Is Faith in Science Identical to Faith in God?

[darkendless]

LOL Sunstone, when all you can fall back on is your Blind Faith, and because you just say so. That should tell you a lot.

Are you a Creationist?

Odd accusation from someone who cannot accept evidence contradictory to their own arguement.

 

[johnhanks]

At this point in time, I have offered you evidence from science, your choice if you accept this or reject this. I cannot force you to get an education, and personally I woudn't try, this is a choice which is up to you to make.

At this point in time, all you have offered is your say so, with nothing of substance to back it up. This alone should tell you something. So should your childish behaviour of trying to divert the subject.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever, let alone from science. The rest of your post is the usual insubstantial froth. I do not think this particular exchange is worth continuing: if you wish to have the last word feel free.

 

[footprints]

Odd accusation from someone who cannot accept evidence contradictory to their own arguement.

Odd, not really. It is only odd to you because you have a bit of trouble understanding english.

 

[footprints]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever, let alone from science. The rest of your post is the usual insubstantial froth. I do not think this particular exchange is worth continuing: if you wish to have the last word feel free.

Yeah, yeah, I know you just know John. No need to worry about evidence where you are concerned.

Are you a creationist?

 

[Skeptisch]

footprints asks:
Have you never known something that was peer reviewed in science and accepted, to be proven incorrect? Checking something means absolutely nothing, irrespective of how many people view it, if all people involved are of the same belief.

Please give us a few examples where science, through experiment (the scientific method), has established the scientific truth that was later proven incorrect. Try not to go near light speed with that one! And please don’t give us your usual tap dance.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Please give us a few examples where science, through experiment (the scientific method), has established the scientific truth that was later proven incorrect. Try not to go near light speed with that one! And please don’t give us your usual tap dance.

There are plenty of these examples. The problem is that it's always science overturning previous scientific conclusions. This is why all such conclusions are provisional and therefore subject to questioning.

TC

 

[Skeptisch]

There are plenty of these examples. The problem is that it's always science overturning previous scientific conclusions. This is why all such conclusions are provisional and therefore subject to questioning.TC

That's why we should look at some of them, please post your picks.

 

[darkendless]

Odd, not really. It is only odd to you because you have a bit of trouble understanding english.

Yeh sure buddy.

Your arguements are all the same.

 

[Thought Criminal]

That's why we should look at some of them, please post your picks.

Once upon a time, a scientist convinced everyone that his equations about gravity and motion were correct. Some time later, this other guy suggested that the equations were only approximately right, and needed to be modified with an additional term that related proper velocity with the speed of light. And science, lacking dogma, had to admit it was wrong and change its mind.

TC

 

[Skeptisch]

Once upon a time, a scientist convinced everyone that his equations about gravity and motion were correct. Some time later, this other guy suggested that the equations were only approximately right, and needed to be modified with an additional term that related proper velocity with the speed of light. And science, lacking dogma, had to admit it was wrong and change its mind.

TC

The request was to post a few and not to go near the speed of light.

 

[darkendless]

Once upon a time, a scientist convinced everyone that his equations about gravity and motion were correct. Some time later, this other guy suggested that the equations were only approximately right, and needed to be modified with an additional term that related proper velocity with the speed of light. And science, lacking dogma, had to admit it was wrong and change its mind.

TC

At least science can admit when its wrong. These days more and more time is spent testing and retesting.

In geotechnics as many as 20 different samples are taken for consistency. We then send samples to other companies for them to test and to corroborate with results. Results not within 10g (about 0.05%) are retested by both parties and machines/employees are re-calibrated/trained to ensure the tolerances are met.

This is just for 1 simple test which is generally not too important and rather done "cosmetically" to reinforce the experience of engineers/geologists.

Not overly important but an example nevertheless.

 

[Thought Criminal]

At least science can admit when its wrong. These days more and more time is spent testing and retesting.

In geotechnics as many as 20 different samples are taken for consistency. We then send samples to other companies for them to test and to corroborate with results. Results not within 10g (about 0.05%) are retested by both parties and machines/employees are re-calibrated/trained to ensure the tolerances are met.

This is just for 1 simple test which is generally not too important and rather done "cosmetically" to reinforce the experience of engineers/geologists.

Not overly important but an example nevertheless.

The trick to finding the truth is to admit you don't already have it. That's the core of how science differs from religion: fallibilism.

TC

 

[Thought Criminal]

The request was to post a few and not to go near the speed of light.

Well, so long as we stay below about a tenth of the speed of light, the first set of equations gives pretty good answers.

I posted one. Let's discuss it and then move on to the next.

TC

 

[darkendless]

The trick to finding the truth is to admit you don't already have it. That's the core of how science differs from religion: fallibilism.

TC

Exactly. To refer to my above example, you'd be suprised how soil differs from one side of a 10x10 site to another. Thats why so many samples are taken.

Science (specifically this field where my experience lies) is able to accept the irregularity in nature of the natural world and does its best to find the most appropriate solution, not always the best, and not always the perfect solution. I think to use the word "truth" is a gross misunderstanding of how science works.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Exactly. To refer to my above example, you'd be suprised how soil differs from one side of a 10x10 site to another. Thats why so many samples are taken.

Science (specifically this field where my experience lies) is able to accept the irregularity in nature of the natural world and does its best to find the most appropriate solution, not always the best, and not always the perfect solution. I think to use the word "truth" is a gross misunderstanding of how science works.

Well, science seeks truth, but it doesn't claim it, at least not infallibly. Religions does claim it, which is pure hubris.

Science is full of error bars, significant figures, statistical measures and other admissions of the inherent limits of our knowledge. You just don't see that with religion

TC

 

[Skeptisch]

In geotechnics as many as 20 different samples are taken for consistency. We then send samples to other companies for them to test and to corroborate with results. Results not within 10g (about 0.05%) are retested by both parties and machines/employees are re-calibrated/trained to ensure the tolerances are met.

You seem to apply the scientific method to find certain properties. Aren’t we looking for examples where the scientific truth was established and later proven wrong?

 

[darkendless]

You seem to apply the scientific method to find certain properties. Aren’t we looking for examples where the scientific truth was established and later proven wrong?

Isn't archived science like the plumb pudding model of the atom such an example?

 

[Skeptisch]

Darkendless, like many problems, ours seems to be one of semantics. All I am trying to express is something like this:

“I've been thinking about the distorted view of science that prevails in our culture. I've been wondering about this, because our civilization is completely dependent on science and high technology, yet most of us are alienated from science. We are estranged from its methods, its values, and its language. Who is the scientist in our culture? He is Dr. Faustus, Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Strangelove. He’s the maker of the Faustian bargain that is bound to end badly. Where does that come from? We've had a long period of unprecedented success in scientific discovery. We can do things that even our recent ancestors would consider magic, and yet our self-esteem as a species seems low. We hate and fear science. We fear science and we fear the scientist. A common theme of popular movies is some crazed scientist somewhere setting about ruining what is most precious to all of us.”
Ann Druyan

Hopefully we can agree on the above. Say hi to the blue mountains for me. Good night from “up-over” to “down-under”.

 

[Alceste]

See the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Here's 35 errors.

35 errors that secularists, non theists, theists alike, took for truth. (Not saying that all of them did! I did, until I looked into in more.) It's because I had faith the information being provided to me was correct.

Sourcewatch interlude:

Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.

Can't let that kind of thing slide - particularly after you expressed such a broad understanding of the need to be careful not to take self-interested, agenda-advancing propaganda as fact.

How many of these 35 errors have you verified yourself?

 

[footprints]

Please give us a few examples where science, through experiment (the scientific method), has established the scientific truth that was later proven incorrect. Try not to go near light speed with that one! And please don’t give us your usual tap dance.

Skeptisch, you laziness in seeking knowledge astounds me.

Start with Newton and Maxwell.

Here is another one for you, Reichert-Gaupp theory of mammal evolution.

I never tap dance skeptisch, a persons laziness to follow up on knowledge doesn't equate to my not giving people the evidence of which to follow up on.