-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How reliable are the findings of science?
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
jrbogie
Member
yesserie, indeed it is. first comes the hypothosis, then the search for evidence, and finally, assuming some evidence has been found, the study of the evidence to conlclude whether or not the evidence supports the hypothosis to the degree to support theorizing. don'tcha just love it? and it's doubtful that any theory is ever provable beyond doubt. is god even an hypothosis? hmmmmm. perhaps i suppose, but in science such an hypothesis would be abondoned after all these melinia without any evidence to study whatsoever. but god surely does not rise to the lofty status of a theory without that evidence does it?
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
It is all just theory. even religion. You can't have one without the other. Religion needs science as much as science needs religion. And it is all just a nah uh argument.
We cannot prove or disprove anything beyond theory because someone is always going to come alone and say "well this theory/hypothesis is just wrong. But my theory is right"
Sound familiar?
We cannot prove or disprove anything beyond theory because someone is always going to come alone and say "well this theory/hypothesis is just wrong. But my theory is right"
Sound familiar?
jrbogie
Member
sure does. happened to isaac newton when albert einstein said his "law" of gravity was full of crap. now hawkings is shooting holes in einstein's theory. i agree that we likely cannot prove a theory for the reason i just gave. but i don't buy that religion meets the standard of a theory. at least a scientific theory. i hate it when this happens but i guess we need to agree on what a theory is so here is how webster defines it:
the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein Date: 1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2: abstract thought : speculation3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>since the subject is the reliability of findings in science, i'll go with number 5 in this case. religion offers no plausibility, at least not to me, and it surely is not a "scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". but if you use a different definition for a theory then there's no point to go further into it.
rojse
RF Addict
I agree with Jose Fly - it's a bit hard to rail against science when the findings of science have impacted upon every aspect of our lives, from what we do to entertain ourselves, how we communicate with other people, to how long we live.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
A shining example of U.S. science education?
By definition, science is indeed very reliable. After all, the very essence of the scientific method is to emphasize reliability over ready answers.
It is sad that so many people apparently ignore that simple fact.
It is sad that so many people apparently ignore that simple fact.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I think religious indoctrination is the more likely culprit - along with a lack of critical thinking skills.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Nothing. They just tend not to make headlines, meaning you tend not to hear about them.
I've heard that from a scientist. However, you hit the nail on the head. As I just explained, you don't tend to hear about those studies or findings because they don't make very good news stories. You answered your own problem. It's not that that doesn't happen, you just don't hear about it nearly as much.
It's just like decent, nice, regular Christians (or atheists or any group really). You hear a lot about the Westboro Baptist Church and others like them, but you don't hear as much from the regular Christian couple who lives a normal life and goes to church every day. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means they're not newsworthy.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "theory" as it pertains to science (as in a scientific theory). A scientific theory is as much fact as a law, and that is because both are based on immense mounds of evidence and predictions that have always been right. A theory in science is vastly different from a hypothesis. A hypothesis is what starts the process. Then you gather information, and test to see whether the evidence supports the hypothesis. If it does, then your conclusions can become a theory or law. If not, you start all over. The point is that a theory like the Theory of Evolution is vastly different from me saying "Well, my theory on the subject is this...".
Also, I'm really not sure how science needs religion or religion needs science.
Religion needs science, much as any other human stitution does.
Without learning from social sciences religion would be very obsolete indeed.
blackout
Violet.
Science measures what it measures,
and "finds" what it "finds"
under a certain "given" of specific conditions.
If the "given" of specific conditions changes (or expands),
so then will the measurements and the findings.
So it's always "as things stand now"
or
(quite literally) "as far as we know".
and "finds" what it "finds"
under a certain "given" of specific conditions.
If the "given" of specific conditions changes (or expands),
so then will the measurements and the findings.
So it's always "as things stand now"
or
(quite literally) "as far as we know".
Last edited:
jrbogie
Member
so true i fear. our civics teaching sucks too. most illegal immigrants know more about our constitution and their rights than the average american does. sorry to digress, back to science. just acknowledging your point.
mordorf
Member
How reliable are the findings of science?
is a good question but the first question we have to answer is how reliable is the bible??
when religious people try to attack science they all the time uses very weak arguments such as god of the gaps and so so.
But i would like to see some evidence that what the bible says is true where is the garden of eden where is noah's ark, have they find anything that proves just those two things, no they haven't the question is why hmmm.. i wonder why!!
is a good question but the first question we have to answer is how reliable is the bible??
when religious people try to attack science they all the time uses very weak arguments such as god of the gaps and so so.
But i would like to see some evidence that what the bible says is true where is the garden of eden where is noah's ark, have they find anything that proves just those two things, no they haven't the question is why hmmm.. i wonder why!!
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Science is only telling us what we already knew. Newton, Einstein and whoever else are only giving names to theories that have been thought of for many years.
The only difference between the scientists and the the other guy is that scientists have not only the resources but the time to make these theories possibly work. But they are still just theories. Some bigger, smarter nut is going to come along and blow that theory out of the water with his own who will later be refuted by some other bigger and smarter nut, who will...ect.
The only difference between the scientists and the the other guy is that scientists have not only the resources but the time to make these theories possibly work. But they are still just theories. Some bigger, smarter nut is going to come along and blow that theory out of the water with his own who will later be refuted by some other bigger and smarter nut, who will...ect.