How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

I agree the Bible is not a science textbook.
I also agree that there are limits to what science currently concludes.

As for the future of science, who can say?
Macroevolution appears to be the current theory with the most support and remains consistent with the notion that all life, as we know it, has a common origin.

On the other hand, perhaps religion can help inform us as to our spiritual and moral responsibilities lest people get carried away in their desire to manipulate and control the world.

Thank you for your reply. The prayer Jesus told his disciples to pray for is something I keep in mind when thinking about the 'world' we live in. Many people, including those in prominent positions, would likely agree that things are out of control, which is why I consider what is often known as the "Lord's Prayer" important to understand. Many have heard the prayer but do not really understand it. I quote the first part of the prayer.
(Holman Christian Standard Bible translation):
Our Father in heaven,
Your name be honored as holy.
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.

Please notice the verse regarding God's kingdom. Jesus told his disciples to pray that God's kingdom and will be done on the earth. How do you feel about that and what do you think it means? I'd be interested in your reply.

 

[Jimmy]

Why do you think that the real world needs defining? Perhaps you are making up your own definitions.

Maybe I am

 

[Ponder This]

Thank you for your reply. The prayer Jesus told his disciples to pray for is something I keep in mind when thinking about the 'world' we live in. Many people, including those in prominent positions, would likely agree that things are out of control, which is why I consider what is often known as the "Lord's Prayer" important to understand. Many have heard the prayer but do not really understand it. I quote the first part of the prayer.
(Holman Christian Standard Bible translation):
Our Father in heaven,
Your name be honored as holy.
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.

Please notice the verse regarding God's kingdom. Jesus told his disciples to pray that God's kingdom and will be done on the earth. How do you feel about that and what do you think it means? I'd be interested in your reply.

It is prophetic. It is an affirmation of what will come to pass.

It's not saying that "maybe" the Kingdom comes nor is it "asking" or "begging" for the Kingdom to come. It's saying that the Kingdom comes, that the Kingdom comes to Earth, and that the Kingdom is as the Kingdom which is in Heaven. It is a very powerful prayer; the feeling of it is hard to describe. The sense I'm getting is participatory, in that by the saying this prayer you are participating in, communing with, the divine.

The requests come in the next verse, which are: to receive the bread of the day, to forgive and be forgiven, to not be led into temptation, and to be delivered from evil. Perhaps these are simply the consequences of participation in the Kingdom.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is prophetic. It is an affirmation of what will come to pass.

It's not saying that "maybe" the Kingdom comes nor is it "asking" or "begging" for the Kingdom to come. It's saying that the Kingdom comes, that the Kingdom comes to Earth, and that the Kingdom is as the Kingdom which is in Heaven. It is a very powerful prayer; the feeling of it is hard to describe. The sense I'm getting is participatory, in that by the saying this prayer you are participating in, communing with, the divine.

The requests come in the next verse, which are: to receive the bread of the day, to forgive and be forgiven, to not be led into temptation, and to be delivered from evil. Perhaps these are simply the consequences of participation in the Kingdom.

Yes, this is interesting because it does teach many things in that prayer. Thank you. We could ask, what is that kingdom? Maybe we can discuss this later a bit. Take care.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The discussion is about SCIENCE -- Creation -- and religion. How do you define science, first of all? One definition of science: (yes, I know there are different "branches" of science, but looking for a broad definition):
Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
If possible, limit discussion to the definition of SCIENCE before striking out to other areas.

First of all the noun science used in lowercase means 'Knowledge', but used as a verb or adjective it refers to the study of something. When capitalized like 'Science' it refers to a discipline that studies in a particular way.

The term Science represents a different approach than what came before it: Philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that works much like a game. You set up some rules and find out where those rules lead. A philosopher attempts to explain how the world works and does this using ideas alone, trying to find the set of rules which describe the world, the game rules for the world. A defining characteristics of this is that the original philosophical method attempts to draw upon truth directly, not from the physical world. It avoids the technical as much as possible. Why? That is a question to ask historians, but the western tradition of philosophy avoids physical confirmation of results. It seeks to probe the invisible realms which support all things, and touching the physical world is considered a potential contaminant of that strategy. But Science turns that upon its head.

The new discipline we call 'Science' seeks constant contact with the physical world, to verify ideas at all times and at all levels. It does have a gaming aspect, but there is a judge for each game. There is are measurements. Therefore it borrows philosophical methods, but at each step it makes sure that the philosophy is verified by the physical world. Therefore it is actually like a doppelganger of Philosophy. One works without evidence and seeks to ascertain the invisible, and the other slavishly clings to evidences.

Out of Philosophy flows Math. Math can work like a pure Philosophy or can be an applied subject and be more like modern Science. Some mathematicians work with pure Maths which have nothing to do with the physical world. This is similar to Philosophy. Other (most) mathematicians work with applied Maths which are practical and must have a real world application.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all the noun science used in lowercase means 'Knowledge', but used as a verb or adjective it refers to the study of something. When capitalized like 'Science' it refers to a discipline that studies in a particular way.

The term Science represents a different approach than what came before it: Philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that works much like a game. You set up some rules and find out where those rules lead. A philosopher attempts to explain how the world works and does this using ideas alone, trying to find the set of rules which describe the world, the game rules for the world. A defining characteristics of this is that the original philosophical method attempts to draw upon truth directly, not from the physical world. It avoids the technical as much as possible. Why? That is a question to ask historians, but the western tradition of philosophy avoids physical confirmation of results. It seeks to probe the invisible realms which support all things, and touching the physical world is considered a potential contaminant of that strategy. But Science turns that upon its head.

The new discipline we call 'Science' seeks constant contact with the physical world, to verify ideas at all times and at all levels. It does have a gaming aspect, but there is a judge for each game. There is are measurements. Therefore it borrows philosophical methods, but at each step it makes sure that the philosophy is verified by the physical world. Therefore it is actually like a doppelganger of Philosophy. One works without evidence and seeks to ascertain the invisible, and the other slavishly clings to evidences.

Out of Philosophy flows Math. Math can work like a pure Philosophy or can be an applied subject and be more like modern Science. Some mathematicians work with pure Maths which have nothing to do with the physical world. This is similar to Philosophy. Other (most) mathematicians work with applied Maths which are practical and must have a real world application.

While I accept the FACT that scientists work on things like figuring chemicals to make solutions for vaccines and other things, much of what is called science is absolute conjecture and worse -- philosophy. And some people will stick to it as if it's true, wise, brave, etc. without saying what's true. Because -- well -- there is no "proof" in many (if not said to be ALL by some) areas of "science." Have a good one --! it's night where I'm at because it's dark outside and after midnight type thing --

 

[cladking]

While I accept the FACT that scientists work on things like figuring chemicals to make solutions for vaccines and other things, much of what is called science is absolute conjecture and worse -- philosophy. And some people will stick to it as if it's true, wise, brave, etc. without saying what's true. Because -- well -- there is no "proof" in many (if not said to be ALL by some) areas of "science." Have a good one --! it's night where I'm at because it's dark outside and after midnight type thing --

I get a kick out of believers who continually say that nothing in science is proven but theory doesn't need to be proven because it's true.

Since theory is true then it is simple fact that species evolve, big bangs explode, and there is no God.

There is real science and then there is "Science" that is the fastest growing religion in the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get a kick out of believers who continually say that nothing in science is proven but theory doesn't need to be proven because it's true.

Since theory is true then it is simple fact that species evolve, big bangs explode, and there is no God.

There is real science and then there is "Science" that is the fastest growing religion in the world.

I see that your reading skills are still not up to par either. People have pointed out that evolution has been endlessly supported. Things in the sciences are never "proven". If you go by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, the theory of evolution has met that threshold of "proof". But when it comes to a mathematical "proof" that does not apply to any scientific concept.

Can you be consistent in your reasoning? If you can then you should be able to understand this.

 

[gnostic]

I get a kick out of believers who continually say that nothing in science is proven but theory doesn't need to be proven because it's true.

That because sciences require evidence, not proofs.

Proofs are logical models, such as mathematical equations or formulas. Proofs can be wrong, if the evidence don’t support the equations.

For instances:

• Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism, are proofs, not evidence.
• Ohm’s Law is proof, not evidence.
• Newton’s equations in the Law of Motion, and equations for gravitational force, are all proofs, none of them are evidence.
• Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation is proof, not evidence.

None of these equations or proofs are true, until they have each being verified by either experiments or evidence. That’s the only ways to verify the equations, by testing them with evidence and experiments.

Like the explanations & predictions in any scientific theory, equations must be tested and verified before they are accepted as being scientific. But if the evidence refuted the models, then the equations (or proofs) have also failed.

if you don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, then you are in the same boat with creationists, noted for their illiteracy in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

I get a kick out of believers who continually say that nothing in science is proven but theory doesn't need to be proven because it's true.

Since theory is true then it is simple fact that species evolve, big bangs explode, and there is no God.

There is real science and then there is "Science" that is the fastest growing religion in the world.

I learned that "scientists" say nothing in science has proof. So look at yourself instead of "believers."

 

[YoursTrue]

That because sciences require evidence, not proofs.

Proofs are logical models, such as mathematical equations or formulas. Proofs can be wrong, if the evidence don’t support the equations.

For instances:

• Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism, are proofs, not evidence.
• Ohm’s Law is proof, not evidence.
• Newton’s equations in the Law of Motion, and equations for gravitational force, are all proofs, none of them are evidence.
• Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation is proof, not evidence.

None of these equations or proofs are true, until they have each being verified by either experiments or evidence. That’s the only ways to verify the equations, byw testing them with evidence and experiments.

Like the explanations & predictions in any scientific theory, equations must be tested and verified before they are accepted as being scientific. But if the evidence refuted the models, then the equations (or proofs) have also failed.

if you don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, then you are in the same boat with creationists, noted for their illiteracy in science.

Well, maybe the "non-creationists" here do or don't believe in proof. At this point with these discussions, so long...

 

[YoursTrue]

That because sciences require evidence, not proofs.

Proofs are logical models, such as mathematical equations or formulas. Proofs can be wrong, if the evidence don’t support the equations.

For instances:

• Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism, are proofs, not evidence.
• Ohm’s Law is proof, not evidence.
• Newton’s equations in the Law of Motion, and equations for gravitational force, are all proofs, none of them are evidence.
• Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation is proof, not evidence.

None of these equations or proofs are true, until they have each being verified by either experiments or evidence. That’s the only ways to verify the equations, by testing them with evidence and experiments.

Like the explanations & predictions in any scientific theory, equations must be tested and verified before they are accepted as being scientific. But if the evidence refuted the models, then the equations (or proofs) have also failed.

if you don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, then you are in the same boat with creationists, noted for their illiteracy in science.

You have your philosophical ways...

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all the noun science used in lowercase means 'Knowledge', but used as a verb or adjective it refers to the study of something. When capitalized like 'Science' it refers to a discipline that studies in a particular way.

The term Science represents a different approach than what came before it: Philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that works much like a game. You set up some rules and find out where those rules lead. A philosopher attempts to explain how the world works and does this using ideas alone, trying to find the set of rules which describe the world, the game rules for the world. A defining characteristics of this is that the original philosophical method attempts to draw upon truth directly, not from the physical world. It avoids the technical as much as possible. Why? That is a question to ask historians, but the western tradition of philosophy avoids physical confirmation of results. It seeks to probe the invisible realms which support all things, and touching the physical world is considered a potential contaminant of that strategy. But Science turns that upon its head.

The new discipline we call 'Science' seeks constant contact with the physical world, to verify ideas at all times and at all levels. It does have a gaming aspect, but there is a judge for each game. There is are measurements. Therefore it borrows philosophical methods, but at each step it makes sure that the philosophy is verified by the physical world. Therefore it is actually like a doppelganger of Philosophy. One works without evidence and seeks to ascertain the invisible, and the other slavishly clings to evidences.

Out of Philosophy flows Math. Math can work like a pure Philosophy or can be an applied subject and be more like modern Science. Some mathematicians work with pure Maths which have nothing to do with the physical world. This is similar to Philosophy. Other (most) mathematicians work with applied Maths which are practical and must have a real world application.

so maybe you can help. Is there or is there not proof in science? Evidence is ok I guess for some to say, ok, that means that what we profess is true, maybe... But what about proof? Maybe some think when it appears there's a lot of evidence according to their sizing up of the evidence, is that considered 'proof' by some (scientists)? Curious to hear your opinion.

 

[gnostic]

Well, maybe the "non-creationists" here do or don't believe in proof. At this point with these discussions, so long...

No, that’s not what I am saying at all.

Evidence and proofs are two completely different things, and you and other creationists don’t understand the differences.

Proofs are like those mathematical equations that I have mentioned, they are abstract representations of explaining the phenomena, through the logical uses of variables, constants and numbers. They are parts of the explanations in models of theories or in models of hypotheses.

The explanation along with any equations, has to be tested and verified before they can be considered true.

Evidence (including experiments) are physical parts of phenomena. Evidence are what required to determine if the theory or hypothesis is true or false.

if the evidence refute the explanation, then it would mean the equations (or proofs) have also been refuted. That mean the explanation plus any equation, are either weak or wrong.

You need to stop thinking that evidence and proof are the same things.

this is why I find creationists are science illiterates, because they don’t understand proofs only exist in equations. Proofs are not physical evidence.

Dont get me wrong, YoursTrue. Maths and equations are useful tools in sciences, but they don’t determine which is or which isn’t science. Only evidence & experiments, plus the accompanying data, can determine if the theory is scientifically valid.

 

[cladking]

Newton’s equations in the Law of Motion, and equations for gravitational force, are all proofs, none of them are evidence.

How do you explain the fact that these "proven" equations break down on the small scale?

 

[Brickjectivity]

so maybe you can help. Is there or is there not proof in science? Evidence is ok I guess for some to say, ok, that means that what we profess is true, maybe... But what about proof? Maybe some think when it appears there's a lot of evidence according to their sizing up of the evidence, is that considered 'proof' by some (scientists)? Curious to hear your opinion.

I think what is usually missing from these kinds of discussions is love. There is a lot of love in Science. Truth follows love. Love does not always appear as a result of truth. Of all attributes one can have love is the greatest. A lot of people with a lot of love have spent many hours scouring this world in hope of helping others and these are scientists who follow the method. Finding examples of them is easy such as Madam Curie. She's an example of someone whose efforts in Science are a labor of love. Another is John Dalton. When someone works hard without reward for years upon end and follow the breadcrumbs, that is a scientist; and there are many. These people are the foundations which have caused Science to become popular. Now that it is popular there is money in it. The evidence of love remains, however.

When I see suffering and want to change the world I think of different ways of accomplishing it. Some people become agents for various causes. They find something no one else is doing, something needed. This is a work of love which is something that anyone can do. Science is only one outlet. There are others such as cooking, music, building, diplomacy...etc.

The labor that goes into Science is magnificent. The people scrutinize each other's work. Except in cases of corporations, political influence, brown nosing, plagiarism (to get money or notoriety from someone else's efforts) and bureaucracy (resulting in lazy research), Science is generally very good. If it isn't good there are ways to criticize it eventually.

So this is ultimately what is relied upon by the public that is only tangentially trained in Statistics, Calculus and in Physics. Without training in these areas, there is a dearth of understanding of what Science is and what does or does not count. It is not proof. There can be no proof. We rely upon other people and upon the knowledge and the training which we give ourselves.

Another way of looking at it is to view knowledge as something which must come from God to the individual. The individual who would understand Science must study at least a little.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think what is usually missing from these kinds of discussions is love. There is a lot of love in Science. Truth follows love. Love does not always appear as a result of truth. Of all attributes one can have love is the greatest. A lot of people with a lot of love have spent many hours scouring this world in hope of helping others and these are scientists who follow the method. Finding examples of them is easy such as Madam Curie. She's an example of someone whose efforts in Science are a labor of love. Another is John Dalton. When someone works hard without reward for years upon end and follow the breadcrumbs, that is a scientist; and there are many. These people are the foundations which have caused Science to become popular. Now that it is popular there is money in it. The evidence of love remains, however.

When I see suffering and want to change the world I think of different ways of accomplishing it. Some people become agents for various causes. They find something no one else is doing, something needed. This is a work of love which is something that anyone can do. Science is only one outlet. There are others such as cooking, music, building, diplomacy...etc.

The labor that goes into Science is magnificent. The people scrutinize each other's work. Except in cases of corporations, political influence, brown nosing, plagiarism (to get money or notoriety from someone else's efforts) and bureaucracy (resulting in lazy research), Science is generally very good. If it isn't good there are ways to criticize it eventually.

So this is ultimately what is relied upon by the public that is only tangentially trained in Statistics, Calculus and in Physics. Without training in these areas, there is a dearth of understanding of what Science is and what does or does not count. It is not proof. There can be no proof. We rely upon other people and upon the knowledge and the training which we give ourselves.

Another way of looking at it is to view knowledge as something which must come from God to the individual. The individual who would understand Science must study at least a little.

I'm not against science. Real science. maybe another time, have a nice day. (I usually take vaccines, have my blood tested, etc., may have an operation, I'll go in a car, airplane, use electric, etc.) Again -- have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think what is usually missing from these kinds of discussions is love. There is a lot of love in Science. Truth follows love. Love does not always appear as a result of truth. Of all attributes one can have love is the greatest. A lot of people with a lot of love have spent many hours scouring this world in hope of helping others and these are scientists who follow the method. Finding examples of them is easy such as Madam Curie. She's an example of someone whose efforts in Science are a labor of love. Another is John Dalton. When someone works hard without reward for years upon end and follow the breadcrumbs, that is a scientist; and there are many. These people are the foundations which have caused Science to become popular. Now that it is popular there is money in it. The evidence of love remains, however.

When I see suffering and want to change the world I think of different ways of accomplishing it. Some people become agents for various causes. They find something no one else is doing, something needed. This is a work of love which is something that anyone can do. Science is only one outlet. There are others such as cooking, music, building, diplomacy...etc.

The labor that goes into Science is magnificent. The people scrutinize each other's work. Except in cases of corporations, political influence, brown nosing, plagiarism (to get money or notoriety from someone else's efforts) and bureaucracy (resulting in lazy research), Science is generally very good. If it isn't good there are ways to criticize it eventually.

So this is ultimately what is relied upon by the public that is only tangentially trained in Statistics, Calculus and in Physics. Without training in these areas, there is a dearth of understanding of what Science is and what does or does not count. It is not proof. There can be no proof. We rely upon other people and upon the knowledge and the training which we give ourselves.

Another way of looking at it is to view knowledge as something which must come from God to the individual. The individual who would understand Science must study at least a little.

The recent war in Israel & Palestine shows that religion has a tight grip on many, in fact, most of mankind. Only a Higher Power (GOD) will end all this. Have a great day.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that’s not what I am saying at all.

Evidence and proofs are two completely different things, and you and other creationists don’t understand the differences.

Proofs are like those mathematical equations that I have mentioned, they are abstract representations of explaining the phenomena, through the logical uses of variables, constants and numbers. They are parts of the explanations in models of theories or in models of hypotheses.
the
The explanation along with any equations, has to be tested and verified before they can be considered true.

Evidence (including experiments) are physical parts of phenomena. Evidence are what required to determine if the theory or hypothesis is true or false.

if the evidence refute the explanation, then it would mean the equations (or proofs) have also been refuted. That mean the explanation plus any equation, are either weak or wrong.

You need to stop thinking that evidence and proof are the same things.

this is why I find creationists are science illiterates, because they don’t understand proofs only exist in equations. Proofs are not physical evidence.

Dont get me wrong, YoursTrue. Maths and equations are useful tools in sciences, but they don’t determine which is or which isn’t science. Only evidence & experiments, plus the accompanying data, can determine if the theory is scientifically valid.

Proof SHOULD be irrefutable. If is a conclusion with a firm basis. What is said to be evidence is contestable as far as placing the "evidence" in the theory as if it makes true the theory. Evidence and proof are different, but then some here say I'm real dumb, meaning "scientifically illiterate," etc. and etc. And on it goes. So is there proof in science? Is evidence of whatever the explorer in science says proof? Is the evidence irrefutable in terms of categorizing it??? just wondering what you think.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The recent war in Israel & Palestine shows that religion has a tight grip on many, in fact, most of mankind. Only a Higher Power (GOD) will end all this. Have a great day.

True religion is love, and so it is that in this case at least the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply. It is not love which causes wars but selfish quarreling, giving rise to pride and anger. A successful politician is able to get a rise out of one group and pit them against another, and in the process they gain influence. If we are not wise to this we easily fall into their support and become their canon fodder. Such people appear everywhere, and we have various names for them: "Dissembler," "Dark empath," "Wolf in sheep's clothing," "False prophet," "antichrist," and "Leader." The leaders bring the people together to fight. They make use of our concerns, even our concern for one another and twist it to pit us against each other for their own entertainment. Yes, it entertains them.