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.
Can you give one example of an accepted - as-true scientific fact that has been debunked? I don't mean details like circular orbits being discovered to be elliptical or atoms being clouds rather that little solar systems or indeed evolution having a lot of branches rather than the simple direct branches envisaged by Darwin?
Those are refinements, additional information and even stronger confirmation that the basic discovery is right. That is what changes every week - the addition of better information about the detail. I know of nothing that has been debunked and I see no reason why atomic theory, Newton's and Einsteins' Laws of motion and relativity, circulation of the blood, the Heliocentric system and indeed evolution -theory will not be as valid 100 or 1,000 years in the future as they are now.
If you can, let's hear it. If you can't, accept that this 'science is always changing its mind/ getting things wrong' is an ignorant or dishonest attempt to discredit what science reliably knows in hopes to be able to wangle onto the table religious claims that science has pretty much disproven.
P.s there is a lot to ask about why this discussion is even necessary, but let's hear your answer first.
I think oberon is correct in that theories will be proven wrong or considered obsolete but these things will be at the very cutting edge of scientific postulation and not in the thick of the blade.
When Copernicus figured out that the Earth orbits the sun, it wasn't something that was widely believed at first. But as other discoveries and findings confirmed his model people began to understand that it was correct. They didn't have to believe it, they just had to understand it. The earth had always orbited the sun, but we were too scientifically and technologically immature to realize it.
It's the same thing with evolution and the Big Bang, which today's historic discovery has confirmed in a huge way. We evolved and this universe began with an inflationary big bang regardless of whether you or your religion believes in that or not. Science isn't asking you to believe it - it is only showing you the best possible explanation for the evidence at hand, as researched and confirmed by researchers and scientists and students all over the world.
You can choose to follow the experimental path through the observable world that leads to a converging proof of evolution and the big bang in every scientific discipline and come to an understanding of it. You don't have to take anything at face value. You don't have to accept it just because some authority says that you have to. You can do the work yourself, you can see the research, you can follow the reasoning, you can challenge and question it. There is no dogma other than finding out where the evidence leads.
You believe in religions because you have to take their unprovable claims on faith. You understand science because all it presents to you is a model or theory that best fits the available, testable, provable facts.
I don't know, the big bang's evidence is that the math adds up and predicts correctly and that things appear to be moving further apart. That's all I heard so far, although I do have to say that is pretty good. I love the body of science, the scientific method, and the agnostic spirit of scientific investigation.
A lot of people think science started with the idea of the four bodily humors and that is wrong. The ancient Greek four elements/four humor ideas were based on observations and some sort of reasoning but they didn't go through the scientific method. Medicine didn't rely (and sometimes still doesn't) solely on good testing before the advent of "the scientific method."
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-18-2014 at 06:26 AM..
I will never understand why science and religion ever became enemies. For a believer, science is and should should be the process of correctly understanding the universe that God put in place to begin with, how it functions and how it all happened.
I do think the OP is giving science way too much credit. Science is all about studying the universe around us. That doesn't mean mistakes are never made. There is an ever growing list of things that scientists can fit within their current theories. Dark matter is a good example, but there are countless others. There is a ton of unknowns and best guesses in science. It is not perfect. That does not mean we abandon it or give up. It means that we do not know nearly as much as we think we do.
I'm not a religious person, but I do think we sometimes take the claims of science a little far. There are valid ways of knowing other than the scientific method. There are a lot of questions that can not and should not be answered by science.
- Science can tell you that "Ode to Joy" is a repetitive pattern of air pressure fluctuations, but it can't tell you that it is a celebration of the unity and brotherhood of all man kind.
- Science can help us build a nuclear weapon, but it won't help us know whether we should use it.
- Science can increase the chances of fertility, but it can't tell me if my wife and I are ready to have a child.
So science can answer a lot of questions, just not some of the most important ones.
Of course, I prefer philosophy or other humanities to help me make sense of the world. But I understand that religion, if processed in a thoughtful manner, could help some people as well. Just not me.
(However, I don't see much value in blindly adhering to religious dogma without any sort of filter or analysis.)
Can you give one example of an accepted - as-true scientific fact that has been debunked? I don't mean details like circular orbits being discovered to be elliptical or atoms being clouds rather that little solar systems or indeed evolution having a lot of branches rather than the simple direct branches envisaged by Darwin?
Those are refinements, additional information and even stronger confirmation that the basic discovery is right. That is what changes every week - the addition of better information about the detail. I know of nothing that has been debunked and I see no reason why atomic theory, Newton's and Einsteins' Laws of motion and relativity, circulation of the blood, the Heliocentric system and indeed evolution -theory will not be as valid 100 or 1,000 years in the future as they are now.
If you can, let's hear it. If you can't, accept that this 'science is always changing its mind/ getting things wrong' is an ignorant or dishonest attempt to discredit what science reliably knows in hopes to be able to wangle onto the table religious claims that science has pretty much disproven.
P.s there is a lot to ask about why this discussion is even necessary, but let's hear your answer first.
Just a few recent examples:
1) Until not long ago, the scientific establishment considered the universe to be 22B years. Now it is less then 14B years.
2) After suggesting the big bang theory, the scientific establishment was confident that it started with immense acceleration and since then the universe is expanding at a slower rate, until sometime in the future it will stand still. Now they claim the opposite: the universe is expanding at accelerating rate, faster and faster all the time. This may suggest that our universe will disintegrate sometime in the future.
3) Atoms were the smallest particles in existence for almost a century. Now we have the string theory that gets quite a following.
These are just recent examples. But if we go back only 300-400 years, some scientists were convinced that they could create gold and other precious metals in the lab (alchemists). Now, we laugh about such inane theories. As I said, some current theories will certainly be ridiculed in 100 years.
Today, there are scientists who speak of wormholes and parallel universes. This depicts a total different "reality", that only 60 years ago was unimaginable.
When Copernicus figured out that the Earth orbits the sun, it wasn't something that was widely believed at first. But as other discoveries and findings confirmed his model people began to understand that it was correct. They didn't have to believe it, they just had to understand it. The earth had always orbited the sun, but we were too scientifically and technologically immature to realize it.
It's the same thing with evolution and the Big Bang, which today's historic discovery has confirmed in a huge way. We evolved and this universe began with an inflationary big bang regardless of whether you or your religion believes in that or not. Science isn't asking you to believe it - it is only showing you the best possible explanation for the evidence at hand, as researched and confirmed by researchers and scientists and students all over the world.
You can choose to follow the experimental path through the observable world that leads to a converging proof of evolution and the big bang in every scientific discipline and come to an understanding of it. You don't have to take anything at face value. You don't have to accept it just because some authority says that you have to. You can do the work yourself, you can see the research, you can follow the reasoning, you can challenge and question it. There is no dogma other than finding out where the evidence leads.
You believe in religions because you have to take their unprovable claims on faith. You understand science because all it presents to you is a model or theory that best fits the available, testable, provable facts.
EVERYONE goes by "BELIEF" sean.
See...BELIEF has nothing to do with acquiring information and/or understanding it...but it's relevance is in our acceptance of the information.
Ultimately the acceptance of any information as having merit is based on BELIEF in the source. We have to BELIEVE our intuition that our assessment of the viability and validity of the source of our information is accurate...and to give it merit we must BELIEVE the source.
WHY we BELIEVE the source is variable, but it always comes down to BELIEF.
There are no "facts"...only BELIEF in the source of information. We don't really "know" anything...except that we BELIEVE that it is so. Once we BELIEVE in the source of information we then label that information "knowledge". Which doesn't mean squat...except that that's what you think you know (have knowledge of)...because even though you BELIEVE in the source of your information that doesn't make it infallible.
Unless someone would be so irrational to make the determination that information known as "facts" are 100% infallible...and I submit...NOTHING is infallible...we all have to BELIEVE in the data we get. And as fallible as even the most widely held "evidenced based facts" have proved to be...BELIEF is ALWAYS a requirement, for ALL information.
I find this to be the most egregious of the claims made by the Atheists against the Believers...that they (the Atheists), "go by evidenced based facts"...while the Believers, "go by blind faith". The "facts", "evidence", and "proof" crowd always plays this game.
BOTTOM LINE: We take in information...we assess it with our mind through deductive reasoning, critical thinking, comparative analysis, intuition, the "vibe" it gives us, or what ever way we choose to process it...then, if we BELIEVE the information to be accurate we consider it knowledge...BUT!! IT ALL COMES DOWN, ULTIMATELY, TO BELIEF!
One more thing that science inevitably makes you understand:
Claims about supernatural things are all make-believe and imaginary nonsense.
I think that's almost certainly an overstatment. Good scientists express 'facts' as degrees of probablity. For instance, there's so much overwhelming evidence for evolution that most scientists would probably say it's about 95% certain that the general theory of evolution is true. [Though of course the specific details have and probably will continue to change.]
The problem with 'supernatural' claims is that as far as I can tell there's no way to study or analyze them empirically/scientifically. I mean think about it: Humans are physical, biological, natural organisms. As such, if something supernatural exists how would it even be possible for us to perceive it? To me the concept of 'supernatural' is completely useless. What does it even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I'm not a religious person, but I do think we sometimes take the claims of science a little far. There are valid ways of knowing other than the scientific method. There are a lot of questions that can not and should not be answered by science.
- Science can tell you that "Ode to Joy" is a repetitive pattern of air pressure fluctuations, but it can't tell you that it is a celebration of the unity and brotherhood of all man kind.
- Science can help us build a nuclear weapon, but it won't help us know whether we should use it.
- Science can increase the chances of fertility, but it can't tell me if my wife and I are ready to have a child.
So science can answer a lot of questions, just not some of the most important ones.
Of course, I prefer philosophy or other humanities to help me make sense of the world. But I understand that religion, if processed in a thoughtful manner, could help some people as well. Just not me.
(However, I don't see much value in blindly adhering to religious dogma without any sort of filter or analysis.)
Great statements! Science applies primarily to the observable and physical. But it can't definitvely answer most moral/philosophical quandries. Yes, in some cases can increase the likelihood of fertility, but should it? Is it good for anyone who wants a child to have one? While science certainly plays a roll in this discussion, I don't think it's capable of providing definitive answers. I don't know if anything is.
I will never understand why science and religion ever became enemies. For a believer, science is and should should be the process of correctly understanding the universe that God put in place to begin with, how it functions and how it all happened.
The fundamental problem is that there's no evidence of any concious 'intent' at least as we understand it to how the universe works. It appears to be matter and energy interacting in what appears to random ways. Think about genetic recombination: When two animals mate and produce offspring their genes are recombined in random way that incorporates characteristics of both parents. That's the best analogy I can think of to explain how most of like actually works; it's much more random most persons like to think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
I do think the OP is giving science way too much credit. Science is all about studying the universe around us. That doesn't mean mistakes are never made. There is an ever growing list of things that scientists can fit within their current theories. Dark matter is a good example, but there are countless others. There is a ton of unknowns and best guesses in science. It is not perfect. That does not mean we abandon it or give up. It means that we do not know nearly as much as we think we do.
Do you mean, can or can't fit? Because, if you meant can't fit, I think I agree with you. With so called Dark Matter/Dark Energy: It's my understanding that they assume it exists because there seems to be far more matter and energy in the universe than what is visible. But how we know that the ways we measure matter/energy in space are accurate?
I feel like I have a very good understanding of biology/evolution. But in terms of areas like Dark Matter/Dark Energy and subatomic particles? Maybe I just don't really understand it, but it seems to me that these ideas are mostly logical inferences - that is, logically plausible based on our limited observational abilities, but impossible to directly test empirically.
Just a few recent examples:
1) Until not long ago, the scientific establishment considered the universe to be 22B years. Now it is less then 14B years.
2) After suggesting the big bang theory, the scientific establishment was confident that it started with immense acceleration and since then the universe is expanding at a slower rate, until sometime in the future it will stand still. Now they claim the opposite: the universe is expanding at accelerating rate, faster and faster all the time. This may suggest that our universe will disintegrate sometime in the future.
3) Atoms were the smallest particles in existence for almost a century. Now we have the string theory that gets quite a following.
These are just recent examples. But if we go back only 300-400 years, some scientists were convinced that they could create gold and other precious metals in the lab (alchemists). Now, we laugh about such inane theories. As I said, some current theories will certainly be ridiculed in 100 years.
Today, there are scientists who speak of wormholes and parallel universes. This depicts a total different "reality", that only 60 years ago was unimaginable.
But that is merely adding to what we already knew. revising dates about how many billions of years (I presume you are talking of billions of years) the universe is does not overturn the idea that the universe is billions of years old.
The universe is expanding. Disagreements and new evidence about what cause that to happen and whit is going to be the end does not overturn anything. It is addition information and evidence to help improve our understanding.
Atoms were the smallest particle we could see, then we found they were made up of smaller particles and 'String theory' is not really relevant .
To Newtonian physics, Einstein added relativity and to relativity was added quantum physics-where your string theory comes in.
This is all additional information. Newtonian physics and relativity is just as valid now as when they were discovered. Neither Newtonian physics nor relativity is 'ridiculed'.
Astrology is pretty much discredited, as is alchemy totally. Flat earth has effectively lost any credibility,though there is still some insistence on an all in one creation
Those are things that have been totally discre dited and not 'added to with new information' as I put it.
Science adds to what was already shown to be so and NONE of it that I can think of -or any of the examples you mentioned-have been discredited in the way non-scientific claims have been discredited.
Finding wormholes and parallel universes or even finding that it is a holographic projection from beyond the cosmos does not mean that everything we have in the textbooks goes in the bin like astrology, alchemy,the flat earth and 6-day creation. It just means that we need another chapter.
You really have to understand the distinction between new information that adds to what we know and new information that discredits what we thought we knew.
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.
Science applies primarily to the observable and physical. But it can't definitvely answer most moral/philosophical quandries. Yes, in some cases can increase the likelihood of fertility, but should it? Is it good for anyone who wants a child to have one? While science certainly plays a roll in this discussion, I don't think it's capable of providing definitive answers. I don't know if anything is.
