This is science
- Thread starter Sayvara
- Start date
Recommended Videos
ID can't be a scientific theory because it is not open to be disproved by experimentation (there is literally no conceivable way to disprove it which means that it can't be used as a hypothesis).Czargent Sane said:
That's the reason a lot of scientists get so worked up about it being included in science classes at school - it muddies the waters for students on what is and isn't a valid scientific theory.
Nobody is saying you can't believe in it - you just can't claim it is a scientific theory.
Personally I quite like Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria - basically faith and science don't deal with the same things at all so they shouldn't be at conflict.Czargent Sane said:
'The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise?science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives.'
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
Well... I'm sorry but you just backed me up. Concider the two dialogues below:Czargent Sane said:
- Why do you do that evil?
- Because I believe it is right.
- No it isn't.
- My faith says it is and therefore I will not be swayed.
...and...
- Why do you do that evil?
- Because I have a theory that it is right.
- Is your theory scientifcally tested and proven to be sound?
- Yes it is... here, check it yourself.
- Uhm... I'm sorry, but you seem have err'd. Look... right there.
- What?! Oh darn... you are right...
Well... that's the problem. No matter what scientific data I present, ID will never be proven wrong. This is exactly why it is of no use to us, because in order to be a scientifically provable hypothesis, you must be able to prove that it is wrong.Czargent Sane said:
If we return to the OP and the theory of gravity... posit that when your loyal YouTube followers try to perform the experiments themselves, the tossers don't fall down and go splat, but instead remain floating in mid-air. Then the theory is disproved, or at least put in serious doubt. the test is: will they fall or not? If they fall, then we concider gravity proven. If they don't.... something is wrong, most likely with the hypothesis.
ID cannot be tested... no matter what scientific data is presented, noone can say it is wrong. That is why it is not a scientifically testable hypothesis and therefore as useless as the Flat Earth hypothesis.
No! Why would it be? Why would blind belief in something that cannot be tested or scrutinized be the basis of our lives?! It's completely silly! Why should we follow something that is - at best - a random fantasy?!Czargent Sane said:
You need to get out more...Czargent Sane said:
But it is a false, unsubstantial purpose. It's a purpose which is completely made up and without any substance at all. And when the faith is challenged or even crushed, you leave the people that had invested in that faith in despair.Czargent Sane said:
Saying that claims of faith are insignificant and doesn't affect people... well... that isn't so. Here is a horrible example of how bad it can get:
/S
I do understand that you cannot prove ID, but it seems to take a lot more flak than other faiths, from my experience, I have not encountered it being taught in schools, but I'll concede that others might have.Criv said:
on your second point, that is precisely what I believe.
That's not the problem... the problem is that you cannot disprove it.Czargent Sane said:
That's because it is not being presented as a faith but as it if was a scientificly provable theory.Czargent Sane said:
US public schools are not allowed to put it on the curriculum as if it was a scientificly testable theory after the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District] court case. But it is indeed out in the schools.Czargent Sane said:
/S
you are clearly not interested in an actual argument, as apparent from your butchery of my quotes.
also, as a last thought, what is one's purpose, if faith is removed? things have no intrinsic value, it is our faith that gives them this importance. there is no justice, mercy, love, or good that can be measured scientifically.
to quote terry prattchet
grind the universe down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice or one molecule of mercy"
human purpose is a human creation. a creation made solely of faith.
also, as a last thought, what is one's purpose, if faith is removed? things have no intrinsic value, it is our faith that gives them this importance. there is no justice, mercy, love, or good that can be measured scientifically.
to quote terry prattchet
grind the universe down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice or one molecule of mercy"
human purpose is a human creation. a creation made solely of faith.
Well, it's the fact that it isn't open for disproof that is the major problem. No scientific theory can be definitively proven but every theory has to be able to be disproven. That's how science work - better theories replace worse theories when they fit the evidence better.Czargent Sane said:
Unfortunately the reason ID gets so much flak is purely because of what it is. It's a fairly callous and straightforward attempt to introduce faith back into science where it doesn't belong by rebranding creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
I wish it wasn't being pushed into schools but it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
I'm fairly free and easy about beliefs. ID on the other hand I loathe because it is so incredibly and unfairly dishonest to people.
Science?
THIS IS SPAAAARRRTAAAAA!!!
*Boom*
Right, well glad we got that cleared up. Thank you for explaining what science is.
Calumon: Tonight, we dine, at Jack's!
THIS IS SPAAAARRRTAAAAA!!!
*Boom*
Right, well glad we got that cleared up. Thank you for explaining what science is.
Calumon: Tonight, we dine, at Jack's!
I really like your explanation. I just finished my A level in Physics and this was pretty much everything we did in the practical exams. I never appreciated all the work that scientists put into developing things or establishing theories before I went to college. So I say "Thank you scientists for your hard work and the fruits of your labours". I hope they heard me.Sayvara said:
It was a mere 42 years ago that the Supreme Court in the US repealed the Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public schools.Arawn.Chernobog said:
When I was born, creationism was still being allowed to be taught alongside evolution as if they were equal theories in US public schools.
The scientific process is young and only within the last two generations of people is it finally being given the weight it deserves in the western civlizations.
Other countries have not gone that far yet. There are still corners of the earth where people get put in a hole and their peers throw rocks at until their skulls get smashed in and their brains crushed for having extra-marital sex. Why? "I believe it is the will of God for me to do so".
Science vs Faith is a battle that is raging still, and we must keep teaching science.
/S
Not to be a dick, but...so what? Why should there be a purpose?Czargent Sane said:
Actually, I do believe that things like mercy etc. can be explained purely through selection (the importance of reputation in human evolution is enormous). It's all part of what makes us such a succesful species.
A funny experiment to show how important reputation is: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/3/412.full
(if you can't open it PM me and I'll mail the PDF to you)
Sweetie... I think you have misunderstood something: an argument... a dialog... that is where you say 'X'... and then I say "You said 'X'. But 'X' is wrong because of 'Y' which is directly contradicting your statement 'X'". You may then reply by saying "Well 'Y' doesn't seem right because of 'Z'" and so forth.Czargent Sane said:
Alternatively, as seems to be the case here, you can also say "Oh dear me! It seems I cannot refute 'Y' at the moment, so I'll have to concede my statement 'X' was in fact wrong".
That is what an argument is.
/S
Thank you.cptn ricardo said:
Yeah. Classical physics is quite a breeze, until you start pondering on "How the heck did they come up woth this once upon a time?!". That's when our Experimental Physics course started... and although it was fairly basic, it was still not all cut and dry until someone actually gave you the method on how to do it.cptn ricardo said:
/S
Who says we must have a purpose?Czargent Sane said:
I quite like the idea that we don't have a purpose because that makes our existance one of the coolest things around!
Posit: there is this big invisible figure that is all-mighty and all-powerful out there. What did he do with all this infinite power?
Answer... he made a rather imperfect little world, populating it with rather imperfect little creatures, supposedly in his image... only for the purpose of telling him that he's da guy! And if we don't do that, he throws us in the garbage incinerator for all eternity.
That's not awsome... that's pretty pathetic if you asked me.
Posit: there is no purpose... there is noone watching over us... there is just us, suddenly coming into existence on this speck of dust right out in the middle nowhere. Through simple chemistry, luck and many years in the making... we end up with this! Our existence is a fluke. Nothing made us. Nothing created us. We just came into existence anyway and we were offered this amazing ride called "life"... out of random chance!
That is bloody awesome!!
Mankind evolves constantly, not just technolgically but our ethics and out conscience about what we are doing to ourselevs and our world has become greater now during the last relatively atheistic century than it did in thousands of years of god-worship.
Science as a method is a much better tool to better ourselves than faith ever was, because faith is fixed and permanent, where-as science as a method tells us we are never complete, that there is always something we can do better than we today.
Science for me doesn't give me purpose... but it gives me a goal: that some day, my kids will be more learned, more smart and more wise than me. The only thing faith ever told them was to sit down and shut up in my presense.
/S