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.
In general, I like to think of science as an ongoing debate, not a decided matter.
IDK about that. Different things are known to different levels of certainty. Where certainty is high (established scientific theory) there is really nothing to debate except around the edges a bit. Where certainty is low (no falsifiable hypotheses available, only informed speculation and educated guesses) then there's room for debate.
But science isn't just who wins the argument. It is about who is unable to falsify a falsifiable hypothesis, and who is able to construct an explanatory framework of hypotheses that hold up to scrutiny (aka: a scientific theory).
My discomfort with terminology like "ongoing debate" is that it sounds more like politics than science.
A lot of the debate about scientific matters isn't really part of science, but more an artifact of public (mis)understanding of science, conflation of association and cause, poor quality of science journalism, and less than rigorous science done by people with skin in the game regarding the outcome (e.g, "research" funded by industry).
IDK about that. Different things are known to different levels of certainty. Where certainty is high (established scientific theory) there is really nothing to debate except around the edges a bit. Where certainty is low (no falsifiable hypotheses available, only informed speculation and educated guesses) then there's room for debate.
But science isn't just who wins the argument. It is about who is unable to falsify a falsifiable hypothesis, and who is able to construct an explanatory framework of hypotheses that hold up to scrutiny (aka: a scientific theory).
My discomfort with terminology like "ongoing debate" is that it sounds more like politics than science.
A lot of the debate about scientific matters isn't really part of science, but more an artifact of public (mis)understanding of science, conflation of association and cause, poor quality of science journalism, and less than rigorous science done by people with skin in the game regarding the outcome (e.g, "research" funded by industry).
Thank you for lecturing me on science...a former science teacher with 2 degrees in geology.
IDK about that. Different things are known to different levels of certainty. Where certainty is high (established scientific theory) there is really nothing to debate except around the edges a bit. Where certainty is low (no falsifiable hypotheses available, only informed speculation and educated guesses) then there's room for debate.
But science isn't just who wins the argument. It is about who is unable to falsify a falsifiable hypothesis, and who is able to construct an explanatory framework of hypotheses that hold up to scrutiny (aka: a scientific theory).
My discomfort with terminology like "ongoing debate" is that it sounds more like politics than science.
A lot of the debate about scientific matters isn't really part of science, but more an artifact of public (mis)understanding of science, conflation of association and cause, poor quality of science journalism, and less than rigorous science done by people with skin in the game regarding the outcome (e.g, "research" funded by industry).
I understand your perspective, Mordant. The spectrum of legitimate science understanding is not neatly dissected as your last paragraph suggests. Climate science is particularly speculative on the probability scale.
I understand your perspective, Mordant. The spectrum of legitimate science understanding is not neatly dissected as your last paragraph suggests. Climate science is particularly speculative on the probability scale.
Climate science is a lot clearer than climate deniers want to claim. That isn't an example I would pick. I had in mind more things like "research" by the tobacco industry back in the day suggesting cigarette smoking is harmless and even has benefits. Or the fossil fuel folks supressing their own findings years ago about the impact of fossil fuels on climate. There are many examples of junk science or, shall we say, highly curated science to justify or excuse exploitive or irresponsible business practices. Profit always comes first -- everything is subservient to that.
Praise be to God Who created man from His own Spirit (the soul) and then Commanded the angels to prostrate face down to him, God is the King and Lord and Protector and Light of the heavens and the earth and everything in them, none has the right to be worshiped except God and none are worthy of being praised except God, God listens to the one who praise Him, and God answers the Believers prayers, and there is no god or deity or divinity but God!
------------
Religion is inspired by God, the glorious and holy Quran is inspired by the Lord of all worlds (there is no other scripture as holy and glorious as the Quran), and Prophet Moses and Jesus and Mohammad had direct contact and communication with God.
God Himself Encourages me to praise Him as the Most Great and Most Good, and God reaveled directly to me prayer (and countless of my prayers have becomed actualized by God, Certainly), and God Himself has made me listen to the Quran and made it sound holy and divine to me.
So yeah Religion is Truth and inspired by God.
For me, I lost faith in religion a time ago, and it was God Himself Who returned me to it (Islam, specifically). That says a lot.
For the disbeliever who thinks that religion and religious holy scriptures are man-made...
The Quran is from God.
And that is the Truth. And I am among the witnessers who witnesses that God Himself has, directly, to the individual, encouraged him or her to listen to the Quran, and that listening to the Quran produces divine spiritual effects on man, and if man is in a rigth and spiritual state of mind, and he hears the Quran and listens to it (Rightly by his ears), it is certain that the Quran is inspired by God, and it's divine glorious Recitation and Sound, is certainly inspired by God.
And man gets spiritually heightened listening to the glorious Quran, and it can awaken him and bring him to God Himself.
As my cousin does to his child students in Morocco, making them recite and recite the Quran daily and constantly, immensely and intensively, until they actually get contact with God the Most High (from their rigous spiritual-religious practice).
And my cousin is no sheik to play with, God has confirmed and testified to him that the Quran is inspired by Him, my cousin has total Religious-Divine consciousness and knowing of the Quran as inspired by God.
And he has told me of countless demons he has beaten up in the high mountains at night, and in that business, we are two, and indeed satan and his devils belong to their deserving hellfire, and I seek refuge in God from them and their madness.
Last edited by Aed-Marwan; 05-25-2024 at 10:41 AM..
I understand your perspective, Mordant. The spectrum of legitimate science understanding is not neatly dissected as your last paragraph suggests. Climate science is particularly speculative on the probability scale.
"dark matter" and "dark energy" are also speculative. science has not verified it exists, and current scientific research (2024) suggests there is no dark matter and that "the universe does not require dark matter to exist."
"dark matter" and "dark energy" are also speculative. science has not verified it exists, and current scientific research (2024) suggests there is no dark matter and that "the universe does not require dark matter to exist."
This is a good example of where you go wrong so often because you think if you read something that, 'There. That's the answer!"
But read more carefully: "A new study..." A new study.
Even as a former science teacher, I have no idea whether there is dark matter or not (nor, frankly do I care). But I do care when people like you take ONE study and make it sound as if there...that's the answer.
This is a good example of where you go wrong so often because you think if you read something that, 'There. That's the answer!"But read more carefully: "A new study..." A new study. Even as a former science teacher, I have no idea whether there is dark matter or not (nor, frankly do I care). But I do care when people like you take ONE study and make it sound as if there...that's the answer.
it is accurate to say that dark matter and dark energy are speculation. science has not confirmed they exist, and there is disagreement in science whether they exist at all.
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.
