers as well as EFI.
Not to bad really as long as you understand the EFI is based on the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7 to one and that the BUS communication is based on the old BUS Bars for the old fuses and in our houses as well.
But then of course there is the SCI, PCI, CCD, CAN A, CAN B, CAN C and each system has it's own termination location and each system has it's own baud speed that they operate on.LOL |
Whoa! You just gave me a nosebleed there just now. LOL! Can't you be more gentle? :). I'm working on an old 96 Hyundai Elantra. My first EFI so I'm just too apprehensive on making mistakes and cooking the ECU. It has seen at least 3 owners and I found out the O2 sensor has been missing for years. But the that's the way some mechanics operated down here. D..m "Bush Mechanics"! |
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
