77 replies to this topic

[Vlad Yvhv]

On some level, the validity of science and facts has to be belived in to be accepted. Granted, this is usually a given, what with proof and all. But, more importantly, if the theories aren't belived in by anyone, they won't be explored. Without belief in science, or any other field, there can be no advancement.

[The Man]

I've made this topic my most posted in.

But what about disbelief, misconception, contradiction, neglect, abuse? I'd prefer to look at the entire picture instead of one side of the argument.

But you're damned if you do and you'd damned if you do. If I'm specific I discriminate. If I'm generalistic then I downplay stuff.

It's all about people not wanting to leave their comfort zone and accepting easier explanations for things instead of the cold hard truth/hard work. But I guess anything is allright as long as nobody gets hurt.

I know I'm going to regret saying that. It's hard to get comfortable when you know you can't get 100 percent of everyone/thing to agree with you.

[randomizer]

It's all about people not wanting to leave their comfort zone and accepting easier explanations for things instead of the cold hard truth/hard work.

I don't think "cold hard truth" is appropriate in this topic, since not much can be 100% proved or disproved. There's always another side to the story or another way of interpreting the "evidence".

[The Man]

Well, I'm so serious about proving it.

Except math or something we know that can't be refuted easily. DNA evidence too maybe. I heard many people in the U.S. have been cleared of criminal charges because of it. They are not locked in a room anymore because the truth has set them free.

Once humanity claims omniscience then we might end debate. But not as long as we are wrong somehow. We'd need to eliminate the things I mentioned in my post before this one. I can't predict if that'll happen anytime soon.

[Vlad Yvhv]

Once humanity claims omniscience then we might end debate.

Obtains, not claims. We can claim anything we want, but that doesn't make it true. Of course, we may get board with knowing everything and use our infinite knowledge to forget it, so's to be able to debate things again...

[Ratty Randnums]

On some level, the validity of science and facts has to be belived in to be accepted. Granted, this is usually a given, what with proof and all. But, more importantly, if the theories aren't belived in by anyone, they won't be explored. Without belief in science, or any other field, there can be no advancement.

Not really, science is based on doubt whereas religion is based on faith, constantly doubting how something works, reexamining it (and in cases where it has an application, "How can we make it better?") for thousands of years people just accepted and believed in things on faith, like horses as the main means of transport, and that man would never fly.
With the rise in both literacy and publishing independent of the Church or any other body that would seek to suppress new and contradicting ideas, mankind has made more advances in lengthening and improving human life in the last 500 years than he had in all the rest of his existence. Indeed, it was a religious article of faith that led many to believe (and has until quite recently, with the undeniable evidence of global warming mounting, still made many think) that the resources of the earth are infinite, because god made it so it was beyond the power of man to say, wipe out something like an (one whole!) entire species amirite?

No. You missed my point entirely. We're speaking of the term "religion" in 2 seperate contexts.

You're still hung up on the "surrounding cogs" I mentioned. Individual religions. Set systems of belief. I agree with you on the idea that belief systems can become outdated and must evolve or be gotten rid of.

The "central cog" that I referred to is the very concept of religion, rather than any actual religion. It has no inherant philosopy, no definitve structure, and no special name. It fills the inherant need that people have to believe something (what exactly is delegated to the "surrounding cogs"). That's all it does. That's all it can do. And that's what makes it timeless and indestrucable. Everyone needs to believe something, even if it's simply the idea that what they believe is right. Belief in science and facts, an individual religion, multiple religions, no religion, the voices in one's head, people, one's self, the idea that everything won't just up and cease to exist before I finish this paragraph, or even in disbelief of everything... All of them require the concept of religion, even if they don't require any actual religous affiliation. They require the ability to believe in the fist place. The concept of religion gives us that ability.

Well, I think some nihilists would disagree that everyone "needs" anything, but it's true there are limits to what (if anything) we can be positive of, however if we go in the ultimate end of this direction/philosophy than no one knows anything for certain, so everyone is really agnostic about everything (which is true, or appears to be), from there it could be argued that there's no point trying to do/advance in any direction.
Whereas science (both from our numerous and repeated observations with the 5 senses and mathematics) certainly seems to give us more proof, and more observable benefits with (when unrestricted by religious or other ideas) less drawbacks.

[Valerie Valens]

On some level, the validity of science and facts has to be belived in to be accepted. Granted, this is usually a given, what with proof and all. But, more importantly, if the theories aren't belived in by anyone, they won't be explored. Without belief in science, or any other field, there can be no advancement.

You are mistaking the everyday definition of "theory" (a speculative explanation) to the scientific definition. (a set of explanations for known natural phenomena observed with multiple falsifiable, reproducible and empirical or mathematical evidence to back it up) A theory is the most powerful form of proof in Science.

Do note that even the earliest versions of a theory, like Gravity, has an element of truth in today's version of the same theory. (Compare Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's)

[The Man]

A theory? If it's so true would a 'reality of science' have a better ring to it?

Reality of Relativity?

It's interesting how this topic went from religion to science. Maybe it's all the same thing but with a different use?

You'd really have to think out your post to be correct. You could interpret my post wierd but what is 'most powerful' vs. 'most correct'.

So is a theory a perfect form of proof 'of' science? You'd need a real futurist to edit our posts for this but even they would have a hard time. Unless someone here is part of MENSA?

My point is that not even our posts are perfect and I don't know when someone could catch every little/big meaning of our posts?

The government has prosecuted people religious and non-religous alike who have clearly commited crime so I'm helping the athiests out on at least one front, but that's not to say anyone can't do a good thing.

[randomizer]

Theories are accepted by the scientific community until they are proven false, then they are changed. Theories are believed by the masses to be fact thanks to teachers and textbooks misinforming students. Darwinian evolution has a billion holes in it, and is totally illogical IMO, yet it is "truth" to most people (even many scientists sadly).

[The Man]

And again anything can be dangerous if you're irresponsible with it.

[furrykef]

Theories are accepted by the scientific community until they are proven false, then they are changed. Theories are believed by the masses to be fact thanks to teachers and textbooks misinforming students.

There is no misinformation. You are misunderstanding what "theory" means. Read this page and this page. (Heck, read everything on that site while you're at it.)

If you replace evolution with gravity, you will see why your little "theories are accepted by the scientific community..." speech is rather silly. Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity.

Darwinian evolution has a billion holes in it, and is totally illogical IMO

What holes? What's illogical about it? What's illogical to me is that the idea of microevolution -- which has been empirically proven to exist -- would not naturally imply the idea of macroevolution.

My suspicion is that you think it has a "billion holes" in it because you do not understand it.

- Kef

[fishtheimpaler]

Kef, you're onto a good point with the suggestion of replacing religion with gravity.

Going to take a stab at this SCIENCE IS RELIGION AUGH thing: the ultimate reason that science is valid is that it helps humanity deal with the world in a good way. Really there's no logical necessity behind the scientific method; it's just this thing we've developed that lets us develop technologies that let us deal with the world better.

That actually grounds science a lot more than a lot of the SCIENCE IS RELIGION people would like to admit. The reason that the "God laughs at your science" fight is going on specifically with regard to evolutionary biology is not only the hot-button issue of human origins, but because nobody can point to any killer product that evolutionary biology has brought us (as distinct from selective breeding, though you'd think the logical connections pretty strong), or any helpful technology it's created. No one's going to take on, say, physics with the Bible (not anymore, anyway) because no one would want to give up physics in any serious way. Physics makes your computer go, end of story. Evolutionary biology doesn't make anything go, which is why people can painlessly attack it as Godless apostacy.

[Vlad Yvhv]

On some level, the validity of science and facts has to be belived in to be accepted. Granted, this is usually a given, what with proof and all. But, more importantly, if the theories aren't belived in by anyone, they won't be explored. Without belief in science, or any other field, there can be no advancement.

You are mistaking the everyday definition of "theory" (a speculative explanation) to the scientific definition. (a set of explanations for known natural phenomena observed with multiple falsifiable, reproducible and empirical or mathematical evidence to back it up) A theory is the most powerful form of proof in Science.

Do note that even the earliest versions of a theory, like Gravity, has an element of truth in today's version of the same theory. (Compare Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's)

And another one misses the point... Alright... Let me try to dumb this idea down further...

All scientific theories and research begins with an actual theory, which leads to someone figuring out how to test the theory and either proving it right or wrong. Someone somewhere has to believe that that theory has some merit, or it would be shot down without even being explored.

There's a reason you won't find scientists studying the idea that doughnuts grow legs and walk away if you don't watch them carefully. I told my brother this when he was to young to understand what "sold out" means when he couldn't get his daily doughnut before being taken to daycare. It's just a silly bit of nonsense that can't be believed in by people who probly know better.

The peson whose brain the theory popped into has to believe that the theory has some merit or they'll just dismiss it in the first place (you won't find me staking out doughnuts to test the theory, either). The lack of belief in one's own random nonsense thoughts is what seperates the "sane" people from the insane ones. I believed that the idea would fool a little kid, and I was proven right.

Want more proof? Look at how long it takes some unpopular theories to be explored. When there isn't enough belief in the theory to warrent research, there likely won't be any real research or progress in the area. If there was, a lot of science fiction would become science fact a lot faster.

That's it. This is as simple as I can make the idea. If it's still not clear, then it's probly because yer trying to complicate it with yer own thoughts as to what I'm getting at... Stop doing that and it should become clear. It's a simple concept that doesn't require extensive interpretation. Unless I'm smarter than I think and my idea of simple concepts actually applies to complex concepts... But I seriously doubt that... I like to think that many of y'all're probly smarter than me...

[Ratty Randnums]

On some level, the validity of science and facts has to be belived in to be accepted. Granted, this is usually a given, what with proof and all. But, more importantly, if the theories aren't belived in by anyone, they won't be explored. Without belief in science, or any other field, there can be no advancement.

You are mistaking the everyday definition of "theory" (a speculative explanation) to the scientific definition. (a set of explanations for known natural phenomena observed with multiple falsifiable, reproducible and empirical or mathematical evidence to back it up) A theory is the most powerful form of proof in Science.

Do note that even the earliest versions of a theory, like Gravity, has an element of truth in today's version of the same theory. (Compare Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's)

And another one misses the point... Alright... Let me try to dumb this idea down further...

All scientific theories and research begins with an actual theory, which leads to someone figuring out how to test the theory and either proving it right or wrong. Someone somewhere has to believe that that theory has some merit, or it would be shot down without even being explored.

There's a reason you won't find scientists studying the idea that doughnuts grow legs and walk away if you don't watch them carefully. I told my brother this when he was to young to understand what "sold out" means when he couldn't get his daily doughnut before being taken to daycare. It's just a silly bit of nonsense that can't be believed in by people who probly know better.

The peson whose brain the theory popped into has to believe that the theory has some merit or they'll just dismiss it in the first place (you won't find me staking out doughnuts to test the theory, either). The lack of belief in one's own random nonsense thoughts is what seperates the "sane" people from the insane ones. I believed that the idea would fool a little kid, and I was proven right.

Want more proof? Look at how long it takes some unpopular theories to be explored. When there isn't enough belief in the theory to warrent research, there likely won't be any real research or progress in the area. If there was, a lot of science fiction would become science fact a lot faster.

That's it. This is as simple as I can make the idea. If it's still not clear, then it's probly because yer trying to complicate it with yer own thoughts as to what I'm getting at... Stop doing that and it should become clear. It's a simple concept that doesn't require extensive interpretation. Unless I'm smarter than I think and my idea of simple concepts actually applies to complex concepts... But I seriously doubt that... I like to think that many of y'all're probly smarter than me...

All right I'll "dumb it down further" theories do not start out as theories and stay that way as you say. The meaning of "theory" in the scientific and popular sense are sadly very different. Popularly it means something like "educated guess" whereas in science as Valerie pointed out a while ago it means "a set of explanations for known natural phenomena observed with multiple falsifiable, reproducible and empirical or mathematical evidence to back it up", in other words, it's something that has been tested again and again, and looks again and again to be correct.

The process works more or less like this-
Hypothesis, someone gets an idea/thinks they observe something and want to test it for truthfulness - Repeated testing for this hypothesis - and, if it is tested enough and shown to appear to be true based on all or at least the overwhelming majority of the evidence we have (even the best of tests and equations are done by humans, thus the need for repeated and continuing proof), it will earn the title of "theory".
Over time it may even garner the title of "law" like the "law of gravity" but it is still really just a theory that has been around a long time and has consistently appeared to be true. And as Valerie mentioned there could be several versions of a single theory supplementing our knowledge as new facts become available.

Also the "Science is Religion" argument put forth by the right is, I don't know how else to put it, retarded. The scientific method (which is what "Science" is ultimately) is a tool, it would be like worshiping a shovel. Indeed people might feel a connection to what the scientific method tells us about the universe, but that wouldn't be worshiping science, it would be NATURE WORSHIP. That's all. I mean, a "Religion of Science" would be like worshiping the actual physical bible instead of the stories/people in it.

A theory? If it's so true would a 'reality of science' have a better ring to it?

Reality of Relativity?

It's interesting how this topic went from religion to science. Maybe it's all the same thing but with a different use?

You'd really have to think out your post to be correct. You could interpret my post wierd but what is 'most powerful' vs. 'most correct'.

So is a theory a perfect form of proof 'of' science? You'd need a real futurist to edit our posts for this but even they would have a hard time. Unless someone here is part of MENSA?

My point is that not even our posts are perfect and I don't know when someone could catch every little/big meaning of our posts?

See above.

The government has prosecuted people religious and non-religous alike who have clearly commited crime so I'm helping the athiests out on at least one front, but that's not to say anyone can't do a good thing.

Once again, huh? But yeah it is always pretty funny to see these holier-than-thou fundies get arrested for having sex in a bathroom or tax evasion or something.

[furrykef]

I wonder who is a bigger moron: Jack Chick or Kent Hovind?

(First person to compare somebody like Richard Dawkins to these people gets fucking eaten. )

[Valerie Valens]

Theories are accepted by the scientific community until they are proven false, then they are changed. Theories are believed by the masses to be fact thanks to teachers and textbooks misinforming students.

Are you kidding me? New hypothesis are always being challenged before they can be accepted as a scientific theory. When Niels Bohr and his students at the Copenhagen University came up with Quantum Theory to explain the behaviour of atoms, it outraged scientists and the likes of Albert Einstein and Erwin Schroedinger fought very earnestly against the theory and worked their asses off to prove it wrong. However, in the Bohr-Einstein Debates it was proven that Quantum Theory is a solid theory that helps to explain how the atom works with the same accuracy as predicting the length between New York and San Francisco to within the width of a human hair.

Darwinian evolution has a billion holes in it, and is totally illogical IMO, yet it is "truth" to most people (even many scientists sadly).

Darwin's The Origin of Species lacked explanation for a lot of things, but it laid a foundation for a lot of research that would serve to bolster and support the theory. This is what science is all about, the self-correcting process of piling on the evidence to either refute or support a theory. So, please, do tell us the "billions of holes" in the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary biology doesn't make anything go, which is why people can painlessly attack it as Godless apostacy.

Are YOU kidding me? Forensic criminal investigations, the study and treatment of genetic diseases, all other medical and biological fields, Agriculture (Which, thanks to evolutionary biology, have saved millions of people already.) and designs of machines have benefited GREATLY from this field of research, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

You can't just take things like this for granted.

All scientific theories and research begins with an actual theory, which leads to someone figuring out how to test the theory and either proving it right or wrong. Someone somewhere has to believe that that theory has some merit, or it would be shot down without even being explored.

Nope, it all begins with studies and research, then hypothesis are made, they are written in papers and then peer-reviewed. If the hypothesis has some merit, it will be found in the arguments written in the paper.

Science isn't something you can go "Here is a theory, what facts can we find to support it?" and then expect to be taken seriously. It goes the other way around.

There's a reason you won't find scientists studying the idea that doughnuts grow legs and walk away if you don't watch them carefully. I told my brother this when he was to young to understand what "sold out" means when he couldn't get his daily doughnut before being taken to daycare. It's just a silly bit of nonsense that can't be believed in by people who probly know better.

That is because for that to happen, the atoms will have to spontaneously fuse, fission and rearrange themselves to form legs with a complete autonomous nervous system capable of making the legs walk on their own. This is actually possible, according to quantum theory, but the probability of it is so vanishingly small that one would have to observe the experiment in a period of time so long that if you compare our current estimated age of our universe to the waiting period, you will find that one second to the current age of our universe is a proportionally longer period of time.

The peson whose brain the theory popped into has to believe that the theory has some merit or they'll just dismiss it in the first place (you won't find me staking out doughnuts to test the theory, either). The lack of belief in one's own random nonsense thoughts is what seperates the "sane" people from the insane ones. I believed that the idea would fool a little kid, and I was proven right.

This argument is invalid as it is an example of the red herring. Of course, the person who devised the theory would believe it, no shit sherlock! This has nothing to do with the question of sanity, and whether the theory is complete nonsense or not depends on its scientific validity as well as the arguments supporting and against it. A "belief" in a theory has little, if any, bearing on its validity.

Any idea can fool a kid because kids are, in general, ignorant and impressionable, thus vulnerable to misinformation. I don't know what you are getting at with this.

Want more proof? Look at how long it takes some unpopular theories to be explored. When there isn't enough belief in the theory to warrent research, there likely won't be any real research or progress in the area. If there was, a lot of science fiction would become science fact a lot faster.

Unpopular "theories" are ignored as such, not because it's not as strongly-believed as "more popular theories." It is because the hypothesis is weak with not enough evidence supporting it, or that they are already discredited due to theories against it. Your argument is an ad populum fallacy. (See : Steady State Theory)

[fishtheimpaler]

Evolutionary biology doesn't make anything go, which is why people can painlessly attack it as Godless apostacy.

Are YOU kidding me? Forensic criminal investigations, the study and treatment of genetic diseases, all other medical and biological fields, Agriculture (Which, thanks to evolutionary biology, have saved millions of people already.) and designs of machines have benefited GREATLY from this field of research, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

You can't just take things like this for granted.

Heh. You talk to a born-again anti-evolutionist, like my father, and you'll discover that these people are willing to buy into genetics, with all the relevant biochemistry, all without being willing to subscribe to the notion that natural selection could interact with these mechanisms to differentiate species. It's implausible that you can take one without the other--and I furthermore don't doubt that as a historical matter discoveries in evolutionary biology have produced breakthroughs in genetics and biochemistry more generally, and vice-versa--but anti-evolutionists try as best they can to isolate the part of biology that gives them all the medicine and cheap food from the part that makes human beings out of single-celled organisms. Which we've had quite enough of already, thank you!

(I imagine there's a similar problem with young earth theorists who nonetheless enjoy whatever advances plate tectonic theory have brought us in earthquake prediction, etc.)

It may just require ignorance of science to even try, but it's the perceived lack of social benefit from evolutionary biology that makes the anti-evolution movement possible at all. These days, you will not find mainstream anti-evolution Christians ready to declare their immune-deficient childrens' gene therapy the Devil's work.

[The Man]

I think everyone here is missing something about biology/simple in general. If biology is wrong then why are we here talking about it? Why aren't we dead?

Rocky was making a point about weapons and leverages. That people use things we don't know about as weapons and/or leverages to sway people. Simply put, people blame god/devil/whomever because they lack the total knowledge to understand it all.

Diseases and viruses come from abuse and neglect I believe. If you don't believe me try eating off the same plate for a week without washing it/cleaning it somehow and tell me you don't get sick. You might not but chances are you clean off your dishes hopefully on a regular basis.

I could use more examples but there's enough out there to make simple conclusions. You can fear human corruption caused by neglect, abuse, ignorance, and/or irresponsiblity or any other negative idea in the dictionary I did not mention.

Sorry if I used the word the 'simple' concept as a weapon and/or a leverage but it takes wisdom to know when it's justified/legit.