First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Why is science just theories? Is there anything absolute?
Ejanss 
17091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/27/17

kiltmaker2 wrote:

Science doesn't advance unless you doubt how current explanations (i.e. theories) actually explain everything. I highly recommend reading the book "A Random Walk in Science" (Robert Weber & Eric Mendoza). Here are some good quotes from it on pp 66-67.

"(Smithsonian Institution) I am tired of all this thing called science here.... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped." Senator Simon Cameron (1901)

"(Bombing from Airplanes) As far as sinking a ship with a bomb is concerned, you just can't do it" U.S. Rear-Admiral Clark Woodward (1939)

"(The Atomic Bomb) That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives" Adm William Leahy to President Truman (1941)


Y'know why we have "red" Manhattan Clam Chowder and "white" New England Clam Chowder?
It's because every early 19th-cty. scientist in prestigious New England universities was so convinced that the amount of citric acid in a tomato would kill an average man on the spot after one or two bites, tomatoes were outlawed for making soup.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-the-tomato-was-feared-in-europe-for-more-than-200-years-863735/

So you can't say that the ignorance of limited or faulty science never contributed anything to our culture...
36471 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17
To try and say the same another way:

People have a long, long history of believing something to be absolute fact. They're then shown to be wrong. So far, always.

But we kill each other over it to this day.

Your options are to retreat into a personal reality where you shut your brain from conflicting information, or you move forward based on the best information you have in the present.

Don't get paralyzed by uncertainty, but don't shut off your brain either. Science is about getting closer to "the truth." But if we stop because we think we're there, we're likely to be wrong again.

99.999% is good enough in life 99.999% of the time.
Ejanss 
17091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17

Secret-of-Terra wrote:
Scientists do believe in things. This is one of the big ones I always get. People tend to think that "scientists compared to religious people do not simply have blind faith but only go by evidence and probability". What science is, what evidence is, what the best explanation is etc all have to be believed. You cannot experimentally show that you have to experimentally show something. At some point you simply have to believe something, otherwise it is all going to be one big circular mess that doesn't make sense. Science is based on a philosophical/conceptual foundation which cannot be empirically proven. So yeah, you will need more than science, simply for science to work.
Science is a way of describing and trying to explain things that happen in the material world. It is not the only way, but it is a very successful way. This does not mean that it is the only way, the only way that needs to be taken seriously or the only reasonable way. There have been and are other approaches to understanding material or immaterial world (if you believe in one) which do not necessarily have to (and technically cannot) contradict with scientific views, and the different views are often compatible or just different descriptions of the same thing.


Science says that not only do you NOT COMMENT on anything you don't know and can't demonstrate with visible and repeatable results, you say quite clearly that you don't know and can't comment on it with any degree of informed authority, let alone make sweeping proclamations. Any idea on the latter is Opinion, and you get dangerous results mixing that with Science.

In simpler terms, I can talk about what happened on the movie or baseball game I watched on TV, and mention examples I observed, but if I don't understand how Zen buddhism or a motorcycle engine works, I simply say that I have no information to make any opinion on those, and I'll leave that to the experts until I get any.
There's no shame in that, nor should there be--I'm admitting what I know and don't know, and I don't know everything. Unlike those absolutely convinced of themselves that they do.
20125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17

keeton52 wrote:


oneouts123 wrote:


keeton52 wrote:

The fun thing about "Scientific Theory" is that it has a slightly different definition from Normal Theory.

Scientific Theory: "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation"

Regular Theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Basically the same but Scientific Theory is regarded as "Fact." They call it theory because they're always finding something new and needs a flexible title.


What if there are 2 scientific theories that oppose each other. If they are both fact then who is right?


That isn't how it works. If someone comes up with a conflicting theory, regular theory, they begin to examine what evidence there is. If it has merit then they add it to the existing scientific theory. If it doesn't have merit, they disregard it.

seems the poor fellow is confusing theories and hypothesis...


you can have to opposing hypothesis's but not theories.
53213 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17
There is no absolute in science which is why people who believe in science that say GOD does not exist is creating a fallacy
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17
The scientific method in a great example by one of my personal heroes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FvSXI2iBcA
347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Midlothian, Texas
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17

oneouts123 wrote:

I feel like science is mostly theories and guesses. Nobody knows for sure. Evolution, The human body and space are all just theories. I have been trying to do research on certain scientific topics but I keep finding articles and "scientific evidence" claiming different things. All from people who have PHDs and wrote books about their topic. I don't know who I should believe. Will we ever understand the world with 100% accuracy?


I know through research that Evolution is pure and complete bullshit. Darwin knew it. So do scientists that actually study it and do the research. The problem with science nowadays is that it has been corrupted to be a place holder for religion...becoming a religion itself. Heliocentrism, the Big Bang, Evolution, GRAVITY...ALL COMPLETE BULLSHIT that has been shoved down our throats as in the 'guise' of science.

So why aren't any of those things actually science? Because they are unobservable and require 'faith' in order to believe...faith in the 'scientist' lying to you or faith in the actual bullshit they are telling you. No matter how much proof they claim is there, there actually isnt ANY. Ironically, its the same argument people use against Biblical Christianity which happens to be more in line with reality as far as science goes then this Jesuit/Catholic/Freemason dogma that basically began with Copernicus.
347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Midlothian, Texas
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17

DarkKRasil wrote:

There is no absolute in science which is why people who believe in science that say GOD does not exist is creating a fallacy


Except there are definitely absolutes in science and in reality in general. People just lie to themselves and others to create this 'no absolute' myth to keep themselves/others wallowing in confusion of a reality apart from a creator. I mean, its so easy to see an absolute..the first being:
"Am I alive?" or "Do I exist?" If you can ask yourself that the answer is always YES by the simplest of logic...even that which isn't understood by even children. Why people try to trick themselves into some kind of non-sensical reality apart from the obvious is beyond me.
Ejanss 
17091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17

Cavemantero wrote:
"Am I alive?" or "Do I exist?" If you can ask yourself that the answer is always YES by the simplest of logic...even that which isn't understood by even children. Why people try to trick themselves into some kind of non-sensical reality apart from the obvious is beyond me.


"I was missing for ten years, and everyone thought I was dead."
"How did you know you weren't?"
"Er....(thinks)...I saw my picture in the newspaper!"
- Stan Laurel, "Blockheads"
206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 10/27/17 , edited 10/28/17

Ejanss wrote:

Science says that not only do you NOT COMMENT on anything you don't know and can't demonstrate with visible and repeatable results, you say quite clearly that you don't know and can't comment on it with any degree of informed authority, let alone make sweeping proclamations. Any idea on the latter is Opinion, and you get dangerous results mixing that with Science.

In simpler terms, I can talk about what happened on the movie or baseball game I watched on TV, and mention examples I observed, but if I don't understand how Zen buddhism or a motorcycle engine works, I simply say that I have no information to make any opinion on those, and I'll leave that to the experts until I get any.
There's no shame in that, nor should there be--I'm admitting what I know and don't know, and I don't know everything. Unlike those absolutely convinced of themselves that they do.



Well, yes and no. This approach certainly seems true within science but you cannot use it on science itself. Let's take your first sentence
"Science says that not only do you NOT COMMENT on anything you don't know and can't demonstrate with visible and repeatable results, you say quite clearly that you don't know and can't comment on it with any degree of informed authority"

Now, let's look at this from a scientific perspective. Is it possible to demonstrate with visible and repeatable results that you shouldn't/cannot comment on something with any degree of informed authority unless you have visible and repeatable results? Simply no, because it is not an empirical question. That you don't know and can't comment on something with any degree of informed authority unless you can demonstrate it with visible and repeatable results is itself something that cannot be shown empirically, or with visible and repeatable results. Thus, you would have to say that the very principle science is based on, is unscientific, and with that cannot be known or commented on with any degree of informed authority.

What you do is that you believe that to be able to comment on something you need visible and repeatable results. And you are absolutely convinced that is has to be so. If it were not so, i.e. if you do not need visible and repeatable results to show something, then the very foundation of science would collapse.

In your last part: There's no shame in that, nor should there be--I'm admitting what I know and don't know, and I don't know everything. Unlike those absolutely convinced of themselves that they do
I don't quite know who you are alluding to here. If it is religious people than I think you are mistaken. Religious people do believe that some things, e.g. the existence of god, is an absolute truth. But they shouldn't believe or say that they know everything. A priest who doesn't know what happens when electrons and positrons interact or what I ate for breakfast yesterday, should not claim that he does know everything, because he doesn't.
Religious people should also admit what they know and that they don't know everything.
Ejanss 
17091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/28/17 , edited 10/28/17

Secret-of-Terra wrote:


Wow: So, your feelings were hurt, and Saint Albert was spat upon, when someone pointed out that Science doesn't allow you to wipe nasty things out of existence with a wave of your hand, free of consequence or debate.
Too bad, but that's actually what you signed up for with Science, no matter into what little bitty pieces you try to dice and slice words up trying to look for a loophole.

Let's put it in less sliceable terms--Science DOESN'T know everything. That's not to say it doesn't know anything, but if it did know everything, it would be out of a job.
Fortunately, that's not likely to happen within the next few millennia of man's existence. Which gives it a lot to do in the meantime.
206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/17 , edited 10/28/17

Ejanss wrote:

Wow: So, your feelings were hurt, and Saint Albert was spat upon, when someone pointed out that Science doesn't allow you to wipe nasty things out of existence with a wave of your hand, free of consequence or debate.
Too bad, but that's actually what you signed up for with Science, no matter into what little bitty pieces you try to dice and slice words up trying to look for a loophole.

Let's put it in less sliceable terms--Science DOESN'T know everything. That's not to say it doesn't know anything, but if it did know everything, it would be out of a job.
Fortunately, that's not likely to happen within the next few millennia of man's existence. Which gives it a lot to do in the meantime.


I'm sorry I don't think I really get your point, maybe it's a language barrier here. I don't really understand what that loophole you are taking about would be?
Technically science doesn't know anything because it is not an entity that can have knowledge, but words aside, I agree that the scientific community doesn't know everything and that that does not mean that it doesn't know anything.
My main point was that what science actually is and how it should work are not questions that can be answered by scientific research. To say that the only way to gain knowledge is through empirical studies (observations and repeatable results), is not a statement that is in itself scientific because it is not empirically testable. The foundation of science has to lie outside science itself.
runec 
39562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/28/17 , edited 10/28/17

AsahinaInu wrote:
Pop usage of the word theory compared to its meaning when used in the term scientific theory are almost polar opposites in definition.


And we're done here.



DarkKRasil wrote:
There is no absolute in science which is why people who believe in science that say GOD does not exist is creating a fallacy


I said we're done here, dammit. Don't turn this into That Thread(tm).

>.>
2123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/17 , edited 10/28/17

runec wrote:


AsahinaInu wrote:
Pop usage of the word theory compared to its meaning when used in the term scientific theory are almost polar opposites in definition.


And we're done here.



DarkKRasil wrote:
There is no absolute in science which is why people who believe in science that say GOD does not exist is creating a fallacy


I said we're done here, dammit. Don't turn this into That Thread(tm).

>.>


Any chance to equate science and religion as the same certain people will always take sadly. Most of page 4 seems to be just that
14667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/28/17 , edited 10/28/17
scientists are cautious by nature, a theory is 'the most certain degree a scientist can be' Einstein had theories that we are confirming now. other well held scientific theories are being disproven, or at least, need to be modified, with new discoveries. gravity is considered a theory, but we're 100% certain if you jumped off your roof you would fall. this said, the belief man could never fly was disproven by the airplane, so one day, someone might invent something that gives you the ability to walk on air or something similar. as of this moment, impossible.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.