You don't believe in science, you understand it (evolution, beliefs, verse)
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.
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.
The criticism of science by literalist theists is that it can't make up its mind. The problem is that their whole paradigm is based on making up your mind in advance and never changing it. Science is not a preordained set of doctrines, it is an ongoing investigation. The constant revision and refining of knowledge is a virtue, not a vice.
The other source of this criticism is the mistaken notion that all knowledge is black and white and never "it depends" or "we don't know". They desire a certitude that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
Even when Newtonian Physics could (and still does) explain celestial mechanics and host of other things, it was later found not to work correctly at all possible scales and situations. It just worked (and still works) well enough for prosaic everyday purposes. While general relativity and quantum mechanics are more accurate, they are an example of your point -- they add to and refine Newtonian physics rather than invalidate it. They are more generally applicable abstractions.
Finally, some things in reality are so interdependent on multiple causal chains that it's hard to reduce them to simple yes / no, black / white propositions. That is why The Onion famously poked fun at the conflicting studies about the question, are eggs good or bad for you: "Science Declares Eggs are Okay to Eat After All -- Until Next Tuesday". It is actually the wrong question -- the correct one is "in what ways are eggs good for you and in what ways are they bad for you?" Also, popular accounts of science produce attention grabbing and provocative headlines by quoting studies that make associations, and most people are not really clear that association is not cause. Some of the criticism of churn in scientific theory is not even about actual scientific theory, but about ongoing scientific speculation, debate about hypotheses, or merely data collection and collation.
Yes. Of course, the ongoing arguments about whether tomatoes are kill or cure can be seized on by those who- for some reason or another-want to argue that science really knows nothing for sure and anything it claims to be so might be (as our pal Oberon implies) considered absurdly wrong 100 years from now.
Clearly this is not the case, and the basic science on which nutrition is based in sound, no matter how much argument there may be on whether rice is good for you or terrible. We are not suddenly going to find out that everything we knew about nutritional science is wrong.
I would be inclined to ask why the point was even raised, were it not that I think I know why. It is intended to try to discredit the corpus of scientific data as a whole, simply so that some personal beliefs which science appears to contradict can be kept on the table.
This is called throwing away the bathwater so that nobody can prove there wasn't a baby in it.
Today, there are scientists who speak of wormholes and parallel universes. This depicts a total different "reality", that only 60 years ago was unimaginable.
There you go with scientific 'advances'. And speaking of advances that some know about it the one about getting to 'almost' the beginning of 'our' (?) universe. An observation was brought up where it's suggested that that REALLY is the farthest we can go back. We can NEVER ever know the situation prior to that first 'blast' because the initial conditions were all erased from the explosion. If so that's surely putting limits on man's understanding through scientific understanding of our origins. Arguably then science possibly has reached a 'dead' end there for knowledge.
How can science be right if it changes every week? Scientists of the 19th century believed in things that were later debunked by scientists of the 20 and 21st centuries. We can say with much certainty that 100 years into the future, some of today's theories will be considered obsolete and/or unacceptable.
Because it changes when new facts are discovered. That is how you know that it is right.
Unless you are collapsing into solipsism, no, they don't. I don't have to believe a rock exists - I can touch it, measure it, compare it, break it, test it, taste it, and manipulate it with fire or water or acid or whatever to see what happens to it. A rock is, whether I "believe" it or not. Science progresses from something as simple as that and describes the universe.
You only need to believe in things that you can't otherwise touch or measure.
There you go with scientific 'advances'. And speaking of advances that some know about it the one about getting to 'almost' the beginning of 'our' (?) universe. An observation was brought up where it's suggested that that REALLY is the farthest we can go back. We can NEVER ever know the situation prior to that first 'blast' because the initial conditions were all erased from the explosion. If so that's surely putting limits on man's understanding through scientific understanding of our origins. Arguably then science possibly has reached a 'dead' end there for knowledge.
No, it's not really a dead end. There are just the first crumbs of evidence that could point to the existence of other universes. In 2010 some English researchers discovered what appear to be concentric rings in a few places in the cosmic background radiation that could mark a place where our universe bumped another one. There was also evidence that something was tugging on hundreds of galaxy clusters, pulling them in the same direction which is not something seen with most clusters. Something was pulling them that way. New Proof Unknown "Structures" Tug at Our Universe
The tools to measure what is outside the universe are just being developed and invented, but there is increasing evidence (including Monday's announcement) that this is one universe of many. Science still has a lot to figure out when it comes to dark matter and dark energy, but it keeps working on the problem one experiment at a time.
It is intended to try to discredit the corpus of scientific data as a whole, simply so that some personal beliefs which science appears to contradict can be kept on the table.
This is called throwing away the bathwater so that nobody can prove there wasn't a baby in it.
Not only can those beliefs be kept on the table, they can be kept in law to control behavior according to one set of moral codes, or they can be kept off the table so industry doesn't have to make expensive changes to reduce the environmental impact of their actions.
There you go with scientific 'advances'. And speaking of advances that some know about it the one about getting to 'almost' the beginning of 'our' (?) universe. An observation was brought up where it's suggested that that REALLY is the farthest we can go back. We can NEVER ever know the situation prior to that first 'blast' because the initial conditions were all erased from the explosion. If so that's surely putting limits on man's understanding through scientific understanding of our origins. Arguably then science possibly has reached a 'dead' end there for knowledge.
Quite possibly. Contrary to what theism supposed science to say of itself, it would endorse Newton's remarks about finding a few shells or pebbles on a beach, and knowing nothing about the ocean.
We can delight in being pretty confident about what we know about our little bay (1), at least, which is better than the unverified speculations of theology which nevertheless are presented as unquestionable fact on pretty much Faith alone.
(1) 'Our' because we live in it, of course, not because we can claim to own it.
Not only can those beliefs be kept on the table, they can be kept in law to control behavior according to one set of moral codes, or they can be kept off the table so industry doesn't have to make expensive changes to reduce the environmental impact of their actions.
I take your point. Though the science - Theism debate is more about what can be known than the influence or organized religion- for good or ill.
In my book, the possible encouragement by religion to take issue with bosses who are not responsible (as I saw it, it was the religious Right who tended to object to anyone saying they couldn't do what they damn ' well liked with the planet God gave them) does not justify perpetrating unsound reasoning and information. And of course I totally reject the idea that without religion, there is no morality. Therefore we need to believe in the claims of religion to stop society collapsing.
Further, I don't see what that has to do with the validity of scientific discoveries. The religious have no objections to it at all - until they discover something that doesn't fit in with their religious beliefs.
"Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them." THOMAS PAINE
Quote:
Because it changes when new facts are discovered. That is how you know that it is right.
That is absurd.
The first scripture of the Bible states that "In the beginning..."
So the scientific theory that the universe originated "in the beginning" as space, time, matter and energy rapidly expanded into existence to form the expanse of the known universe is nothing more than a interpretation of Genesis 1:1.
A theory I might add that contradicts it own principle which is stated in the first law of thermodynamics that holds that energy within a isolated system is constant, it can neither be created nor destroyed. So how did the Big Bang create space, time, matter and energy, if energy is eternal?
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.
the Universe is spherical body of finite space.
