|
Ok over the past few months I have met a surprising amount of people who really don't know what science is by definition. They seem completely ignorant of it's workings. So I have taken it upon myself to clarify.
Science- is the study of the natural world and of how it works.
I have also seen a gross misunderstanding of what the term theory means scientifically. This also stems from a misunderstanding of how the discipline on science functions. Science is the constant pursuit of physical actual proof. Science WILL change it's view of how things are in the face of physical measurable quantifiable evidence.
A theory is formed when someone forms a hypothesis of how things are, then physical evidence has to be gathered to justify that hypothesis, it then has to be scientifically rendered in the face of all relevant related disciplines in science. It is then subjected to brutal and rigorous peer review. If it passes all of these it is brought forth as a scientific theory. If it doesn't fit somehow then it cannot be put forth until such a dispute is resolved. Science cannot just willy nilly put forth crackpot theories about the universe and accept them as fact, which is what some people seem to think we do.
|
|
Science- is the study of the natural world and of how it works....
Science is the constant pursuit of physical actual proof. Science WILL change it's view of how things are in the face of physical measurable quantifiable evidence.
This is why I cringe when ever I here the phrase "the science is settled." To me, this means that people have stopped looking for new answers. To me, saying that the science is settled means that it is no longer science and has instead become dogma. For example, I was just watching a program on NatGeo that was discussing how the Grand Canyon is both older and younger then we had originally believed.
It also talked about how the fact that most human cultures have a myth about a universal deluge may actually have a basis in truth. Apparently, new climatological models and evidence shows that the world got warmer faster then we had previously thought, which in turn caused much more rapid glacial melting then we had believed. For example, at Dry Falls, Washington it is estimated that ten times more water than flow in every river in the world today flowed through this one point of the matter of less than two weeks.
However I have met many people, some of whom are geologists, who refuse to accept the idea of rapid glacial melting and rapid deluges because it has religious overtones. Even though the science seems to be headed in one direction, these people refuse to accept it because of a bias on their own part. Science is great, but when science becomes dogma then I have problems with it.
|
|
I don't think people get that science is the PURSUIT of truth. It does not work in absolutes. That being said we know facts. Facts by definition are things that with observable measurable science have time and time again proven to be true. Such as in the theory of universal gravitation matter is attracted to matter. In every instance we've seen that as true.
|
|
I don't think people get that science is the PURSUIT of truth. It does not work in absolutes. That being said we know facts. Facts by definition are things that with observable measurable science have time and time again proven to be true. Such as in the theory of universal gravitation matter is attracted to matter. In every instance we've seen that as true.
I'm not trying to start an argument, but I have seen facts change in my lifetime. When I was in grade school, it was a fact that Pluto was a planet. Today it is a fact that Pluto is not a planet. Sometimes I think we confuse what we see with our perspective of what we see. Pluto hasn't changed what it is, but our perspective of it has. It is our perspective that defines the facts, not the facts themselves.
|
|
True enough, we can only speculate as to what a fact is by the experiments we have constantly done. The pluto thing yes was a big change but largely didn't happen sooner since we only really got into defining what constitutes a planet, demi planet, etc, etc.... in the 60's and 70's and fact is up until the hubble telescope and other technologies observing pluto is exceptionally difficult. Not trying to justify us getting it wrong just saying with the advancement of known science things do change.
|
|
Ok over the past few months I have met a surprising amount of people who really don't know what science is by definition. They seem completely ignorant of it's workings. So I have taken it upon myself to clarify.Isn't it a religion?
;-)
The key difference between science and religion is that science would be willing to change perspective in the face of physical measurable evidence. Problem with religion is even if we did give undisputable proof of the non existence of god, I can almost guarantee the view would likely not change. Science isn't (or shouldn't) be based on emotion, feeling or faith. It should be solely based on what the evidence and facts present, it should remain as neutral as possible on the subject.
|
|
True enough, we can only speculate as to what a fact is by the experiments we have constantly done.
Agreed. Like I said initally, I just get a little twitchy when people stop doing the experiments or when people who call themselves scientists refuse to accept new research because it contradicts the material that they learned. I live by the philosophy that a mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open.
It also talked about how the fact that most human cultures have a myth about a universal deluge may actually have a basis in truth. Apparently, new climatological models and evidence shows that the world got warmer faster then we had previously thought, which in turn caused much more rapid glacial melting then we had believed. For example, at Dry Falls, Washington it is estimated that ten times more water than flow in every river in the world today flowed through this one point of the matter of less than two weeks.
However I have met many people, some of whom are geologists, who refuse to accept the idea of rapid glacial melting and rapid deluges because it has religious overtones. Even though the science seems to be headed in one direction, these people refuse to accept it because of a bias on their own part. Science is great, but when science becomes dogma then I have problems with it.
As a geologist, I should point out that rapidly-melting ice in no way implies a "universal deluge," because at no time during the last Ice Age did glaciers cover the continents completely -- the tropics always remained ice-free. Similarly, there have been times during which the planet was too warm to support any ice caps -- during those times there were inland seas, but it wasn't "water world" by any stretch of the imagination. Melt the glaciers as quickly as you like, and there's still no worldwide flood.
False dichotomy -- science's worst enemy.
|
|
The key difference between science and religion is that science would be willing to change perspective in the face of physical measurable evidence. Problem with religion is even if we did give undisputable proof of the non existence of god, I can almost guarantee the view would likely not change. Science isn't (or shouldn't) be based on emotion, feeling or faith. It should be solely based on what the evidence and facts present, it should remain as neutral as possible on the subject.Ok over the past few months I have met a surprising amount of people who really don't know what science is by definition. They seem completely ignorant of it's workings. So I have taken it upon myself to clarify.Isn't it a religion?
;-)
Not saying it is neutral, it isn't it has emotional people involved, but it should be neutral.
|
|
As a geologist, I should point out that rapidly-melting ice in no way implies a "universal deluge," because at no time during the last Ice Age did glaciers cover the continents completely -- the tropics were always ice-free. Just as there have been times in which the planet was too warm to support any ice caps -- during these times there were inland seas, but it wasn't "water world" by any stretch of the imagination.
False dichotomy -- science's worst enemy.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that there was a universal deluge. I was just saying that the new theory is that it the myth has some basis in reality. If your whole world is the valley that you live in and the surrounding territory in a few days walk and that is all flooded, then it is a universal deluge from your perspective.
The antidote for human limitations. A beacon in a superstitious world. A way of being cautious with ideas, and testing them a bit before putting weight on them. An emancipator that holds the gate open so that we can escape from religion.
If your whole world is the valley that you live in and the surrounding territory in a few days walk and that is all flooded, then it is a universal deluge from your perspective.
Sure, and recent research regarding the Bosporus implies a catastrophic flood in the region, possibly during Biblical times. But by the same token they've excavated pretty much all of Mt. Ararat, and no sign of any pieces of an ark... Real life is almost always more complicated than the simple either/or propositions that people like to present us with.
|
|
Ok I will say this about the relation between science and religion.
Science is the study of the natural world and the workings thereof.
God, fairies, ghosts, goblins, the flying spaghetti monster, the great juju up the mountain, lord krishna, aphrodite, apollo, and Pinky the troll are examples of the supernatural. These are things that science can't study precisely because they are SUPERnatural. They are not part of the natural world and can't be physically studied or measured. Trying to do so is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
The antidote for human limitations. A beacon in a superstitious world. A way of being cautious with ideas, and testing them a bit before putting weight on them. An emancipator that holds the gate open so that we can escape from religion.
See, this is what I worry about. This attitude indicates an agenda, other than the search for truth. A true scientist should be open to truth, from any source.
This attitude indicates an agenda, other than the search for truth. A true scientist should be open to truth, from any source.
In point of fact -- as long as we're arguing semantics, that is -- philosophers and holy men look for "truth," whereas scientists look for reproducable answers to defined questions. There are facts (data) and predictions (reliable or otherwise), but Truth is beyond the scope of science.
|
|
If your whole world is the valley that you live in and the surrounding territory in a few days walk and that is all flooded, then it is a universal deluge from your perspective.Sure, and recent research regarding the Bosporus implies a catastrophic flood in the region, possibly during Biblical times. But by the same token they've excavated pretty much all of Mt. Ararat, and no sign of any pieces of an ark... Real life is almost always more complicated than the simple either/or propositions that people like to present us with.
I always thought the Ark on Mount Ararat was more alagory than anything else. Even if you accepted it as anything other than that, anything made of wood that old would have surely decayed by now. As a social scientist I find that such connects are facinating from the standpoint of understanding human behavior.
Dis talk wayst of time. Worship Pinky and u can spend afterlife under Bugleyman's bed w/ Pinky...
On other hand, probably better for u if no worship Pinky. Bugleyman smell bad.
|
|
In point of fact -- as long as we're arguing semantics, that is -- philosophers and holy men look for "truth," whereas scientists look for reproducable answers to defined questions. There are facts (data) and predictions (reliable or otherwise), but Truth is beyond the scope of science.
I will accept that. However, even that definition is incompatable with a goal of bringing down religion, since by Jeremy's own definition the claims of religion can't be studied by the modern scientific method. For example there is no way to devise an experiment that proves or disproves the existance of God. There are many documented case of people having experiences that cannot be explained by science, particularly in medicine. Therefore the expressed goal of liberating mankind from religion is incompatable with science, because the very nature of the realms that religion and science operate in do not interact.
I always thought the Ark on Mount Ararat was more al[le]gory than anything else. Even if you accepted it as anything other than that, anything made of wood that old would have surely decayed by now.
Allegory is a beautiful thing, but a lot of people somehow don't believe in it. Biblical literalism is on the rise, rather than declining, regardless of what research might show.
Re: wood decay: if a literal ark of that size was actually grounded there, one would still expect some evidence -- impressions, metal parts, petrified wood, coprolites from all those animals -- anything!
|
|
Re: wood decay: if a literal ark of that size was actually grounded there, one would still expect some evidence -- impressions, metal parts, petrified wood, coprolites from all those animals -- anything!
By my calculations, of course I'm a social scientist so take that into account, a literal ark of the size described in the Bible would have to be at least as large as a modern day aircraft carrier. There is nothing to indicate that Eurasian society in the possible time period had the ship building technology for something that large, particularly being built by eight people.
I don't think people get that science is the PURSUIT of truth. It does not work in absolutes. That being said we know facts. Facts by definition are things that with observable measurable science have time and time again proven to be true. Such as in the theory of universal gravitation matter is attracted to matter. In every instance we've seen that as true.I'm not trying to start an argument, but I have seen facts change in my lifetime. When I was in grade school, it was a fact that Pluto was a planet. Today it is a fact that Pluto is not a planet. Sometimes I think we confuse what we see with our perspective of what we see. Pluto hasn't changed what it is, but our perspective of it has. It is our perspective that defines the facts, not the facts themselves.
Pluto not being a planet isn't a matter of facts changing so much as semantics changing. For a long time Pluto was classed as the smallest planet and Ceres was the largest asteroid. Then Eris stepped into the picture, and it made more sense to put them all in the same basket and change the terminology.
But saying "the science is settled" is basically a way of blowing off crazy religious people who yatter like rabid pekineses. Science is settle the way the earth is settled, which is to say, mostly firm and solid unless there's something like an earthquake, and those have been known to happen.
No discussion is a waste of time if it is engaged in with an open mind. I just hope you are all open minded enough to accept me as your new God-Emperor. Of course, if I get my PFRPG today, this thread will be totally below my radar.
Lies! No talk of stupid book! Pinky is God-Empooper of entire universe. ALL HAIL PINKY!*
* If u sign up today, u get ginsu knife and smokeless ashtray.
By my calculations, of course I'm a social scientist so take that into account, a literal ark of the size described in the Bible would have to be at least as large as a modern day aircraft carrier. There is nothing to indicate that Eurasian society in the possible time period had the ship building technology for something that large, particularly being built by eight people.
Re: wood decay: if a literal ark of that size was actually grounded there, one would still expect some evidence -- impressions, metal parts, petrified wood, coprolites from all those animals -- anything!
A wizard did it.
|
|
By my calculations, of course I'm a social scientist so take that into account, a literal ark of the size described in the Bible would have to be at least as large as a modern day aircraft carrier. There is nothing to indicate that Eurasian society in the possible time period had the ship building technology for something that large, particularly being built by eight people.
Re: wood decay: if a literal ark of that size was actually grounded there, one would still expect some evidence -- impressions, metal parts, petrified wood, coprolites from all those animals -- anything!A wizard did it.
was it powered by a bound elemental? ;-)
|
|
Ok I have a major problem with religion trying to use science to justify things. I'm sorry the 2 things are completely incompatible. You will never find evidence for your gods existence or his direct intervention. Why? Because of your own books confession he says he wants you to have faith in him he wants you to believe in him even without proof.
And frankly all this creationism and intelligent design to be taught in classrooms is ridiculousness, if you want your children to be religious take them to church and teach them yourselves. And the reason Intelligent Design has been thrown out time and again in courtroom situations is precisely because it is religion, it violates the seperation of church and state. Intelligent design is based on nothing more than observations lacking hard evidence. It is nothing more than speculation and heresay. Why? Because without direct evidence of a designer all you'll ever have with it is the perception that it looks designed (even though i can poimt to a number of different unintelligent designs/ inefficient biological systems). Point is religion should stay out of the science classroom, and if you want your kids to learn intelligent design DO IT YOURSELF!!!!
Another reason it isn't science, if we were to present hard undisputable evidence to those proponents of inteligent design that their "HYPOTHESIS" is false, they wouldn't stop believing it. Why? FAITH, they would no more stop believing god created the universe or that he designed it then they would leave their religion.
Jeremy -- You're preaching to the converted. Anyone in favor of teaching creationism has already rejected your arguments, so your post does nothing but convince them you're some kind of psychotic.
I'd VERY strongly recommend the documentary "A Flock of Dodos" to anyone wondering why Creationists are doing such a great job of gaining converts despite the robustness and track record of the modified theory of evolution by natural selection.
|
|
Jeremy -- You're preaching to the converted. Anyone in favor of teaching creationism has already rejected your arguments, so your post does nothing but convince them you're some kind of psychotic.
I'd VERY strongly recommend the documentary "A Flock of Dodos" to anyone wondering why Creationists are doing such a great job of gaining converts despite the robustness and track record of the modified theory of evolution by natural selection.
Haven't seen that one. Is it on Netflix?
|
|
Jeremy -- You're preaching to the converted. Anyone in favor of teaching creationism has already rejected your arguments, so your post does nothing but convince them you're some kind of psychotic.
I'd VERY strongly recommend the documentary "A Flock of Dodos" to anyone wondering why Creationists are doing such a great job of gaining converts despite the robustness and track record of the modified theory of evolution by natural selection.
Seen it already :P
|
|
Frankly I have no problem with religious belief, that is a very personal thing, that is part of a persons identity. peaceful constructive religion is good. However as creationism, and intelligent design are religion you have no right to push that into a science classroom to try and convert those minority of non religious, thats what your church outreaches are for.
Is it on Netflix?
That's where I got it.
I blame intellectual laziness for the misunderstanding of science.
In general, the public rely on mass media to get their information. Mass media is basically lazy, dumbing down language to what they consider the lowest common denominator.
Take the example of gravity. Yes, gravity is a fact. I drop something, it falls to the ground. But if I add rotation in such a way as to cause an orbit to be generated (thus proving that when I drop something it doesn't fall towards the ground), I can bet you I'd find a journalist to write the article "Theory of Gravity Not So Solid." How many people realize that the space shuttle pulls a little bit on the earth just as the earth is pulling on the space shuttle?
One more: If I am a scientist seeking funding, perhaps I can find enough circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate cows cause global warming. Enough evidence to get funding for my project, and be able to eat for a couple years. No one ever stops to think that maybe there aren't enough cows to produce enough greenhouse gasses to make a difference, when compared to, say, a volcano erupting. But the scientist got his funding, the editor got his headline, and the people got "scientific proof" that cows are going to cause the next Armageddon.
A final example of laziness: Smoking causes cancer. Sounds catchy, gets the point across, right? But it's not true. If it were, everyone who smokes would get cancer, and they don't. Smoking does lead to higher incidence of cancer, which is very different (scientifically speaking). But it's easier to let lazy language allow you to believe "smoking causes cancer."
One of the many reasons I no longer rely on the mass media for my information, nor watch television shows like CSI. Too much darned stupidity.
... There is nothing to indicate that Eurasian society in the possible time period had the ship building technology for something that large, particularly being built by eight people.
A wizard did it.
wow, you guys really need to read the >book of Enoch<. Enoch was Caine's son, and the great grand father of Noah, I believe. He explained, the giants from elsewhere would put in a strong arm to help with construction. They did.
Enoch foretold of the flood.
Oh, yes, this is real (as real as the bible.)
Science is a lie!
[Science] is a tool used by technomancers to enslave our will and destroy our avatars.
It can also be used to create "boomsticks," which, as I understand it, are highly useful for dealing with primitive screwheads.
You are genius son.
wow, you guys really need to read the >book of Enoch<. Enoch was Caine's son, and the great grand father of Noah, I believe. He explained, the giants from elsewhere would put in a strong arm to help with construction. They did. Enoch foretold of the flood. Oh, yes, this is real (as real as the bible.)
Sadly, I can't tell if you're serious about this, or if you're being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
thank you. I am truly a disciple of Greenspan now.
Does that mean this thread gets a bail-out?
I am serious. The reason there are no more 'other giants' is because the flood, sent by God, wiped them out.
What is included in the bible, and what is excluded, is a decision made by men with no more insight than you. This is a good thing. It means you need to use your own powers to figure out the universe.
Two pillars were made before the flood. One was resistant to fire, and the other resistant to water. On them was carved all of human knowledge up to the time before the flood.
Later, one was discovered by the Egyptians, and a small piece of the other by the jews.
This is why the Egyptian civilization seemingly sprang into existence with highly sophisticated science. They had help.
I wasn't able to figure out what the implication for the jews was, or has been.
Interestingly, this means a large chuck of one of the pillars is still missing. Where could it be??
1. I am serious. The reason there are no more 'other giants' is because the flood, sent by God, wiped them out.
2. What is included in the bible, and what is excluded, is a decision made by men with no more insight than you. This is a good thing. It means you need to use your own powers to figure out the universe.
1. Or the reason is that there never were 'other giants' to begin with, and we can't find the ark on Ararat because it never existed, either. Either explanation fits the lack of modern giants, but mine also fits the lack of giant fossils, and the lack of an ark -- which is good, because I'm much too lazy to look for 3 different explanations when one will do.
2. Yes! And by first looking for simple explanations, before resorting to supernatural ones -- and by doing both of those before believing everything I read -- I've been able to figure out a lot more of it to my own satisfaction. YMMV, of course, and that's fine for you.
This is why the Egyptian civilization seemingly sprang into existence with highly sophisticated science. They had help.
Or, as an alternative explanation, the Earth actually is as old as all of the physical evidence indicates, and the Egyptians therefore had more time than you give them in order to figure things out. For example, if the Nile valley was indeed settled about 1.8 million years ago, and developed sophisticated animal husbandry by 5500 BC (as the archaeological evidence would suggest), then they had a big head start on the 6,000-year-old planet that Young Earth adherents restrict them to.
P.S. Please don't think I'm knocking you -- far from it. I'm simply proposing alternative explanations. I make no claim that they're necessarily correct, only that they fit the observations as well as the ones you provided.
|
|
Either explanation fits the lack of modern giants, but mine also fits the lack of giant fossils, and the lack of an ark -- which is good, because I'm much too lazy to look for 3 different explanations when one will do.
While certainly not proof of any sort I saw a lovely History Channel program on possible explanations of giants.
In short Dinosaurs.
Same thing for the Cyclops, (see Mastodon Skull) and other primitive concepts.
They were trying to explain the world just like we do but didn't have a basic concept to build from like we do.
I find a bone the size of myself and without any other knowledge I have to assume it's from something else something big. Why not Giants?
OR As with the Mastodon example the skull by itself does resemble what I would think of as a cyclops.
