Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do believe that some accidents were necessary to humanity and a catalyst for evolution of humanity (to be clear--although it is somewhat unrelated to this--I do believe in evolution of humans, but a creation of soul/spirit from a divine source, who to me is God).
There are many things that science cannot address because they are abstract, and science can only solve problems--including why we have abstracts and emotions.
Also, why are there so many scientists who are faithful/religious and fully believe that their beliefs can coincide with their line of work? Would they not be absolutely positive regarding Science as superior to Faith?
Also, personally, I believe scientists in this line of work should be able to have any mindset, so long as they produce results that are reasonable.
So, do you think that our existence is the result of chance? Sorry for the jumping around, it's just that I read a bit and must reply.
I suppose that this won't come to a head, so:
I admit defeat because I can come forward with no further evidence for my case; if not defeat, at least forfeiture because my beliefs may be proven at some point.
I must ask: are you agnostic, atheist or something else? It will help me understand your POV better.
Also, thanks for being more cordial than some people.
And I do realize that many people of faith refuse to see other options, while I can maintain my stance and listen to others'. Amazing, ain't it?
I greatly appreciate your cordial tone. I consider that our existence being unplanned (the sort of forward planning that I consider the significant difference between a creator and the unthinking processes of the inherent function of matter) is a better term than 'chance'. That term tends to make it sound a totally random procedure (which leaves it open to false analogies about whirlwinds constructing jumbo jets or cats spelling out messages on keyboards) when it is as non - random and predictable as - say -the forming of a snowflake or of a crystal. I believe few would insist in a Mind having to put snowflakes and crystals together. The innate processes of the matter can be left to get on with it unthinkingly.
I agree that there are many things that science cannot address. It isn't intended to solve moral problems. That is for humans and their reasoning. That reasoning is not, I believe, helped by supposing that they are guided by a spirit mind which should be taken as an unfailing source, when it clearly fails so spectacularly often.
Why many scientists are also religious believers is a question that interest me. My current hypothesis is that Faith is hived away in a separate part of the brain and science is allowed to get on with its work. That is fine and dandy until the results don't fit with their Faith and then I have fears that the faith might tend to compromise the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman
Compartmentalization. They don't subject it to the same scrutiny as everything else.
Exactly.
I have in mind the example of a couple of biologists who produce good papers, until they do something that relates to evolution and then, while raising some valid points about gaps in our knowledge about - say camelopardus evolution, they can go too far in suggesting that the thing didn't evolve, and an archaeologist (he popped up in a debate on a thread on Exodus) who did good work, but the lack of evidence for a tribe which biblically should have been there was explained away by suggesting (without any evidence) that the evidence had been removed. Well, that was clearly the believer rather than the archeologist speaking.
I would prefer that you didn't admit defeat because I can assure you that many here can provide you with evidence to support your case and bowing out with belief intact while trusting that evidence will one day be forthcoming is evading the issue a bit. Nevertheless, that's up to you and you would at least know that those who do not buy into sortagod creation with 'it talks to us' lurking in the wings have a good enough case.
I am agnostic because, like everyone else, I do not know whether there is a god (lower case is the rule) or not (though some people think they do) and because one cannot reasonably, rationally or logically believe in a god one does not know to exist, I do not have a god - belief. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist rather than an agnostic theist.
I differ from them in that I do not find the evidence for a god or God compelling or persuasive and an undisprovable possibility is not reason enough to believe. An agnostic theist has presumably considered the evidence and finds it persuasive.
I believe that respectful dialogue is possible even when both sides maintain their stance, as you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter
Austin is correct, though; It's not as if science is the definitive answer or has the definitive answer. All laws are theories, and every scientist and science teacher/professor will tell you, if they're worth their salt.
Science is however, the vessel to find out the answers.
I should be prepared to discuss the rather contestable use of terms such as scientific laws and theories when the latter is used to denote a hypothesis. A scientific law is (as I told Austin) not a hypothesis and the 'theory' is an explanation of a set of data which may or may not be theoretical depending on the evidential support. Scientific laws have such adequate evidential support that the theory is NOT a mere hypothesis.
While of course 'definitive answers' may not be forthcoming, that is irrelevant to the reliability of scientific data. We can rely unreservedly on the science behind the petrol engine, though the 'defiitive answers' to to origins of petrol or the behaviour of its atoms at quantum level may not be known. That sort of argument is a false one designed to call into question reliance on scientific data.
This often comes up and is the 'How do we know what we know' question. It is important because, if one does not accept the validity of scientific data and logical reasoning, then debate becomes pointless. While it is fair enough to point out that the Big bang, Abiogenesis and the origins of the hebrew tribe are still very theoretical, to suppose that it is reason to doubt and distrust all science data (but only where it conflicts with Faith, mind) is quite wrong and a false argument.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-06-2012 at 08:45 AM..
I should like to hear which Newtonian physical principle has been shown to be invalid (as distinct from a handy approximation) by any further discovery.
The notion of the "aether" was a widely accepted principle by many classical physicists. It was postulated as an invisible medium which filled space, and which was supposed to exist to allow the propagation of light through space, and also the propagation of gravity. The famous Michelson/Morley experiment cast serious doubt on its existence, and it was completely discarded with the arrival of the Theory of Relativity. No serious scientist today believes in the existence of the aether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Scientific laws are as reliable as anything. They are as proven as anything can be and to call them 'tentative postulates' is absurd.
It's not at all absurd to call scientific laws tenative. Have you read anything by Karl Popper, or on the problem on induction? Scientific laws are formulated with the aid of induction. While evidence can be used to corroborate a theory, no matter how much evidence is gathered, it can never be used to definitively prove the theory, because there is always the distinct possibility that evidence which disproves the theory simply hasn't been observed yet. We can never be in all places and at all times in the Universe to make every possible observation which would either prove or disprove the theory. We are not omniscient.
You make Science into a kind of "absolute knowledge" which can never be questioned. Isn't that what Science does -- question every piece of evidence and proposed theory, even widely accepted theories such as the (now defunct) aether theory? Your view of Science is akin to a religious belief. It becomes a dogma rather than an evolving set of beliefs which are continually questioned and re-formulated on the basis of new evidence.
The notion of the "aether" was a widely accepted principle by many classical physicists. It was postulated as an invisible medium which filled space, and which was supposed to exist to allow the propagation of light through space, and also the propagation of gravity. The famous Michelson/Morley experiment cast serious doubt on its existence, and it was completely discarded with the arrival of the Theory of Relativity. No serious scientist today believes in the existence of the aether.
It's not at all absurd to call scientific laws tenative. Have you read anything by Karl Popper, or on the problem on induction? Scientific laws are formulated with the aid of induction. While evidence can be used to corroborate a theory, no matter how much evidence is gathered, it can never be used to definitively prove the theory, because there is always the distinct possibility that evidence which disproves the theory simply hasn't been observed yet. We can never be in all places and at all times in the Universe to make every possible observation which would either prove or disprove the theory. We are not omniscient.
You make Science into a kind of "absolute knowledge" which can never be questioned. Isn't that what Science does -- question every piece of evidence and proposed theory, even widely accepted theories such as the (now defunct) aether theory? Your view of Science is akin to a religious belief. It becomes a dogma rather than an evolving set of beliefs which are continually questioned and re-formulated on the basis of new evidence.
This is a common fallacy by those who wish to make science look unreliable. I do not make science into some "absolute knowledge" which can never be questioned. I do not make it a dogma akin to a religious belief. As you say, Science questions every piece of evidence including the aether theory. I agree with that, utterly agree with it, which makes your accusation totally absurd.
But it is utterly false to argue that this renders the findings of science 'tentative'. The examples of 'science' which have been overturned are aether, the humours, Phlogiston, the geocentric system and spontaneous generation. Are you getting it now..? No? Let me explain.
Those were not science. They were hypotheses, the best guesses that could be made when there was no scientific method of checking them. As soon as some fellow devised some scientific observation for proving them right or wrong, they became science, or the correct theory that replaced it became science. reliable science. science which is not tentative and which is still reliable and used today, just as the heliocentric system, despite a load more moons being discovered, is Newton's laws, despite relativity, Relativity, despite quantum mechanics, are reliable and demonstrated true and will not be overturned by any new discovery.
While there are are always going to be new discoveries, your suggestion that nothing 'scientific' can really be reliably certain (that is indeed what you are arguing) is invalid. It is too akin to this religious 'believe or not' idea, which apparently overlooks degrees of evidence and it is amazing how common this is in religious apologetic thought.
While we have some useful circumstantial evidence about cosmic origins, Dark matter, String theory and abiogenisis, nobody would deny that they are within the 'tentative' area you mention. On the other hand, the Sun as centre of the solar system, radioactivity, blood circulation, aerodynamics - that sort of science is never 'tentative'. There are some areas where it is quite unreasonable to refuse to accept the data as reliable because science does not know everything.
This is where we find logical rules coming in. It is logically absurd and unacceptable to doubt or refuse to believe what is supported by sound evidence on the grounds that some unknown discovery might upset it. If it does it does, but it is simply not practical (as well as not being sound logic) to refuse to believe it on those grounds.
In the same way, it was scientifically valid to doubt powered flight, quantum mechanics and the speed of light limit until it was (or might be) demonstrated that it was so. But (as I said) the exception under particular circumstances did not unseat the validity of aerodynamics, mechanics, Relativity (or Newton) or indeed the general speed of light limit.
It is odd, on the other hand, that those who so often twit atheism (if not science) with treating the findings of science as unquestionable dogma get their knickers in a bundle over the idea that life could come from non -life or something from nothing. But of course Science as unquestionable dogma is perfectly valid, it seems, where it serves the cause of religious dogma rather than raise doubts about it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-08-2012 at 06:45 AM..
But it is utterly false to argue that this renders the findings of science 'tentative'. The examples of 'science' which have been overturned are aether, the humours, Phlogiston, the geocentric system and spontaneous generation. Are you getting it now..? No? Let me explain.
Those were not science. They were hypotheses, the best guesses that could be made when there was no scientific method of checking them. As soon as some fellow devised some scientific observation for proving them right or wrong, they became science, or the correct theory that replaced it became science. reliable science. science which is not tentative and which is still reliable and used today, just as the heliocentric system, despite a load more moons being discovered, is Newton's laws, despite relativity, Relativity, despite quantum mechanics, are reliable and demonstrated true and will not be overturned by any new discovery.
Your definition of non-science casts a pretty wide net -- it would include a lot of theoretical physics. When a theory is first proposed and before any experiments have been performed to either corroborate or invalidate the theory, your proposed definition of science would not permit any such theory to be called scientific.
When the existence of the Higgs boson was first predicted, it fell into the realm of theoretical physics. Since nobody had yet performed an experiment which corroborated the existence of the Higgs boson (I'm not sure we have one even today), you would be forced to call it non-science with your proposed definition, at least at the time the Higgs boson was predicted.
I believe the concept of the aether can fall under the domain of theoretical physics, because it attempted to explain a physical phenomenon, and it was falsifiable. It was proposed by many scientists (including Newton) and it was ultimately proven invalid by scientists in a scientific experiment.
Your definition of non-science casts a pretty wide net -- it would include a lot of theoretical physics. When a theory is first proposed and before any experiments have been performed to either corroborate or invalidate the theory, your proposed definition of science would not permit any such theory to be called scientific.
When the existence of the Higgs boson was first predicted, it fell into the realm of theoretical physics. Since nobody had yet performed an experiment which corroborated the existence of the Higgs boson (I'm not sure we have one even today), you would be forced to call it non-science with your proposed definition, at least at the time the Higgs boson was predicted.
I believe the concept of the aether can fall under the domain of theoretical physics, because it attempted to explain a physical phenomenon, and it was falsifiable. It was proposed by many scientists (including Newton) and it was ultimately proven invalid by scientists in a scientific experiment.
I think you guys may be confusing theories and hypotheses. When the Higgs was first proposed, it was proposed as a hypothesis, not a theory. It is to this day still a hypothesis, since the particle has yet to be discovered. It is predicted to exist, but experimental results have yet to reach sigma 5 confidence level.
And so theories aren't proposed before experimental results have been affirmed. Before that happens, what you have is a hypothesis. For it to be a scientific hypothesis, it must contain useable predictions, that is, predictions that can be tested. It doesn't reach the level of a theory until many predictions are confirmed, at least to the point where the scientific community is comfortable with the results.
Your definition of non-science casts a pretty wide net -- it would include a lot of theoretical physics. When a theory is first proposed and before any experiments have been performed to either corroborate or invalidate the theory, your proposed definition of science would not permit any such theory to be called scientific.
When the existence of the Higgs boson was first predicted, it fell into the realm of theoretical physics. Since nobody had yet performed an experiment which corroborated the existence of the Higgs boson (I'm not sure we have one even today), you would be forced to call it non-science with your proposed definition, at least at the time the Higgs boson was predicted.
I believe the concept of the aether can fall under the domain of theoretical physics, because it attempted to explain a physical phenomenon, and it was falsifiable. It was proposed by many scientists (including Newton) and it was ultimately proven invalid by scientists in a scientific experiment.
The Higgs has not been confirmed to exist . . . but the ether (properly understood) does. Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . . The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” Dark energy is also sometimes called quintessence due to its similarity to the classical aether.
Your definition of non-science casts a pretty wide net -- it would include a lot of theoretical physics. When a theory is first proposed and before any experiments have been performed to either corroborate or invalidate the theory, your proposed definition of science would not permit any such theory to be called scientific.
When the existence of the Higgs boson was first predicted, it fell into the realm of theoretical physics. Since nobody had yet performed an experiment which corroborated the existence of the Higgs boson (I'm not sure we have one even today), you would be forced to call it non-science with your proposed definition, at least at the time the Higgs boson was predicted.
I believe the concept of the aether can fall under the domain of theoretical physics, because it attempted to explain a physical phenomenon, and it was falsifiable. It was proposed by many scientists (including Newton) and it was ultimately proven invalid by scientists in a scientific experiment.
In fact I was being pretty specific - postulates held to be feasible or credible but which did not meet the scientific criterion, but I take your point.
A lot of theoretical physics, philosophical speculations a discussion about related issues such as the revision of pharonic dating or tracing the events at Little Bighorn by excavation of the site may be on the fringe because it is either theoretical or we think of it as 'history' rather than 'science', but they are all legitimately within the pale of science, so long as the science is sound. I would never apply the term 'non - science' to it.
Creationism, for example, fails to make the grade even as a hypothesis because the science is not sound and therefore I apply the term 'non-science' (the connotation of 'nonsense' being intentional )
The Higgs- boson, like string - theory, much of the Big bang theorizing, Dark matter and Abiogenesis is theoretical, but based on strong and scientifically sound indicators. Therefore, as I use the term, it is not 'non - science'. It is legitimate to research in the hope or expectation of getting confirmation. Discovery of something completely different might overturn a lot of ideas, but would not make Bohr, Einstein, Newton of Copernicus obsolete or their 'laws' tentative.
The Higgs- boson is theoretical. It is a sound scientific hypothesis and there is a hypothetical theory about it. (See Mystic's useful post) (1). If and when it is found it will no longer be hypothetical and any theoretical law of Higgs - boson behaviour will not be hypothetical, let alone tentative. We might even see it legitimate to call it 'God', but at the moment, it isn't.
Nw, I do hope that we can stop fossickng around with trying to prove science unreliable and take it that what is proven, checked, repeated, tested, peer- reviewed and questioned and re- checked is reliable data and in no way tentative. While science is always open to rethinking and new discoveries, they have not yet overturned science data, though they have overturned hypotheses based on common - sense speculations (e.g aether and phlogiston) arising from observations.
Such guesses and speculations may look reasonable but human common - sense and observation can be flawed and limited and it takes science and its meticulous method to discover the truth. That is why the scientific method is more reliable than human speculation, guesswork and inspiration.
(1) this handy Wiki entry is worth a look "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass.[Note 1] Its discovery would further validate the Standard Model as essentially correct, as it is the only elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not yet been observed in particle physics experiments.[2] If shown to exist, it is expected to be a scalar boson. (Bosons are particles with integer spin, and scalar bosons have spin 0.) Alternative sources of the Higgs mechanism that do not need the Higgs boson are also possible and would be considered if the existence of the Higgs boson were ruled out. They are known as Higgsless models."
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-09-2012 at 03:30 AM..
The Higgs has not been confirmed to exist . . . but the ether (properly understood) does. Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . . The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” Dark energy is also sometimes called quintessence due to its similarity to the classical aether.
I think it is a good idea when you quote someone that you provide a citation, or at least a link to the original:
Myself, I say that Laughlin has a right to his opinion,. even if it runs contrary to what most physcists believe. Part of my problem with the so called new aether theory is that it makes the claim that physics has stagnated during the past 100 years. I wholeheartedly disagree, and see no evidence whatsoever that that is true.
Myself, I say that Laughlin has a right to his opinion,. even if it runs contrary to what most physcists believe. Part of my problem with the so called new aether theory is that it makes the claim that physics has stagnated during the past 100 years. I wholeheartedly disagree, and see no evidence whatsoever that that is true.
Indeed. One might say that a resurfacing 'aether' theory, should it prove to be true, would be integrated into current knowledge without damage to either.
One could also say that a really different theory vaguely resembling the old aether theory might be given the same name, rather the was 'mitochondrial Eve' was applied to the evident female original X Chromosome, but that does not validate the old aether theory, not the old Genesis tale, far less does it mean that science had it wrong all that time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
