Just a thought...

[Youtellme]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs under this category as it not really a debate. I was wondering, after reading the comments of so many on various threads as to why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts.

I just think it's a bit arrogant to assume that what is now considered the scientific norm may not be turned on it's head tomorrow by some new discovery. It seems that quite often a new theory will come along and debunk what was considered the absolute truth for a long time. (For example, it may be assumed we thought we knew what the oldest dinosuar fossil was until an older one turns up...) Such is the history of science. It is an open minded subject that is open to change.

So why do so many people stick to their guns in their arguments on a scientific v religious topic for instance, when there is always the chance that their solid theory may be anything but. Aren't they potentially digging themselves a hole? Shouldn't they be more willing to accept that things may not be as they claim?

 

[skydivephil]

Take the theory of evolution, no one is claiming it is absolute truth. The claim is that it is overwhelmingly supported by mutliple lines of evidence. Of course if new evidence comes to light that contradicts the existing evidence the theory may need to be modified or even abandoned. But until then we go with the evidence we have.

 

[Youtellme]

Take the theory of evolution, no one is claiming it is absolute truth. The claim is that it is overwhelmingly supported by mutliple lines of evidence. Of course if new evidence comes to light that contradicts the existing evidence the theory may need to be modified or even abandoned. But until then we go with the evidence we have.

And yet, it seems that some people's attitude is the opposite. They do claim it as fact/absolute truth. People on this forum and outside. Dawkins comes to mind for example who says there are no two ways about it. Unless I'm reading something into such claims.

 

[Krok]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs under this category as it not really a debate. I was wondering, after reading the comments of so many on various threads as to why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts.

I don’t know any scientist who would claim that. All science is provisional, utilizing all the available evidence, to formulate theories. That’s what science does.

I just think it's a bit arrogant to assume that what is now considered the scientific norm may not be turned on it's head tomorrow by some new discovery.

That’s why no scientist does that. All science is provisional. Science can, however, make very definite statements on some things, for example YEC creationism. YEC has been proved impossible millions of times. Even if our theories are incorrect, YEC will always be incorrect anyway. I think most scientists get very frustrated by ridiculous arguments from YEC’s about evolution being wrong, but YEC being right by default. Scientists are also getting very frustrated with pseudo-scioences like YEC and ID insisting on being taught as science.

It seems that quite often a new theory will come along and debunk what was considered the absolute truth for a long time. (For example, it may be assumed we thought we knew what the oldest dinosuar fossil was until an older one turns up...) Such is the history of science. It is an open minded subject that is open to change.

It is possible, but if’s don’t count. We go with the evidence we currently have.

So why do so many people stick to their guns in their arguments on a scientific v religious topic for instance, when there is always the chance that their solid theory may be anything but.

Because we currently only have one scientific theory on how the different living organisms came about. Science has proven things like YEC wrong. It is very safe to stick to our guns about the fact that YEC will never be accepted by science as valid, because it has been proved wrong millions of times.

Aren't they potentially digging themselves a hole? Shouldn't they be more willing to accept that things may not be as they claim?

Not at all. It's very easy to say that YEC is pseudo-science. We can stick to our guns on that, because that is the absolute truth. Science accepts the most likely scenario, arrived at after following the scientific method, as the scientific truth. It can always change. It won’t ever change to things that have been proved impossible, though.

 

[David M]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs under this category as it not really a debate. I was wondering, after reading the comments of so many on various threads as to why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts.

The only people claiming infallibility are those against science.

I just think it's a bit arrogant to assume that what is now considered the scientific norm may not be turned on it's head tomorrow by some new discovery.

This may happen in new fields of science but in mature fields of science it is highly unlikely that new discoveries will somehow invalidate all the previously established facts that are explained by a scientific theory.

It seems that quite often a new theory will come along and debunk what was considered the absolute truth for a long time. (For example, it may be assumed we thought we knew what the oldest dinosuar fossil was until an older one turns up...)

That asumption would be wrong, we always knew what was the oldest dinosaur fossil that we had discovered and dated, no scientist would say that no slightly older fossils remain undiscovered.

Such is the history of science. It is an open minded subject that is open to change.

True. But it is also able to judge what is likely to change.

So why do so many people stick to their guns in their arguments on a scientific v religious topic for instance, when there is always the chance that their solid theory may be anything but. Aren't they potentially digging themselves a hole? Shouldn't they be more willing to accept that things may not be as they claim?

There is no realistic chance that the theory of evolution is going to be overturned, there is 150 years of hard work by a multitude of scientists in multiple disciplines to show that the theory is the correct explanation for the mountain of evidence that supports it.

There is also the fact that when it comes to scientific v religious topics the majority of cases entail a complete lack of evidence from the religious side that their argument holds any water, added to which when it comes to creationism and the anti-evolution crowd there is a long history of lies and deception among its more public proponents such as AiG and the DI, for example.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs under this category as it not really a debate. I was wondering, after reading the comments of so many on various threads as to why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts.

I just think it's a bit arrogant to assume that what is now considered the scientific norm may not be turned on it's head tomorrow by some new discovery. It seems that quite often a new theory will come along and debunk what was considered the absolute truth for a long time.

Perhaps it would facilitate this discussion if you could provide a quote from someone on this board who said that the theory of evolution was “infallible”, or someone who used the phrase “absolute truth”. I suspect that if you go back and look for such a quote you won’t be able to find one.

I think it is probable that you have simply misunderstood. Evolution is a fact, it is a scientific fact. But scientific facts are not infallible and they are not absolute.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't know any scientist who claims infallibility.

Evolution is a fact... but I don't believe in absolute truth. There may yet be a model that explains the diversity of life better, but it would have a lot of work to do to demonstrate it.

wa:do

 

[Enoughie]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs under this category as it not really a debate. I was wondering, after reading the comments of so many on various threads as to why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts.

I just think it's a bit arrogant to assume that what is now considered the scientific norm may not be turned on it's head tomorrow by some new discovery. It seems that quite often a new theory will come along and debunk what was considered the absolute truth for a long time. (For example, it may be assumed we thought we knew what the oldest dinosuar fossil was until an older one turns up...) Such is the history of science. It is an open minded subject that is open to change.

So why do so many people stick to their guns in their arguments on a scientific v religious topic for instance, when there is always the chance that their solid theory may be anything but. Aren't they potentially digging themselves a hole? Shouldn't they be more willing to accept that things may not be as they claim?

I think Richard Feynman gives a good explanation of how science works: [youtube]hRAbke411Zw[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Feynman Interview #4

It's really a matter of the scope we have, which allows us to understand how the world works.

For example, over 2000 years ago we thought that we are the center of the universe and that the earth is flat.

Later on, with the improvement of technology and science we were able to discover that the earth is actually spherical. But we still thought that we are the center of the universe.

As science and technology progressed even further our scope of understanding the universe grew even further, and we were able to discover that we are not the center of the universe, but actually the sun is the center of the universe.

Around Einstein's time we were able to determine that were are just one galaxy among billions of galaxies, and that the universe is actually expanding.

In the future our scope of understanding the universe will probably be much greater. But that doesn't mean that we'll go back to thinking that the earth is flat and that we are the center of the universe.

The same can be said about any other science. Our scope of understanding the laws that govern that science increases, so the disparate ideas we come up with become unified and refined in a greater theory.

Some theories are highly refined already, and have withstood the test of time of awhile (which basically means that despite testing the limits of the theory, we still come up with the same solutions). But that doesn't mean that they cannot be refined even further if our understanding grows.

I think good scientists are generally humble about what science knows and what it doesn't, and they usually don't make claims that go beyond the scope of their understanding, or claim that their knowledge is infallible. In fact, I think most scientists get very excited whenever there is a possibility that their theory has been disproved. Because that means that now they can get an even deeper understanding of the world than they did before. But when scientists have to contend with nonsense such as creationism, it's akin to someone claiming that the earth is flat, and then using some pseudo-science to demonstrate that the earth cannot be spherical - I'd say it's very irritating and wastes people's time, energy, resources, and confuses people who are not knowledgeable about science.

 

[I'ken Imagine]

I was wondering ... why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts. ... So why do so many people stick to their guns in their arguments on a scientific v religious topic for instance... Shouldn't they be more willing to accept that things may not be as they claim?

I hope you won't mind that I parsed your remarks as I did. My intention is merely to address what I read as a specific thought applied to people in general. I suspect that many of us want an anchor of one kind or another, particularly in a world that DOES as you point out constantly change. Obviously it's dangerous for me to take my limited observations and apply them to everyone, hence I use the word many rather than everybody. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to want such an achor and many of the people (including myself) who seek such are also flexible in their thinking precisely because the world is one of constant change.

Another human tendency seems to be reluctance to let go of a concept once one make it one's own. There are plenty of examples in every field, not just science and religion. This translates into all kinds of behaviors such as employees who don't like change at work, students who say something like, "...but that's not the way we used to do it," etc. I've had the pleasure of knowing and knowing of many scientists and many religious men and women who practice the skill of awareness that they don't have the last word on most anything. It makes them more effective in what they "know" for now. I like what Carl Sagan said--to the effect: we may be wrong...after all, we've been wrong before. So, I think your point is valuable at least on an individual self-examination level.

 

[Tristesse]

And yet, it seems that some people's attitude is the opposite. They do claim it as fact/absolute truth. People on this forum and outside. Dawkins comes to mind for example who says there are no two ways about it. Unless I'm reading something into such claims.

Well, evolution is a fact, but no one is claiming it as absolute. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

 

[Daily Devoted]

Take the theory of evolution, no one is claiming it is absolute truth. The claim is that it is overwhelmingly supported by mutliple lines of evidence. Of course if new evidence comes to light that contradicts the existing evidence the theory may need to be modified or even abandoned. But until then we go with the evidence we have.

Could you share with us some of this evidence?

 

[painted wolf]

Could you share with us some of this evidence?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94931-ask-biologist.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/98851-major-transitions-evolution.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html

wa:do

 

[PennyKay]

Personally, as a scientist, I do not treat science as a religion, I do not know the theory of evolution is true, but it is the best scientific theory we have to date that describes and explains how life came to be on earth.

And yes, if a rabbit's skeleton was found and dated to be 100,000 years old, I would question the theory of evolutions credibility, like all good scientists would (hopefully), and a new, better, stronger theory would hopefully come to light.

 

[Dan4reason]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs under this category as it not really a debate. I was wondering, after reading the comments of so many on various threads as to why they place so much trust and conviction on a particular scientific belief/field, and claim it as being infalible and the truth, no if's or buts.

I just think it's a bit arrogant to assume that what is now considered the scientific norm may not be turned on it's head tomorrow by some new discovery. It seems that quite often a new theory will come along and debunk what was considered the absolute truth for a long time. (For example, it may be assumed we thought we knew what the oldest dinosuar fossil was until an older one turns up...) Such is the history of science. It is an open minded subject that is open to change.

So why do so many people stick to their guns in their arguments on a scientific v religious topic for instance, when there is always the chance that their solid theory may be anything but. Aren't they potentially digging themselves a hole? Shouldn't they be more willing to accept that things may not be as they claim?

There is a chance that evolution is wrong, but then there is also the chance that this world is just an illusion. There is a chance that God does not exist. Since we humans do not have absolute knowledge, we should believe what has evidence and be willing to consider contradicting ideas because our human reason could be wrong. This thinking contradicts a religious belief in evolution but it is a slap in the face to an absolute belief in religion and God. This thinking contradicts faith and belief without evidence.

The fact that we do not have absolute evidence does mean we should not have absolute belief, but that does not mean we should go to the opposite extreme and not believe in anything. I believe in the theory of evolution with a pretty strong surety because the evidence is pretty strong.