Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12
Wasn't science created?
|
The SI (Scientific Method) is a carefully crafted ruleset, a methodological toolbox if you will, that was designed to try to answer questions posed to it by a regular, methodical, step-wise &
highly logical process. It seeks to eliminate or significantly reduce poor research methods or politically motivated errors brought on by falsified evidence,
a-priori*conclusions, and the purposeful avoidance of inspection of the research being conducted, by
requiring a peer-review process.
(*"a priori" means that the researcher is under the influence of a prior understanding or conclusion before or during his or her research study, thus contaminating it's validity and outcome. He has a pre-conceived idea of what results he expects to see, or will accept. A very biased process, but one that the formal SI will typically weed out, esp. if the biased guy's research experiment is re-done by another scientist! Very embarrassing, and with potentially career-damaging consequences within the self-policing scientific community. BTW, this is certainly not so with religious claimants, who happily utilize "a priori" arguments almost hourly. Best watch out!)
Such a long-time evolved (in this case, small
"e"...)
tried-and-tested and honest inquiry methodology goes a long ways to providing
reproducible or potentially falsifiable results. Then, the "
Conclusions" and "
Results" sections allow an accredited professional Journal publication's managers the option to assess submitted research results as to their ultimate suitability and professional quality before publication.
The end result is that an article that d
oes achieve Journal publication can pretty much be considered valid & credible, but it's always open to subsequent inquiry and re-test. In this way, many tests have had their results either reversed or confirmed. Or, as often happens, the results are more rigorously reviewed in light of improved techniques or a better research design, with the result that the results are even more compelling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman
Knowledge of Carl Jung's school of thought is not necessary for nonbelief in a god. I was an agnostic atheist before I learned anything about Jung.
|
Hmmm... I'm a rather militant and enthusiastic atheist
(No! Really?) and I don't even know anything about Jung. Isn';t he Colonel Jung? Of
Jung's-Food fame? and...doesn't he have a national string of Fried Chicken franchises that also assuage your feelings of guilty eating? Eleven Herbs and Couch Positions? Isn't that it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman
Yes, but its findings can be tested for accuracy as it relates to the natural universe. Religious claims depend upon ancient writings, miracles, and personal revelations which cannot be verified. One simply must have faith and believe, which is a completely different matter from the scientific method.
|
As well, the SI is pretty much frowned on as a means of reviewing biblical claims, since the anticipated answers (like: Was there REALLY a Noah's Ark Flood? OK: let's examine the
evid.....
...oh , I'm sorry...am I in your way here? And say.... why the heck are you black-hooded preists all gathered \here with those ropes and that torch? No! NOOOooooo!!!!
Help! Lemme Go! I was only asking a simple quest....mmmphhh!") And so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbs1507
Religion is man-made. God is NOT. It's that simple.
What do you want us to believe...that we evolved from monkeys?
I think it takes more faith to believe in science than God. Of course I am referring to the philosophical science that spawned theories like evolution and the big bang (that's not really science).
|
Well, wrong. It takes faith to insist that we should NEVER ask logical questions of any fabricated social cult-tool belief system, (of which there are thousands of variants, often at physical war with each other..) by using the SI with it's logical and highly disciplined & punishable rule-sets? Faith in science is that, over the now long time of it's implementation as a tool set, it's evolved a pretty excellent track record, and I'd like you to perhaps point out to us readers exactly
where this methodology is faulty.
I think you perhaps are referring to the commonly held but errant perception that "Science"
per se is some sort of
entity, that it holds opinions, directs research results and makes concrete statements.
Nope. Only it's users can do that. After all, you don't hold your pliers or Crescent™ wrench responsible for the failed hose clamp in your car, the clamp that broke and thus left you stranded out on the road with no more coolant, now do you? Those wrenches are only the tools you chose to apply to the problem. if used correctly, they will do what is asked of them, repeatedly and reliably. Just like the SI.
But... to still persevere and blame the Evil™ "plier entity" is to deny that some other component, improperly spec'd or adjusted, is the actual villan! Even when correctly shown the error in your thinking, if you
still cling to your original philosophical errors and growing hatred of "The Plier Faker",
(Let's call them what they really are, OK? They are Darwinian pliers, I tell you!) , particularly in religious concepts, you are officially, by simple & logical definition, an
IDTr. (Intransigent Dogmo-Theist;
intransigent you hopefully understand, and
Dogmo-Theist, and a vigorous denialist, meaning that your beliefs about religion and God, etc., are dogmatically pursuded despite
any and
all concrete evidence to the contrary.
Certianly not a category I'd ever want to be in, and yet, seemingly, many here and in the CHristian community just don't care! They obviously
prefer to be in the company of many other IDTrs. Perhaps it gives them some sense of social clubbism and of "belonging"....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbs1507
@nana053
I actually am aware that the evolution theory suggest that all life forms evolve from bacteria. I was being somewhat playful. Essentially if someone doesn't believe in God, the will likely believe in science. So that was my little insinuation.
At the end of the day, those are just theories and will change over time. God's word will not change and is forever. IMO it takes more faith to believe in something that will change in 10 years than something that has been around forever unscathed. JMO.
|
Oh.
Uhmmm.... so....< yikes'a'Mighty!> if we
do find God's word is in fact in error as to the
"hows and whys" of many things claimed as absolute in the bible, then God's ultimate trustability will be questioned, finally, by devout Christians?
Interesting.
This would explain why they/you fight logical interpretation so vigorously, eh? Even if that Godly word
is demonstrably wrong, they/you
DO NOT WANT TO KNOW? Have I got it right?
A Polite Suggestion? please review the difference in, and definitions of, the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". In science,
theories are pretty much confirmed and continue to be so, and to generally improve, since they are always open to ongoing "refinement".
Theories do not generally anticipate any type of major direction changes, but that's also not out of the question nor unapproachable. Theory is also not defined as an "unsupported bad guess", as is the common average Joe's
hoi polloi definition, when he or she are not drinking heavily and pontificating or bloviating their
vast knowledge of science and how it (supposedly) works!
An "hypothesis", is more like what you are calling a "
theory", In the case of science's approach to a question, an "hypothesis" is the initial, unproven but at least potentially
possible direction of rational thinking. As in the current research into The Big Bang hypothesis.
Also note that much of what an hypothesis states can also be very usefully "
predictive", and if those predictions are met
repeatedly in multiple testing, from many different angles of attack, or by multiple independent researchers (as in, "if your idea/hypothesis is correct, we should then expect to see green chickens emerge from that vat, right?"), and then, if indeed those chickens, once yellow,
do emerge bright
green, then you have to give even more credence to the original
guess-hypothesis! Seem rational? This is
exactly how hypotheses advance for sure!
An hypothesis must indeed carry it's key potential elements into the critical and necessary
"look and see" research processes that will follow on to possibly & potentially create a valid and useful
theory (the proper definition this time...).
That sounds reasonable, does it not? And.... it's now well on it's way to becoming an accepted "theory", more colloquially called by scientists a "
fact" or alternately, "a damned biased lie!!" by our now quite drunk & mis-opinionated
hoi polloi.
Got it now? Oh...you're welcome! Any time.
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.
Let's put this one to bed, but le's do it logically. Like, you know.... science would?
