- 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 10:47 pm to Duke
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:47 pm to Duke
quote:
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.
None of which requires belief.
0
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:51 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
But a miracle can neither be scientifically proven or disproven because they are usually one time events.
They can not be disproved in the same sense that you cannot disprove that Attila the Hun had 3 dicks and could fly. Not being falsifiable is hardly evidence for something.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:52 pm to sabes que
quote:Well, when a Democrat says it, I know it is 100% about Climate change because after you get past climate change, Dems get real fast and loose with their attachment to science.
What do you think it means to believe in science?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 10:58 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Well, when a Democrat says it, I know it is 100% about Climate change because after you get past climate change, Dems get real fast and loose with their attachment to science.
OK... in the OP I talked about how both sides claim science for themselves in differing political issues. Thanks for bringing partisanship and zero original thought or anything thought provoking/interesting to the discussion.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:05 pm to sabes que
quote:And? Your question used the phrase "believe in science". This is a phrase used almost exclusively to deride one's opponents.
OK... in the OP I talked about how both sides claim science for themselves in differing political issues.
quote:You asked what it means to "believe in science". The only time this phrase is even used is in partisan bull shite.
Thanks for bringing partisanship and zero original thought or anything thought provoking/interesting to the discussion.
I absolutely love science. But, I don't "believe in it". That's a silly phrase. I mean, I believe in using the scientific method to approach questions. But that's now what the people throwing out that phrase mean at all. Because, to use the phrase that would would require a completely different approach to issues.
I will say this. Most Americans don't even really know what "Science" is. They think that if some scientist does one study that comes to some conclusion that being skeptical of said study amounts to "not believing in science". These morons have no idea what the concept of replication means and why it's important.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:11 pm to sabes que
quote:
What does it mean to believe in science
to believe that logic and facts are important?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:12 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
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.
You do not have "faith" in your own experience. You think therefore you are.., it is the most concrete thing in the universe, if you doubt that, or it requires "faith" on your part, perhaps you lack the ability to think, which based on your post definitely seems plausible.
quote:
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.
Things that are testable and falsifiable cease to be assumptions. If you put your hand on a hot stove you will burn yourself. There is no faith involved.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:18 pm to Duke
So there's no theories or interpretations that simply cannot be tested? Because that would make it hard to claim all science as factual.
For the sake of argument of course. I'm not some anti-science nut. I do believe science is used too much to push an agenda.
Science. News. Religion. Stats. All abused and manipulated to sway in ones favor. Again, not hard sided to one or another.
For the sake of argument of course. I'm not some anti-science nut. I do believe science is used too much to push an agenda.
Science. News. Religion. Stats. All abused and manipulated to sway in ones favor. Again, not hard sided to one or another.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:20 pm to sabes que
quote:
scientific consensus
science is not up to consensus.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:21 pm to RBWilliams8
You can't test for God.
You'll also notice I'm not saying "facts" but instead data.
You'll also notice I'm not saying "facts" but instead data.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:21 pm to sabes que
quote:
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.
List one that is more simple that works the same. Science had elaborate models to show how the solar system work based upon the Earth being the center. They worked great! Explained every "fact" then known. Look them up, their fantastic! But the Sun centered model was much simpler and worked equally well. Which is more probably correct?
I said the simplEST, not the simple. The universe is an extremely complex place. It very well may be more complicated than we CAN understand. It surly is more complicated than our current science has understood it.
What is a frick unit of stupid? And where can I obtain a frickmeter?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:23 pm to sabes que
On one side of the coin you have "hand+heat=ouch" and the other you have "there's aliens because how can there not be!!!".
To me that's the equivalent of "be a good person and die in a peaceful state" vs "there's God because how can there not be!!!".
IE. How else could the world have been created if not for the Big Bang/God?!
To me that's the equivalent of "be a good person and die in a peaceful state" vs "there's God because how can there not be!!!".
IE. How else could the world have been created if not for the Big Bang/God?!
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:25 pm to Duke
Correct. I never said otherwise
No, you did not. I assumed we were expanding on the post I originally responded to that did say facts.
My fault
No, you did not. I assumed we were expanding on the post I originally responded to that did say facts.
My faultPosted on 1/30/17 at 11:31 pm to RBWilliams8
Nah, I pointed the "data" thing out because there's a big hang up around the word facts. No temperature reading is fact, there's uncertainty cooked in to any instrument used. You can show the results are some level of statistically significant but you never say it's true.
I was jumping off your point about facts. Both science bros and science haters argue around that word.
I was jumping off your point about facts. Both science bros and science haters argue around that word.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:34 pm to Gaspergou202
Science goes with the best, as in, most evidence based idea, rather than simply the most simple. Like I said, Occam's razor is important to science and philosophy, but 1... it is not the end all be all and 2.... the theory is more about selecting which opposing theory makes the least amount of assumptions, or is the least "fantastical" than it is the "simplest"
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:37 pm to RBWilliams8
quote:
On one side of the coin you have "hand+heat=ouch" and the other you have "there's aliens because how can there not be!!!".
To me that's the equivalent of "be a good person and die in a peaceful state" vs "there's God because how can there not be!!!".
IE. How else could the world have been created if not for the Big Bang/God?!
?? What?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:51 pm to sabes que
quote:
You have tested the facts of science for yourself everyday of your life. Namely, anytime you used any type of technology.
Actually the Newtonian theory of gravity worked well enough for our technology to explore Pluto. But, the Einsteinium theory is currently considered superior. If I have a theory that matter is made up of earth, air, fire, and water, and I burn wood, I would get smoke (air), ash (earth), flame (fire), and I can run a distillation experiment and get liquids (water). But does my technology of burning wood prove my scientific theory? No.
Reality is reality, but our current understanding of reality is not reality. It's closer to reality than yesterday's, but it is inferior to tomorrow's.
Scientists believe in the Big Bang Theory and they used to believe in the Steady State theory. They may believe a new theory tomorrow.
.
quote:
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.
That would hold true for that religion. Not necessarily so for most, some, or any other religion. If a scientist believed in the computer models that predict man made global warming, that would constrain his political, economic, and philosophical world view. Another scientist that argues these computer models have not been predictive at all, would be constrained in the exact opposite direction.
There is nothing sacred about or in science. Theories are always approached with the philosophy of what have you done for me lately!
Posted on 1/30/17 at 11:57 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
Actually the Newtonian Law of gravity worked well enough for our technology to explore Pluto.
Newton is mathematically "proven".
Einstein is explaining why that math works.
Disctiction only marginally needed here.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:13 am to sabes que
This is my original post that started our discussion.
"Actually not. It is belief that the most simple theory that best explains facts as they are known at the time, is probably the best theory. All theories should be constantly tested and rejected when they no longer meet the current facts. It's a procedure to examine he universe."
You just wrote:
"Science goes with the best, as in, most evidence based idea, rather than simply the most simple." Compared to my: "... the most simple theory THAT BEST EXPLAINS FACTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN AT THAT TIME, is probably the best theory."
What are we arguing about. These posts are almost identical.
"Actually not. It is belief that the most simple theory that best explains facts as they are known at the time, is probably the best theory. All theories should be constantly tested and rejected when they no longer meet the current facts. It's a procedure to examine he universe."
You just wrote:
"Science goes with the best, as in, most evidence based idea, rather than simply the most simple." Compared to my: "... the most simple theory THAT BEST EXPLAINS FACTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN AT THAT TIME, is probably the best theory."
What are we arguing about. These posts are almost identical.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:16 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
If a scientist believed in the computer models that predict man made global warming, that would constrain his political, economic, and philosophical world view.
Perhaps to a point, but not at all in the same way as a fundamentally religious person would be constrained by their beliefs. One differences being that their beliefs don't even claim to be evidence based and are praised for being absurd and requiring faith. Another difference being, the scientist doesn't believe his immortal soul is on the line and will be going against god if he changed or altered his thinking.
quote:
There is nothing sacred about or in science. Theories are always approached with the philosophy of what have you done for me lately!
Which is exactly why it works so well. For one example, quickly consider, people are generally far less religious now than say 100 years ago, but how many people are now healed and receive longer and higher quality lives in present times (due to scientific advancement in medicine) than when people were more religious? Which one is really doing us good?
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News