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.
That's basically what science is all about! Isn't it grand? The more evidence they collect, the more their hypothesis evolve (ha) and the more conclusions they put together.
Unlike religious texts, science is forever able to change
Hey, Hey, Hey! Cut it out!
You can't be using words like science, evidence, evolve, and change. Those are all against the wingnut TOS.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,664,716 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
One is more a "knowing what we know now" one. "convenience" doesn't fit the definition. And neither is static.
^This. Ideally, science by definition does not have an agenda, but rather it seeks the truth as we can best put it together given the information we have. Individual scientists, of course, may have agendas, but the scientific method which includes the idea of falsifiability is meant to mitigate such agendas. So are such things as controlling for variables in experiments and the process of peer review in scientific publication. These, among other things, propel the engine of scientific knowledge.
But that wouldn't disprove the theory of natural selection, which has, um, evolved over the past 150 years in a manner similar to how other scientific knowledge advances.
There is a pbs documentary which is fascinating. Its called What Darwin never Knew. Its about his life and discoveries and involves some of his writings he could not publish without being condemned by christians of his time.
He debated how things change, but without the technology we have today was unable to look at the incredable world of genetics. But he *speculated* that it was some function within the structure of living things itself. If it had been possible for him to study the way science can today, he could have made amazing discoveries, but sadly *religion* stilted the public scope of one of the visionaries of his time.
What's so sad about this crap is its of the same mindset of Darwin's time and appeals to the same closed minds.
One is more a "knowing what we know now" one. "convenience" doesn't fit the definition. And neither is static.
Religion is absolutely static. You live by the law and you're saved. You don't, you're screwed. STATIC.
And Science is "convenient" when you can get a bunch of peers (mob) who speak the language of science (sophistry) to rule something valid. Global warmings a great example. Put enough money behind it and scientists can make anything true. Convenience!
^This. Ideally, science by definition does not have an agenda, but rather it seeks the truth as we can best put it together given the information we have. Individual scientists, of course, may have agendas, but the scientific method which includes the idea of falsifiability is meant to mitigate such agendas. So are such things as controlling for variables in experiments and the process of peer review in scientific publication. These, among other things, propel the engine of scientific knowledge.
an unofficial +1x20 but it won't let me rep you right now.
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.
