Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science?

[crystalonyx]

An interesting sideline is that from the point of view of photons themselves, they arrive instantaneuosly at their destination, since they are traveling at the speed of light (i.e. no time passes for the photons). For an external observer, they travel at the speed of light.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Are you refering to Einstein's theory of relativity (E=mc2)?

I am referring to Einstein special relativity yes. But the concept of energy/mass equivalent shown in the equation E=mc2 is not, per se, the theory of relativity. It is one of it`s outcome.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

An interesting sideline is that from the point of view of photons themselves, they arrive instantaneuosly at their destination, since they are traveling at the speed of light (i.e. no time passes for the photons). For an external observer, they travel at the speed of light.

And no matter how hard I try, I can`t but myself in the shoes of the photons.

 

[logician]

And no matter how hard I try, I can`t but myself in the shoes of the photons.

Neither can any matter that has any mass.

 

[Willamena]

And no matter how hard I try, I can`t but myself in the shoes of the photons.

That's what imagination is for.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

That's what imagination is for.

Let me rephrase then.

No matter how are I try, I cannot even imagine it.

 

[Renji]

Topic: Do we put too much faith in current science?
Answers: Theory of relativity, speed of light, computers and imagination.

I therefore created a new theory about this thread expressed in a formula:

D.W.P.T.M.F.I.C.S=(T.R)+(S.L)+(C) +(I)
________________
Faith and Science

Please stay back to the real topic of this post or I'm afraid that the next thing that will happen here is the involvement of Quadratic Functions and Trigonometric functions.

 

[Sententia]

Topic: Do we put too much faith in current science?
Answers: Theory of relativity, speed of light, computers and imagination.

I therefore created a new theory about this thread expressed in a formula:

D.W.P.T.M.F.I.C.S=(T.R)+(S.L)+(C) +(I)
________________
Faith and Science

Please stay back to the real topic of this post or I'm afraid that the next thing that will happen here is the involvement of Quadratic Functions and Trigonometric functions.

I think the character of the faith that is given to science is important to the question. If tomorrow evidence were to turn up that disproved the theory of evolution then the theory of evolution would need to change or be completely abandoned.

Its like any theory or even scientific law. The nature of which we adhere and have faith to science is one in which we critically evaluate it. We are forever examining and restating theory in manners designed to allow them to be proven false.

This 'faith' demands experimentation and testing and constant exploration. I think the real mistake is calling it faith... More like healthy skeptical thinking...

 

[Renji]

This 'faith' demands experimentation and testing and constant exploration. I think the real mistake is calling it faith... More like healthy skeptical thinking...

And what do you think is the way or method to experiment or atleast explore about faith?

 

[LuisDantas]

And what do you think is the way or method to experiment or at least explore about faith?

I you allow me to answer this question, it would be by using our faith to take decisions as needed or convenient, then evaluate the consequences and infer which adjustments that faith should have.

 

[darkendless]

And what do you think is the way or method to experiment or atleast explore about faith?

Close your eyes and your ears when someone with a University degree in sceince or philosophy starts talking

 

[Renji]

Close your eyes and your ears when someone with a University degree in sceince or philosophy starts talking

And WHY should I do that?

 

[darkendless]

And WHY should I do that?

Its the easiest way to become another close-minded theist.

The alternative is not to choose one over the other, if you must believe in god do not discount science.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?

Speak for yourself? But generally, I don't put too much faith in science.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Speak for yourself? But generally, I don't put too much faith in science.

Apart from when posting on internet forums...

 

[Desert Snake]

Apart from when posting on internet forums...

Hmm that doesn't really make sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hmm that doesn't really make sense.

You said you don't really put faith in science. I responded 'Apart from when posting on internet forums'.
It's a pithy comment noting that you actually do put faith in science, if 'faith' is how you want to term it. That's all.

 

[Desert Snake]

You said you don't really put faith in science. I responded 'Apart from when posting on internet forums'.
It's a pithy comment noting that you actually do put faith in science, if 'faith' is how you want to term it. That's all.

The OP is worded 'too much faith in science''. I neither put too much faith in science, nor am I using ''faith'', when I post on forums /in science./
Hence, what you said makes no sense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?

"Nature is the executor of God's laws": Galileo

As long as we do not strive to conclude the simplest 'God refuting' answers for everything in nature, we can maintain an open, unbiased, scientific approach

 

[gnostic]

Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?

Sorry, but just about anything in science, can be challenged, but any such challenge must be done where any alternative explanation must be backed up by verifiable or testable evidences that challenge the current theory.

Newton's law on objects' motion and on gravity went unchallenged for decades and a few centuries, until the 20th century with the arrival of relativity and quantum mechanics. Both of these new theories challenge the old Newtonian physics.

But the real challenges come from science itself, from other verifiable discoveries, and not by any form of creationisms or pseudoscience like Intelligent Design.