Answering Questions

[AppieB]

I think you asked this just now, didn't you? Are you asking me to repeat my answer or give a different answer... perhaps one you would rather hear?

Whatever your answer is, that's the one I want to hear. If I don't quite understand, I will refrase or try to be clearer with the question. I appreciate your effort to answer them.

So the answer to your question is no.
If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.

Let's take the example of the age of the earth: the results of the experiment that leads to the conclusion that the earth is 4,57 biljoen years old can be verified. And it has been verified by scientists. Is it therefore reasonable for me to accept this knowledge?
Or do I have to verify the results of the experiments myself?
I have seen documentaries, other kinds of information about the age of the earth. I've seen actual evidende in natural history museums and I'm very interested in science. But to be honest, I'm just a layman when it comes to the age of the earth. I don't have a degree in geology or any other science department and I lack the knowledge and the resources to do my own experiments. So what do you think is reasonable for me to believe when it comes to the age or the earth? Is it reasonable for me to accept that the earth is 4,57 billion years?
If the answer is still "no", what would I have to do to be reasonable to accept an answer?

I like this article here - Science is about Evidence, not Consensus. I give it a 5 star rating . It reflects my view.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you, but you will need to read it, and if you disagree with it, we can discuss it.

I've read the article and maybe we could discuss it later.

That has been done numerous times, hasn't it?
Where should I start...
Can I just give one for now... If you want the "whole nine yards", please let me know. I will put that together for you, when I have the time.
Archaeological discovery
Biblical background
Before the archeological discoveries that revealed the Hittite civilization, the only source of information about the Hittites had been the Old Testament. Francis William Newman expressed the critical view, common in the early 19th century, that, "no Hittite king could have compared in power to the King of Judah..."
Methods of inquiry used to confirm Biblical text, are scientific.

Ok, so basically science (I would consider archeology science) is used to confirm knowledge/facts. Only then it would be reasonable to accept these as facts and not before. Have I got this right?

Evidence is a body of facts.
Geologists and other scientists disagree on their interpretation of those facts, and their conclusions differ.
All of them reached their conclusions based on experimental inquiry and evidence. Not so?
Then which is correct? The majority? Why?

I don't think there is a lot of disagreement about the age of the earth. It's is generally accepted by the science community that the age of the earth is about 4,57 billion years.
What is the alternative?

I don't want you to miss the point.
As I clearly indicated, that was an example.

The point is, science is an ongoing study, with room for new data, new discoveries, new adjustments in conclusions.

I agree. Science doesn't give an absolute answer. Science doesn't declare the truth.
It gives the best explanation currently available based on evidence. Wouldn't that be reasonable to accept?

How long, according to the Bible?
The Bible does not say how old the universe or the earth is.
If it did though, would you believe it? Suppose it said the earth was billions of years old, or suppose it gave an age close to what scientists believe. Say 3.98 or 4.1 billion years, would that change your view of the Bible? What would you think of it? Serious question.

If it would be comfirmed by science, then yes I would accept it. Not because it's in the Bible, but because it's verified by science.

How do I know the Bible is reliable?
I know the Bible is reliable for several reasons, which I will share with you later, as I intend to create a thread with that very theme. So it would seem you read my mind.
The Theme will be "How do we know...". I'll mention you, when I create it.

Ok, I will be looking forward to it.

 

[Sheldon]

I think you asked this just now, didn't you? Are you asking me to repeat my answer or give a different answer... perhaps one you would rather hear?
So the answer to your question is no.
If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.
I like this article here - Science is about Evidence, not Consensus. I give it a 5 star rating . It reflects my view.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you, but you will need to read it, and if you disagree with it, we can discuss it.


That has been done numerous times, hasn't it?
Where should I start...
Can I just give one for now... If you want the "whole nine yards", please let me know. I will put that together for you, when I have the time.
Archaeological discovery
Biblical background
Before the archeological discoveries that revealed the Hittite civilization, the only source of information about the Hittites had been the Old Testament. Francis William Newman expressed the critical view, common in the early 19th century, that, "no Hittite king could have compared in power to the King of Judah..."
Methods of inquiry used to confirm Biblical text, are scientific.


Evidence is a body of facts.
Geologists and other scientists disagree on their interpretation of those facts, and their conclusions differ.
All of them reached their conclusions based on experimental inquiry and evidence. Not so?
Then which is correct? The majority? Why?


I don't want you to miss the point.
As I clearly indicated, that was an example.

The point is, science is an ongoing study, with room for new data, new discoveries, new adjustments in conclusions.
Again, I will give just one example.
Luminiferous aether or ether ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing") was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space (a vacuum), something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.

For more explanations that were overturned, see Superseded theories in science
In science, a theory is superseded when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it inadequate, incomplete, or debunked (i.e., wrong).


How long, according to the Bible?
The Bible does not say how old the universe or the earth is.
If it did though, would you believe it? Suppose it said the earth was billions of years old, or suppose it gave an age close to what scientists believe. Say 3.98 or 4.1 billion years, would that change your view of the Bible? What would you think of it? Serious question.

How do I know the Bible is reliable?
I know the Bible is reliable for several reasons, which I will share with you later, as I intend to create a thread with that very theme. So it would seem you read my mind.
The Theme will be "How do we know...". I'll mention you, when I create it.


At least we agree on something.

Scientific evidence and a scientific consensus are synonymous, since a scientific consensus would be based on the best scientific evidence available. While no human method can be infallible, the pinnacle of any scientific idea is an accepted scientific theory, like species evolution which is supported by a weight of scientific evidence that puts it's core ideas of species evolution through natural selection beyond any reasonable or rational denial.

The scientific consensus on that is also overwhelming, the only denials are not based on science but come from adherence to religious dogma. Obviously, since in over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, and theological antipathy, it remains a scientific fact.

Have you ever heard of project Steve? It was a tongue in cheek response by science to the creationist lie that the scientific theory was contested among scientists.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nice thread, @nPeace!
I’ve been out of the loop for a while… was in the hospital…. at home now, after over a week.

This may help:
Flood Evidences — revised

I think it’s great that you keep saying “according to the Scripture “…. But we know that carries no weight with many, so we need to use other evidences.
Here’s another line (I have more to add to this, but haven’t found the time):

The Flood & Worldwide Festivals of the Dead — the connection.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Whatever your answer is, that's the one I want to hear. If I don't quite understand, I will refrase or try to be clearer with the question. I appreciate your effort to answer them.


Let's take the example of the age of the earth: the results of the experiment that leads to the conclusion that the earth is 4,57 biljoen years old can be verified. And it has been verified by scientists. Is it therefore reasonable for me to accept this knowledge?
Or do I have to verify the results of the experiments myself?
I have seen documentaries, other kinds of information about the age of the earth. I've seen actual evidende in natural history museums and I'm very interested in science. But to be honest, I'm just a layman when it comes to the age of the earth. I don't have a degree in geology or any other science department and I lack the knowledge and the resources to do my own experiments. So what do you think is reasonable for me to believe when it comes to the age or the earth? Is it reasonable for me to accept that the earth is 4,57 billion years?
If the answer is still "no", what would I have to do to be reasonable to accept an answer?


I've read the article and maybe we could discuss it later.


Ok, so basically science (I would consider archeology science) is used to confirm knowledge/facts. Only then it would be reasonable to accept these as facts and not before. Have I got this right?


I don't think there is a lot of disagreement about the age of the earth. It's is generally accepted by the science community that the age of the earth is about 4,57 billion years.
What is the alternative?


I agree. Science doesn't give an absolute answer. Science doesn't declare the truth.
It gives the best explanation currently available based on evidence. Wouldn't that be reasonable to accept?


If it would be comfirmed by science, then yes I would accept it. Not because it's in the Bible, but because it's verified by science.

Ok, I will be looking forward to it.

I’ve always wondered why science always tries to tie the Genesis Flood to a Young Earth. (The Bible supports no such hypothesis, only by misinterpreting it.)
I think they link a Young Earth to the Noachian Flood so that, by discrediting one, they automatically claim to discredit the other.

But the Earth could very well be several b y o, and the Flood didn’t lay down strata….but certainly cut through them.

 

[nPeace]

Whatever your answer is, that's the one I want to hear. If I don't quite understand, I will refrase or try to be clearer with the question. I appreciate your effort to answer them.

Let's take the example of the age of the earth: the results of the experiment that leads to the conclusion that the earth is 4,57 biljoen years old can be verified. And it has been verified by scientists. Is it therefore reasonable for me to accept this knowledge?
Or do I have to verify the results of the experiments myself?
I have seen documentaries, other kinds of information about the age of the earth. I've seen actual evidende in natural history museums and I'm very interested in science. But to be honest, I'm just a layman when it comes to the age of the earth. I don't have a degree in geology or any other science department and I lack the knowledge and the resources to do my own experiments. So what do you think is reasonable for me to believe when it comes to the age or the earth? Is it reasonable for me to accept that the earth is 4,57 billion years?
If the answer is still "no", what would I have to do to be reasonable to accept an answer?

I think yes, you are having a hard time understanding.
I'm not asking this to be insulting or anything like that. I genuinely am wondering, Is English your first language?

What do you understand by If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.
It's not about the consensus.

Remember, your question was... If those scientist/experts agree about a specific explanation, wouldn't it be reasonable to accept this as the best explanation currently available?

Please note that your question is not, if the results of the experiment can be verified, but rather, if the experts agree, and that's the same thing as saying the experts are only those who agree, but if they disagree, then they are not experts.
However, experts disagree. Scientists disagree.
You aren't denying that, are you?

Do you see where the problem lies then? I did answer your question, but the way you formed your question, makes the answer 'No", because... to repeat. Science is not about consensus, and you said you agree, yet your question makes it about consensus.

So I'll repeated for clarity... if the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.
If the experts agree has nothing to do with it, because 1) the experts never agree unless the data cannot be questioned because it is 100% verifiable with 100% certainty, and that's not what we are talking about here... 2) the experts are not only the camp that agrees - the consensus... 3) the experts who agree - consensus, have been wrong before... numerous times.

I've read the article and maybe we could discuss it later.

Ok, so basically science (I would consider archeology science) is used to confirm knowledge/facts. Only then it would be reasonable to accept these as facts and not before. Have I got this right?

I again encourage you to read my answer. If you still do not understand, then may I suggest you examine your motive, and what agenda you might have.
That oftentimes is a problem some overlook.

Are you an Atheist? If yes, that may be the problem.
There appears to be some bias there.
No, you haven't got it right?

I don't think there is a lot of disagreement about the age of the earth. It's is generally accepted by the science community that the age of the earth is about 4,57 billion years.
What is the alternative?

"A lot of disagreement"? There is some then? Does that 'some' amount to any, or is that 'some' from non-experts, and non-scientists?
The age of the earth hypothesis does not bother me. The distance from the sun hypothesis does not bother me. The rotation speed of the earth hypothesis does not bother me. The giant-impact (formation of the moon) hypothesis bothers me.

I agree. Science doesn't give an absolute answer. Science doesn't declare the truth.
It gives the best explanation currently available based on evidence. Wouldn't that be reasonable to accept?

Please answer the following...
Was the steady state theory based on evidence?
Was the Out of Asia theory based on evidence?
Was Germ line theory based on evidence?
...
I could go on, but you get the point.
Again, the "based on evidence" clause is a deceptive and desperate cry, since evidence is a body of facts, which is interpreted different ly by experts in the same field.
How is it that two people of apparently equal intelligence, education, and academic acumen can come to radically different interpretations of the same evidence?

Do you agree scientists / expert interpret the same evidence, differently, and arrive at different conclusions?
Consider Archaeopteryx for example...

Spoiler: Various interpretations based on what? Evidence

...Carney pointed out that this is consistent with what we know of modern flight characteristics, in that black melanosomes have structural properties that strengthen feathers for flight. In a 2013 study published in the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, new analyses of Archaeopteryx's feathers revealed that the animal may have had complex light- and dark-coloured plumage, with heavier pigmentation in the distal tips and outer vanes. This analysis of color distribution was based primarily on the distribution of sulphate within the fossil. An author on the previous Archaeopteryx color study argued against the interpretation of such biomarkers as an indicator of eumelanin in the full Archaeopteryx specimen. Carney and other colleagues also argued against the 2013 study's interpretation of the sulphate and trace metals, and in a 2020 study published in Scientific Reports demonstrated that the isolated covert feather was entirely matte black (as opposed to black and white, or iridescent) and that the remaining "plumage patterns of Archaeopteryx remain unknown".

The feathers of Archaeopteryx were asymmetrical. This has been interpreted as evidence that it was a flyer, because flightless birds tend to have symmetrical feathers. Some scientists, including Thomson and Speakman, have questioned this. They studied more than 70 families of living birds, and found that some flightless types do have a range of asymmetry in their feathers, and that the feathers of Archaeopteryx fall into this range.

If it would be comfirmed by science, then yes I would accept it. Not because it's in the Bible, but because it's verified by science.

So you would accept the Bible as reliable, because something was confirmed by science.

I think that's reasonable. That what Christians do as well.

However, there is a difference between the two of us. Christians don't sit down waiting for science to confirm every dot in the Bible, when much of what it says has already been confirmed... not only by science, but also by other means.
I'll mention those when I create that thread. Stay tuned.

Another question.
Since you would accept the Bible (your view of it would change) because science confirmed one thing... which I am sure you realize that's no small matter, but quite significant, would you consider Christians reasonable people, for doing the same?

Ok, I will be looking forward to it.

 

[nPeace]

Nice thread, @nPeace!
I’ve been out of the loop for a while… was in the hospital…. at home now, after over a week.

This may help:
Flood Evidences — revised

I think it’s great that you keep saying “according to the Scripture “…. But we know that carries no weight with many, so we need to use other evidences.
Here’s another line (I have more to add to this, but haven’t found the time):

The Flood & Worldwide Festivals of the Dead — the connection.

Oh yeah. You noticed. Good.
I try to keep in line with rule #8. Don't want to be accused of preaching.

 

[AppieB]

I think yes, you are having a hard time understanding.
I'm not asking this to be insulting or anything like that. I genuinely am wondering, Is English your first language?

English is indeed not my first language, so maybe my grammar is not always on spot. But I don't think that's the reason why I don't understand you. It seems we have a different perspective on science and reason. And that's ok. I'm curious where we differ and where can find common ground.

What do you understand by If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.
It's not about the consensus.

Remember, your question was... If those scientist/experts agree about a specific explanation, wouldn't it be reasonable to accept this as the best explanation currently available?

Please note that your question is not, if the results of the experiment can be verified, but rather, if the experts agree, and that's the same thing as saying the experts are only those who agree, but if they disagree, then they are not experts.
However, experts disagree. Scientists disagree.
You aren't denying that, are you?

Do you see where the problem lies then? I did answer your question, but the way you formed your question, makes the answer 'No", because... to repeat. Science is not about consensus, and you said you agree, yet your question makes it about consensus.

So you've repeatedly said that it's reasonable to accept "if the results of the experiment can be verified". What does this mean concretely? Do I have to study Geology and do experiments? Only when I can verify by experimenting, I'm reasonable to accept a fact?
Are only the scientists to the specific area in which they are specialized reasonable to accept a certain fact which they can verify by experiment?

Can you describe in a concrete way a situation where I (or somebody else) am reasonable to accept a certain fact/explanation by using science?

So I'll repeated for clarity... if the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.
If the experts agree has nothing to do with it, because 1) the experts never agree unless the data cannot be questioned because it is 100% verifiable with 100% certainty, and that's not what we are talking about here... 2) the experts are not only the camp that agrees - the consensus... 3) the experts who agree - consensus, have been wrong before... numerous times.

Is there anyway that science can comfirm anything in your view?

So you would accept the Bible as reliable, because something was confirmed by science.

I think that's reasonable. That what Christians do as well.

No, that's not what I said/meant. The question was about a certain statement in the Bible. If that certain statement would be confirmed by science, then yes, I would believe the certain statement. Not the Bible as a whole. And not because it's in the Bible, but because it was confirmed by science.

Another question.
Since you would accept the Bible (your view of it would change) because science confirmed one thing... which I am sure you realize that's no small matter, but quite significant, would you consider Christians reasonable people, for doing the same?

You're assumption that I would accept the Bible is wrong. As I stated above, I would only believe the parts that are comfirmed by science. And I don't think it's quite significant if science comfirmed parts of the Bible. Depends of course also on what they have comfirmed.
I don't think the Bible is a reliable book for knowledge. I would have to know how you comfirmed that the Bible is reliable.

 

[nPeace]

English is indeed not my first language, so maybe my grammar is not always on spot. But I don't think that's the reason why I don't understand you. It seems we have a different perspective on science and reason. And that's ok. I'm curious where we differ and where can find common ground.

Oh okay. Your English doesn't seem bad at all, so I agree. It's not the Language. It is the perspective, and I believe, where one leans.
Where we differ, I believe, is in the scope of our lens. I believe one scope is narrow, and short-range.... and I don't think it's mine.

So you've repeatedly said that it's reasonable to accept "if the results of the experiment can be verified". What does this mean concretely?

The dictionary defines verity, as, make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
Of course, to be precise, we would need to define justified in this context, so let's just stick with being sure, or demonstrating something to be true, or accurate.

Do I have to study Geology and do experiments? Only when I can verify by experimenting, I'm reasonable to accept a fact?

I don't believe so. Why, I don't need to study Geology, to know when I need to go to the bathroom, for example.

Are only the scientists to the specific area in which they are specialized reasonable to accept a certain fact which they can verify by experiment?

"accept a certain fact which they can verify by experiment"?
What comes to mind, is Louis Pasteur's experiments, which left no doubt of the truthfulness, and accuracy - fact verified by experiment.
Is that what you mean?

There is no reason for scientists alone to accept such facts.
Like someone dropping a bowling ball on a clay jar, and observing the results, everyone one can... and should accept the facts.
A fact is defined as, a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Thus a fact is something that is shown or proven to be true - accurate.

Can you describe in a concrete way a situation where I (or somebody else) am reasonable to accept a certain fact/explanation by using science?

Is it reasonable to accept the experiment of Louis Pasteur, as demonstrating that life does not spontaneously arise? Yes.
Is the conclusion from the results a proven fact, or an explanation? It is a proven fact.
An explanation, on the other hand, is to say why something happened or did not happen, which is different to what happened.

For example, if you stood on a balcony, 30 feet high, and dropped a bowling ball on a clay jar below, the result - what happened - is not an explanation. It demonstrates the fact, or reality - the truth.
If someone wants an explanation as to why it happened, then an explanation is in order.
However, the explanation and fact are not the same thing.
Explanation is defined as 1) a statement or account that makes something clear. 2) a reason or justification given for an action or belief
An explanation can also be true - for example, why the jar shattered, or broke. However, it is not the result of the experiment.

Is there anyway that science can comfirm anything in your view?

Of course. Lots. You and I can confirm lots of things too.
There is a reason why we go to doctors, and have them cut into us, or push objects into us, and why we take the advice not to light a match next to an opened fuel tank.
They have done experiments, and seen the results.
I get the feeling this is going to be quite a lengthy interrogation.

In your view, do you consider explanations by scientist to be facts?
Do you draw a line between fact, and belief where scientist's conclusions are concerned?
When scientists in the same field disagree, on the same evidence, do you believe one side over the other, and on what grounds? Do you consider those beliefs / ideas / explanation, to be facts?

How do you view "disagreements over theoretical issues" in science?
The conflicts between Richard Dawkins and Gould were popularized by philosopher Kim Sterelny in his 2001 book Dawkins vs. Gould. Sterelny documents their disagreements over theoretical issues, including the prominence of gene selection in evolution. Dawkins argues that natural selection is best understood as competition among genes (or replicators), while Gould advocated multi-level selection, which includes selection amongst genes, nucleic acid sequences, cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades.
Do you think inferences, and interpretations made by scientists should be taken as fact? Do you think it is unreasonable to question those, if they are not proven, or demonstrated to be true?

No, that's not what I said/meant. The question was about a certain statement in the Bible. If that certain statement would be confirmed by science, then yes, I would believe the certain statement. Not the Bible as a whole. And not because it's in the Bible, but because it was confirmed by science.

You're assumption that I would accept the Bible is wrong. As I stated above, I would only believe the parts that are comfirmed by science. And I don't think it's quite significant if science comfirmed parts of the Bible. Depends of course also on what they have comfirmed.
I don't think the Bible is a reliable book for knowledge. I would have to know how you comfirmed that the Bible is reliable.

Okay, so you think it is reasonable to accept, for example, 25 percent of things in the Bible, that science agrees with, but disbelieve the other 75 percent, on the "absence of evidence" argument. Is that correct?
So as evidence surfaces, confirming things you disbelieve, only then would you believe or accept them?

Can you explain why, please? Also, why don't you think the Bible is a reliable book for knowledge?

 

[rational experiences]

Human organisation historic criminal activity. Most of them.

Organised by human choice is the same as civilization building any technology.

History of humans owned behaviours says no criminal human speaks any truth.

Only the innocent in a new life can give a true review of any humans pre owned historical use of motivation.

Human choice.

Based particularly upon human greed.

Stated the bible. As to be taught the advice is one natural human. Was a baby. Became an adult. Learnt about gods creation.

O the planet.
It's heavens.

Was human advice.

Why you preach false idealism is organisation basis only.

Not one self.

Not one self identifying for one self.

Organisation.

Was what I learnt for myself by identifying what my human brothers any one of them had ever suffered in the hands of a human organisation.

Before. Just innocent. Just a human. One self who learnt.

 

[AppieB]

Oh okay. Your English doesn't seem bad at all, so I agree. It's not the Language. It is the perspective, and I believe, where one leans.
Where we differ, I believe, is in the scope of our lens. I believe one scope is narrow, and short-range.... and I don't think it's mine.

I don't think calling someone biased and/or narrow minded is a very fruitful way to have a conversation. It comes across as arrogant and arrogance looks like the opposite of being open minded. Let's be charitable to each other and have a good conversation using arguments and good reasoning instead.

The dictionary defines verity, as, make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
Of course, to be precise, we would need to define justified in this context, so let's just stick with being sure, or demonstrating something to be true, or accurate.

Fine, without having to be 100% absolutely sure.

"accept a certain fact which they can verify by experiment"?
What comes to mind, is Louis Pasteur's experiments, which left no doubt of the truthfulness, and accuracy - fact verified by experiment.
Is that what you mean?

So it's ok to point to a scientist and say it has been demonstrated as a fact? We can point to scientists and say they verified by experiment?

You say: "which left no doubt of the truthfullness" . Which fact without doubt is demonstrated by Louis Pasteur's experiment? How did you conclude this was demonstrated without a doubt?

You understand that science can not 100% (with no doubt) verify?

There is no reason for scientists alone to accept such facts.
Like someone dropping a bowling ball on a clay jar, and observing the results, everyone one can... and should accept the facts.
A fact is defined as, a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Thus a fact is something that is shown or proven to be true - accurate.

What is the fact that has been demonstrated by dropping the bowling ball?
Am I reasonable to accept the theory of general relativity based upon this experiment? If not, when am I reasonable to accept this theory as the best explanation currently available?

Let's also talk again about the age of the earth. There is not just 1 or 2 experiments that verifies the age of the earth (it's not so easy like dropping a bowling ball). There are multiple experiments in different scientific areas, some of them also based upon other science as well, that point to an answer. Would this make it impossible for me to be reasonable to accept the age of the earth? If not, when would I be reasonable (justified) to accept?

Is it reasonable to accept the experiment of Louis Pasteur, as demonstrating that life does not spontaneously arise? Yes.
Is the conclusion from the results a proven fact, or an explanation? It is a proven fact.
An explanation, on the other hand, is to say why something happened or did not happen, which is different to what happened.

I don't think this experiment demonstrates that life does not (or can not) arise spontaneously. What he demonstrated was that bacteria don't arise spontaneously.

For example, if you stood on a balcony, 30 feet high, and dropped a bowling ball on a clay jar below, the result - what happened - is not an explanation. It demonstrates the fact, or reality - the truth.
If someone wants an explanation as to why it happened, then an explanation is in order.
However, the explanation and fact are not the same thing.
Explanation is defined as 1) a statement or account that makes something clear. 2) a reason or justification given for an action or belief
An explanation can also be true - for example, why the jar shattered, or broke. However, it is not the result of the experiment.

I agree with your distinction between facts and explanations/models. There is no argument there.

Of course. Lots. You and I can confirm lots of things too.
There is a reason why we go to doctors, and have them cut into us, or push objects into us, and why we take the advice not to light a match next to an opened fuel tank.
They have done experiments, and seen the results.
I get the feeling this is going to be quite a lengthy interrogation.

Hopefully it won't take too long. I want to pinpoint where we agree and were we differ in order to understand.

It seems you say it's reasonable to trust doctors or to accept medical science. Is there "no doubt" about medicine, vaccines, certain procedures related to health etc?
How is this reasonable in your view?

In your view, do you consider explanations by scientist to be facts?
Do you draw a line between fact, and belief where scientist's conclusions are concerned?
When scientists in the same field disagree, on the same evidence, do you believe one side over the other, and on what grounds? Do you consider those beliefs / ideas / explanation, to be facts?

As stated above, I agree with the distinction betwee fact and explanation.
As a layman I can not value the evidence myself, so I'm 'forced' to follow the experts. If there is a scientific consensus (which means to me: if the vast majority of the experts agree about the conclusion of the experiments and available evidence, after the empirical cycle has been completed, with peer review) I will accept the explanation/model as the best model currently available.

On what grounds do you believe one or the other (or neither)?

Okay, so you think it is reasonable to accept, for example, 25 percent of things in the Bible, that science agrees with, but disbelieve the other 75 percent, on the "absence of evidence" argument. Is that correct?
So as evidence surfaces, confirming things you disbelieve, only then would you believe or accept them?

To be precise: I would disbelieve the other 75 percent. That doesn't mean I would believe it's necessarily wrong. Only when there is a good reason to believe, I would believe it. Not before.

Can you explain why, please? Also, why don't you think the Bible is a reliable book for knowledge?

It hasn't been demonstrated that the Bible as a whole is reliable for knowledge. It's not a clear method to get to knowledge and the Bible is multi-interpretable.
It certainly has historical value, but I don't consider it a history book. Let alone a book from (or inspired by) God.

 

[nPeace]

You understand that science can not 100% (with no doubt) verify?

If you beliece that, why are we having this discussion?
What are you really trying to establish?

 

[AppieB]

If you beliece that, why are we having this discussion?
What are you really trying to establish?

I want to understand what you think science is and what is reasonable to accept.

Earlier you've said: "The point is, science is an ongoing study, with room for new data, new discoveries, new adjustments in conclusions."
Which suggest you understand that science doesn't proclaim truths, but gives the best explanation giving the available evidence.

Now it looks like you think science needs to be absolutely 100% sure.

Is it only reasonable to accept a fact or a model if science is absolutely 100% sure?

 

[nPeace]

I want to understand what you think science is and what is reasonable to accept.

Earlier you've said: "The point is, science is an ongoing study, with room for new data, new discoveries, new adjustments in conclusions."
Which suggest you understand that science doesn't proclaim truths, but gives the best explanation giving the available evidence.

Now it looks like you think science needs to be absolutely 100% sure.

Is it only reasonable to accept a fact or a model if science is absolutely 100% sure?

This conversation started with questions from you, about whether or not it is reasonable to accept an explanation/model when there is a scientific consensus.
Whether or not it is reasonable to accept something the bible says, and why, and how old the earth is.

If you believe that science does not verify anything 100%, then I fail to see the point of your questions, because I have already said that it is reasonable to accept what science can verify.
So if you are now saying that it cannot be verified... only accepted as what scientist think or believe, then why are you asking me if I think it is reasonable to accept or believe what scientist.... or rather, the majority of scientists believe?
I already gave my answer.
If a person wants to believe what the majority of scientists believe, they are most certainly free to do so, but I don't think it should then be taken as a reasonable or not, since I don't think it is unreasonable for scientists to disagree, on the basis that the idea, or belief is not verified.
It's either verified, or it's not. There is no such thing as 99% verified.

So, I think, for starters, you need to stabilize your bearings, and stay on that course, because it's getting quite confusing, where you are going, and it seems like we have gone around in a circle, to start from where we began.

I am of the view that people have beliefs - whether scientists or not. The Atheists tend to try to portray their beliefs as evidence based, and the others as not, but that is not the case.
So I don't believe trying to paint people as unreasonable, because they do not accept the beliefs of the majority, is reasonable.

Is any of that helpful? Does it aid any, in helping you get where you are going?

 

[AppieB]

This conversation started with questions from you, about whether or not it is reasonable to accept an explanation/model when there is a scientific consensus.
Whether or not it is reasonable to accept something the bible says, and why, and how old the earth is.

If you believe that science does not verify anything 100%, then I fail to see the point of your questions, because I have already said that it is reasonable to accept what science can verify.
So if you are now saying that it cannot be verified... only accepted as what scientist think or believe, then why are you asking me if I think it is reasonable to accept or believe what scientist.... or rather, the majority of scientists believe?
I already gave my answer.
If a person wants to believe what the majority of scientists believe, they are most certainly free to do so, but I don't think it should then be taken as a reasonable or not, since I don't think it is unreasonable for scientists to disagree, on the basis that the idea, or belief is not verified.
It's either verified, or it's not. There is no such thing as 99% verified.

The facts can be verified, although I'm not aware of absolute certainty. That's not how science works. Have you ever heard about "the Black Swan fallacy"?

Scientific hypotheses and theories are based on the standard of falsification, not verification. A hypothesis/theory can never be 100% verified. However, it can be falsified.
Falsifiability - Wikipedia

So a scientific model is likely to be true or not likely to be true. There is no 100% certainty in science.

So, I think, for starters, you need to stabilize your bearings, and stay on that course, because it's getting quite confusing, where you are going, and it seems like we have gone around in a circle, to start from where we began.

I am of the view that people have beliefs - whether scientists or not. The Atheists tend to try to portray their beliefs as evidence based, and the others as not, but that is not the case.
So I don't believe trying to paint people as unreasonable, because they do not accept the beliefs of the majority, is reasonable.

Is any of that helpful? Does it aid any, in helping you get where you are going?

I'm also of the view that people have beliefs. But science tries to be objective. Of course, it is done by people, but that's why there is the scientific method.
If you were under the impression that science can be 100% absolutely sure, then you are mistaken.

But just because you can't be 100% sure, doesn't mean you can't be "reasonably" sure.

 

[Sheldon]

I have already said that it is reasonable to accept what science can verify.

Science has verified species evolution through natural selection, and the age of the earth. An accepted scientific theory is verified by an overwhelming scientific consensus. If there were credible scientific evidence that challenged either species evolution, natural selection, or the age of the earth, then they would not be accepted either as the core of scientific theories, or as any part of them.

Only creationists oppose these scientific facts, and they don't have any scientific evidence to do this, they do so purely on the basis of their subjective religious beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

The facts can be verified, although I'm not aware of absolute certainty. That's not how science works. Have you ever heard about "the Black Swan fallacy"?

Scientific hypotheses and theories are based on the standard of falsification, not verification. A hypothesis/theory can never be 100% verified. However, it can be falsified.
Falsifiability - Wikipedia

So a scientific model is likely to be true or not likely to be true. There is no 100% certainty in science.


I'm also of the view that people have beliefs. But science tries to be objective. Of course, it is done by people, but that's why there is the scientific method.
If you were under the impression that science can be 100% absolutely sure, then you are mistaken.

But just because you can't be 100% sure, doesn't mean you can't be "reasonably" sure.

Let's talk about this objectivity.
Can you precisely explain objectivity, with the use of examples. Thanks

 

[AppieB]

Let's talk about this objectivity.
Can you precisely explain objectivity, with the use of examples. Thanks

By objective I mean: independent of personal preference or opinion.
The earth is a sphere. This is a fact that can objectively be observed and verified. It is not a matter of personal opinion or personal preference that the earth is a sphere.
The Theory of General Relativity is currently the best explanation for gravity given the available evidence. This is not a matter of personal opinion or personal preference. The theory is based on the scientific method: Scientific method - Wikipedia

Can you answer me the following questions:
Is ‘knowledge’ only valuable or reasonable to accept when there is absolute certainty that it’s true?
If so, how can you be certain of anything?

 

[GardenLady]

You are not alone in this confusion.

And you are not alone in yours. You appear to be unaware of what constitutes evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Scientists learned that contrary to their earlier belief that the universe always existed, it actually had a beginning.

This is news, the universe we currently observe had a point of origin, if that's what you mean? However since science doesn't know what if anything, existed prior to Planck time, and time as we currently understand it, only exists because the physical universe we currently observed exists, then it seems like a bizarre assumption and something of a misnomer to say the universe had a beginning, how can something begin if time doesn't exist?

There is no scientific evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, that is axiomatic.

 

[PureX]

This is news, the universe we currently observe had a point of origin, if that's what you mean? However since science doesn't know what if anything, existed prior to Planck time, and time as we currently understand it, only exists because the physical universe we currently observed exists, then it seems like a bizarre assumption and something of a misnomer to say the universe had a beginning, how can something begin if time doesn't exist?

There is no scientific evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, that is axiomatic.

To recognize that the universe as it now exists and is therefor defined had a beginning is completely logical and accords with everything we observe about it. In spite of your silly and obtuse objections. If it existed in some other, very different manner, prior to this, is not known, and could vary logically not even be called "the universe". So, as usual, you tripped over your own feet in a mad rush to trip up someone else.