- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 1/31/17 at 12:18 am to sabes que
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:18 am to sabes que
quote:
somewhat agree, however, religion makes many scientific claims for itself.
My degree is in molecular biology. For me personally, I tend to have a blended view. I understand from studying genetics how traits can appear and disappear in populations. So I believe given enough time, living creatures can adapt in many different ways to their environment. At the same time, I can look at the structure and function of DNA or how the electron transport chain works and can believe there is some design to it. Just look around at the complex stuff in our lives. Did my cellphone just come into existence by happenstance over millions of years or did someone design it? How about the engine in my car? There is an element of design whether you're talking cars, buildings, plants or hearts and lungs. I can't prove that a higher power had a hand in creating some of those things, but I can examine them and reasonably assume their design was not random.
2
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:24 am to Duke
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
They are not marginally different.
They both will however get you around the Solar System with our current technology. Technologies do not prove scientific theory. But it can help test it.
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
They are not marginally different.
They both will however get you around the Solar System with our current technology. Technologies do not prove scientific theory. But it can help test it.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:24 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
. Just look around at the complex stuff in our lives. Did my cellphone just come into existence by happenstance over millions of years or did someone design it? How about the engine in my car? There is an element of design whether you're talking cars, buildings, plants or hearts and lungs. I can't prove that a higher power had a hand in creating some of those things, but I can examine them and reasonably assume their design was not random.
Those things you named that were designed were designed by something more complex than them. So, if god designed us, that would have to mean he was designed by something even more complex. It is an infinite regression and pointless to even ponder or propose. Plus, you seem to already accept that less complex things can give rise to more complex ones, so I don't see why you are really on the fence.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:29 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
Technologies do not prove scientific theory.
So if science is able to correctly predict when an eclipse will happen, or able to make your car get you from a to b, or cure your infection with antibiotics, then what do you call it if not proof?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:30 am to Gaspergou202
You'd use Newtonian to get a rocket up today. Predict your orbits and trajectories of planets, ECT.
One tells you do you get X force between these two masses.
The other explains why you get that force between two masses.
One tells you do you get X force between these two masses.
The other explains why you get that force between two masses.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:33 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
All theories should be constantly tested and rejected when they no longer meet the current facts.
Except when you're so sure that the case is closed and the debate is over.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:58 am to sabes que
I intend no insult, and apologies in advance if you feel that I have. But you appear to have an incredible need to down grade religion.
Religion does not remove free choice. Many have murdered, stolen, and committed adultery and yet believed that they were imperiling their immortal souls. Some scientists have faked results and stolen others work. All this proves is that all mortals are sinners who ply their trade almost daily.
Religious people change and alter their thinking as they learn about their religions. Some change so drastically that they become converts.
You are confusing cause and effect. This is from a 2005 AP article: In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.
“We were surprised to find that physicians were as religious as they apparently are,” said Dr. Farr Curlin, a researcher at the University of Chicago’s MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics.
“There’s certainly a deep-seated cultural idea that science and religion are at odds".
Basically religious people can do good science, and scientist can be religious. Einstein stated that he was religious and that he believed in God.
quote:
a fundamentally religious person would be constrained by their beliefs.
Religion does not remove free choice. Many have murdered, stolen, and committed adultery and yet believed that they were imperiling their immortal souls. Some scientists have faked results and stolen others work. All this proves is that all mortals are sinners who ply their trade almost daily.
Religious people change and alter their thinking as they learn about their religions. Some change so drastically that they become converts.
quote:
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?
You are confusing cause and effect. This is from a 2005 AP article: In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.
“We were surprised to find that physicians were as religious as they apparently are,” said Dr. Farr Curlin, a researcher at the University of Chicago’s MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics.
“There’s certainly a deep-seated cultural idea that science and religion are at odds".
Basically religious people can do good science, and scientist can be religious. Einstein stated that he was religious and that he believed in God.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:14 am to Duke
quote:
Newton is mathematically "proven".
Einstein is explaining why that math works.
Disctiction only marginally needed here.
Sort of, but it's more than that. Einstein's GR does things Newton's theory can't. For instance, it predicts black holes (you can't get that from Newton) and it is more fine-grained and precise. For example, GR gives us the ability to use GPS, something that would not be possible with Newtonian mechanics (because Newtonian gravity does not account for time dilation).
I would think of Newton's theory as "in the ballpark of correct" or "good enough for everyday use." If you want the most accurate theory that can predict down to (almost) the atomic scale all the way up to entire galaxies, then you need GR. Likewise, if you want to send a space-ship to Alpha Centauri at 99.95% the speed of light, you need Einstein. Newton's theory will not cut it (again, it doesn't take into account time dilation, Lorentz length contraction and other phenomenon).
However, I will say that most physicists do not think GR is the end-all-be all of gravity. Why? Because no matter what you do, you cannot merge it with quantum theory. It has been tried by Einstein himself all the way to the present. No one can do it. Now, one might say "perhaps quantum theory is wrong." Maybe. But quantum theory is the most tested theory in the history of science. It has been rigorously tested for almost 100 years and never fails any tests or provides the wrong prediction. GR is the 2nd most tested theory in science history and it also never fails. So how do we combine the two theories into one? Good question. If you know how, then you are in for a Nobel prize.
One of the best candidates is String theory, but many physicists think of it more as a religion than science. It is a fine mathematical model, but mathematical models are useless unless they PREDICT something about reality that can be TESTED. If the theory can't provide that, then it must be relegated to the philosophy department. That's currently where String Theory is (and has been since the 1980's).
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 1:23 am
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:23 am to sabes que
quote:
So if science is able to correctly predict when an eclipse will happen, or able to make your car get you from a to b, or cure your infection with antibiotics, then what do you call it if not proof?
Last try, it's 1AM!
1-
In a prior post I mentioned models that placed Earth at the center of the Solar System. With one crank the Sun, moon, and planets moved around the Earth. And yes these technological marvels could predict eclipses. But the technology did not PROVE that the Sun orbited Earth. But for that day, that scientific theory was the best available!
2-
Before the Germ Theory and antibiotics, malaria existed. The leading theory of the time was that bad (mal) air (aria) caused the disease. "Bad air" existed in such fetid places as swamps and the tropics and night air was really bad. Prediction: don't go where and when you will breath in bad air and you will not get malaria. The prediction works fairly well without mosquitoes and germs! I can still remember my grandmother telling me to get out of the night air!
But we all know that a better name would be mosquitovector disease! Reality is reality, and scientific theory always falls short of reality. But it's the best system that we have found to understand the universe.
Goodnight all!
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:32 am to AUstar
AUstar,
I stand in the presence of my scientific superior.
Bravo sir!
I stand in the presence of my scientific superior.
Bravo sir!
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:33 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
I intend no insult
you are not capable of insulting me.
quote:
Religion does not remove free choice
Ah yes, because "Believe in me or be tortured for all of eternity" is such a free choice with no coercion or malice. You have free choice because the boss says you do. right?
quote:
Religious people change and alter their thinking as they learn about their religions.
No doubt, and the more religious they become, the more their thinking will be constrained by the religious dogma.
quote:
Basically religious people can do good science, and scientist can be religious
Of fricking course they can. It would be absurd to claim otherwise. A bi-polar person or alcoholic could also do good science, and a scientist could be bi-polar or an alcoholic. This does not mean they are compatible or help each other along in any way.
quote:
Einstein stated that he was religious and that he believed in God.
wow, please stop. He wrote this in 1954, a year before his death. "“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Posted on 1/31/17 at 2:18 am to sabes que
Wow what lies I tell. 1:45 and still up.
You are correct if you say Einstein did not believe in a biblical God. And your quote is accurate. Try this one. "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." Simplified version: there is a Creator because creation exist.
Excellent!
You are actually more religious than I. I am full of doubt concerning a personal saving god. But you are unequivocally 100% convinced in your atheism. You think science proves that God or a Creator doesn't exist. I don't believe in ghosts, but no scientific theory predicts their impossibility! Science can never prove the nonexistence of God.
Your religious beliefs do in fact restrain your thinking. You have faith that God doesn't exist without proof. For humans, creation is a one time only event. Human science cannot address one time only events. Einstein either knows the answer now, or he knows nothing but nonexistence. Non existence is probably the best destiny an atheist can aspire too. You have my condolences. It is my sincere hope that we both find faith and comfort in God. Imagine the arguments we can have in infinity!
You are correct if you say Einstein did not believe in a biblical God. And your quote is accurate. Try this one. "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." Simplified version: there is a Creator because creation exist.
quote:
you are not capable of insulting me.
Excellent!
You are actually more religious than I. I am full of doubt concerning a personal saving god. But you are unequivocally 100% convinced in your atheism. You think science proves that God or a Creator doesn't exist. I don't believe in ghosts, but no scientific theory predicts their impossibility! Science can never prove the nonexistence of God.
Your religious beliefs do in fact restrain your thinking. You have faith that God doesn't exist without proof. For humans, creation is a one time only event. Human science cannot address one time only events. Einstein either knows the answer now, or he knows nothing but nonexistence. Non existence is probably the best destiny an atheist can aspire too. You have my condolences. It is my sincere hope that we both find faith and comfort in God. Imagine the arguments we can have in infinity!
Posted on 1/31/17 at 2:53 am to TrueTiger
quote:
that the physical world exists for that matter
well if this is your standard of belief, then i guess you don't really believe in anything
Posted on 1/31/17 at 2:58 am to LSUMANINVA
quote:
Human life begins at conception
prove it, what is the opposite of conception? have you observed a similar phenomenon?
i would argue that life begins with the heartbeat, as it ends with the final heartbeat. i have an equal and opposite reaction to death, that is life. since we define the end of life as the end of the heartbeat, we can logically conclude the beginning is with its opposite action.
what you claim is based on belief, nothing more.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:59 am to sabes que
quote:
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.
Yes you do have faith in your experience. This is because our subjective experience is the only proof we have of anything for sure. You think, therefore you are. But you can never be 100% sure that others think. You are a prisoner in your mind, dancing through a life of grand assumptions.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 7:07 am to CptBengal
quote:
Religious zealots "believe"
Science isn't about belief. It's about facts.
This.
If not facts at the very least an overwhelming amount of evidence and a consensus among people who consider one another experts in the field
Posted on 1/31/17 at 7:12 am to sabes que
Does belief in science = "belief in whatever gets me the most grant money"?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 7:43 am to sabes que
It means that you know there is a creator But you don't want to acknowledge it. So you go to a system and you believe in it so that you don't have to believe in a creator.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 8:15 am to baobabtiger
quote:
It means that you know there is a creator But you don't want to acknowledge it. So you go to a system and you believe in it so that you don't have to believe in a creator.
What a bizarre response, especially given how many prominent scientists now and in the past were religious.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 8:16 am
Posted on 1/31/17 at 8:22 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
My degree is in molecular biology. For me personally, I tend to have a blended view. I understand from studying genetics how traits can appear and disappear in populations. So I believe given enough time, living creatures can adapt in many different ways to their environment. At the same time, I can look at the structure and function of DNA or how the electron transport chain works and can believe there is some design to it. Just look around at the complex stuff in our lives. Did my cellphone just come into existence by happenstance over millions of years or did someone design it? How about the engine in my car? There is an element of design whether you're talking cars, buildings, plants or hearts and lungs. I can't prove that a higher power had a hand in creating some of those things, but I can examine them and reasonably assume their design was not random.
I have two biology degrees and a medical degree and the inefficiency of and inherent flaws in our own biology is enough to convince me there was no design to it. A decent engineer could design a more efficient system, let alone an omnipotent deity. For example, the dual function of our pharynx results in millions of deaths every year from choking and aspiration pneumonia. We are unable to synthesize many of the vitamins we require for survival. And of course the most well known, our females have birth canals not wide enough for the human fetus because of our rapid evolution to bipeds and the rapid expansion of our skulls.
If God designed the biological mechanisms of life, he's a really shitty designer.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 8:29 am
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News