- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What do you think it means to believe in science?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:50 pm to thegreatboudini
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:50 pm to thegreatboudini
quote:
This is false.
Not really.
Science operates on 3 basic assumptions.
1. That natural causes can explain things in the world.
2. Evidence from the natural world can be used to explain those causes.
3. That there is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
These are the "leaps of faith" in science. They are tried and tested "leaps of faith" but they are still assumptions about how our universe operates.
2
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:52 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
Are you claiming "the left" doesn't believe in 2 genders? You might wanna tell all the highly religous and largely anti gay blacks, the Muslims, and the Jewish people who make up large portions of the left coalition.
And you might want to tell reading comprehension that I said "biological differences in gender."... As in, women and men are different biologically.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:53 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Religious zealots "believe" Science isn't about belief. It's about facts.
You are allowing your anti religious beliefs to confuse your understanding of science.
The vast consensus of scientists believed that the Earth's surface was as immobile as they believe the Moon's and Mars' is today.
In 1912 a theory was proposed that continents actually sailed across the globe like ice on water. The originator of this theory died as a condemned crack pot by the vast majority of scientists. As new evidence came in, scientists changed the theory they believed in to better reflect reality: Continental Drift.
Religion allows faith to be factored into one's beliefs about reality. People who believe in global warming have faith in the climate scientists unless they have tested the facts for themselves.
But scientists and/or the religious believe in their world view.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:53 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
These are the "leaps of faith" in science.
Those are "leaps of faith" each of us must make numerous times every single day in order to exist in modern society.
If you are not willing to have such "faith", you might as well not get out of bed in the morning.
To compare that to religious faith is more than just disengenuous, it's blatantly false.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:54 pm to sabes que
Everyone believes in science. It's just a systematic method of testing a hypothesis and organizing facts
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
To compare that to religious faith is more than just disengenuous, it's blatantly false.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are on the same level as religious faith. There's is a faith lacking any evidence.
I'm just saying that science isn't without it's own assumptions and that we must assume that basic conditions exist in order for us to make logical sense of the universe.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:57 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
But scientists and/or the religious believe in their world view.
The major difference of course being that science is falsifiable, religion (generally speaking) is not. At most certain historical events endorsed by religion (like the great flood) are falsifiable, but god can never be empirically tested because if he exists he lies outside the physical universe.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:02 pm to oklahogjr
The simplest theory is always preferred in science.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:20 pm to sabes que
quote:
so a belief in gravity requires a leap of faith?
yes,
you have to believe that your observations of the physical world are real and true
and
that the physical world exists for that matter
This post was edited on 1/30/17 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:22 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The major difference of course being that science is falsifiable, religion (generally speaking) is not.
I see your point. Man being imperfect and subject to lying have been and will be tempted to falsely the results of their experiments for many mortal reasons. The less repeatable an experience or experiment is, the harder it is to refute.
But a miracle can neither be scientifically proven or disproven because they are usually one time events.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:25 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
They are tried and tested "leaps of faith"
Then they are not leaps of faith.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:31 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
The vast consensus of scientists believed that the Earth's surface was as immobile as they believe the Moon's and Mars' is today.
no. They had no alternate evidence.
His name was Alfred Wegener and he brought new evidence...but even he was not totally correct. Again due to evidence
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:35 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Religious zealots "believe"
Science isn't about belief. It's about facts.
Typically scientists dont like things they can't prove or test. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god or a higher being, so the idea of god doesn't mesh with the scientific mindset. Their belief is placed in data/numbers. The interesting thing is that often data can be open to interpretation much the way a religious text can be open to interpretation.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:35 pm to sabes que
quote:
Then they are not leaps of faith.
But they are. Maybe not grand religious leaps of faith lacking all reason and evidence.
But we rely on belief of things we cannot prove daily. We use our senses to give us clues as to the structure of reality, but you cannot prove that I'm not a figment of your imagination just as I cannot prove it. We simply have faith in our own experience.
I understand people are getting hung up with the use of the word "faith" and its religious connotations, but no one can deny that Science is based on simple assumptions about the nature of reality.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:35 pm to CptBengal
quote:
His name was Alfred Wegener and he brought new evidence...but even he was not totally correct. Again due to evidence
No theory can be said to be totally correct. One can only say that the current theory is more probably correct than the one it replaced. New evidence will always be found. All theories are open to reinterpretation and subject to be supplanted. Science is based upon the interpretation of known facts. It is a process not a result. It is a journey not a destination. It is the finite trying to grasp infinity.
It shares the desire to know and understand with religion. Both desire to know the mind of the Creator by looking at creation. Faith is just taking someone else's word for an event. Doubting Thomas did not have faith in the word of his fellow apostles. But Jesus allowed Thomas to subject him to scientific testing. He observed the wounds and repeatedly probed them. Thomas had scientific proof, we require faith since the experiment cannot be repeated without a miracle.
This post was edited on 1/30/17 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:36 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
unless they have tested the facts for themselves.
You have tested the facts of science for yourself everyday of your life. Namely, anytime you used any type of technology.
quote:
Religion allows faith to be factored into one's beliefs about reality.
Reality is reality, one's faith or belief about it has no bearing on it whatsoever.
quote:
But scientists and/or the religious believe in their world view.
Only in the sense that everyone "believes", as in holds their worldview. But being a "scientist" or advocate of science, does not necessarily constrain anyone to a certain worldview. One can be a advocate of science and hold many distinct worldviews. However, if one is a member of a certain religious sect, their view of the world and thoughts on almost every important philosophical or political issue is predetermined.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:36 pm to CptBengal
If that was entirely true there would be no theories or conflicting views in science. Religious conflicts completely aside.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:38 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Typically scientists dont like things they can't prove or test. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god or a higher being, so the idea of god doesn't mesh with the scientific mindset.
somewhat agree, however, religion makes many scientific claims for itself.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:45 pm to RBWilliams8
quote:
If that was entirely true there would be no theories or conflicting views in science.
First off, a theory is simply an explanation based off extensive testing and data.
Second data is open to interpretation. Those differing interpretations are then tested. The conflicting interpritations drive the process.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:47 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
The simplest theory is always preferred in science.
Are you kidding?
quote:
Occam's razor
Certainly important to science and philosophy.
However, to suggest that the "simplest theory is always preferred in science" is..... I'm sorry to say, stupid as frick. Look at the theory of relativity for one example and tell me what is "simple" about it.
Page 3 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News