-
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!
Science, why we should believe it?
- Thread starter serioja7
- Start date
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Yes.
The thing your teacher demonstrated is the strength of the scientific method.
It is self correcting. If something is found to be wrong then the scientific method demands that it no longer be accepted. This is achieved primarily through the process of peer review.
Can you imagine what kind of shape we would be in if science did not work this way.
We'd still be treating illnesses with blood letting.
We'd still be trying to exorcise the demons out of people with epilepsy.
We'd still be prescribing cocaine to people with mental illnesses
Of course certain groups or individuals will hold on to science that is incorrect, but that is a fault of the individuals not the scientific method.
The thing your teacher demonstrated is the strength of the scientific method.
It is self correcting. If something is found to be wrong then the scientific method demands that it no longer be accepted. This is achieved primarily through the process of peer review.
Can you imagine what kind of shape we would be in if science did not work this way.
We'd still be treating illnesses with blood letting.
We'd still be trying to exorcise the demons out of people with epilepsy.
We'd still be prescribing cocaine to people with mental illnesses
Of course certain groups or individuals will hold on to science that is incorrect, but that is a fault of the individuals not the scientific method.
kai
ragamuffin
yes it is , because its an ongoing learning process.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Here is the process,
so i we take for example "higher intelligence create the world", we can tasted using scientific method, tell me what that is different form religion?
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Here is the process,
so i we take for example "higher intelligence create the world", we can tasted using scientific method, tell me what that is different form religion?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Can you rephrase this, it doesn't make sense.
bezuidenhout
New Member
I think that, since science is basically the collective human knowledge, it is intrinsically fallable. It would be foolish to trust in it absolutely. The beauty of science, however, is that it takes this fallability into consideration; changing as human ideas do.
The problem arises when people regard our knowledge as absolute. Science itself is supposed to be a guard against rigid, unquestioning thought, it should be regarded as a guideline for testing your thoughts on life and eveything that it encompasses.
If science were meant to be trusted, it would never change, it would become redundant. Basically, if we start trusting our knowledge absolutely, it becomes a religion.
So, no, science should not be trusted, because science is designed to be doubted.
The problem arises when people regard our knowledge as absolute. Science itself is supposed to be a guard against rigid, unquestioning thought, it should be regarded as a guideline for testing your thoughts on life and eveything that it encompasses.
If science were meant to be trusted, it would never change, it would become redundant. Basically, if we start trusting our knowledge absolutely, it becomes a religion.
So, no, science should not be trusted, because science is designed to be doubted.
kai
ragamuffin
I dont think it does? does it? its just still trying to investigate how it was created.
kai
ragamuffin
Got any sources for that conclusion? and what do you mean by "Higher intelligence"
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
How would scientists go about proving god?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Hahahaha the whole "they just don't want to believe" argument.
It fails because you are just making assumptions to suit your argument. Perhaps if you could prove it then that would be different, but you can't.
Bogg
New Member
I don't think science has concuded that has it? Maybe it has concluded that there is not a "Higher Entity" but it does open to the possibility of higher intelligent races in the universe.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
No. Science kinda sucks.
Has Modern Science Become Dysfunctional?
WASHINGTON, DC –March 27, 2012 -- The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today.
“Incentives have evolved over the decades to encourage some behaviors that are detrimental to good science,” says Ferric Fang, editor-in-chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), who is speaking today at the meeting of the Committee of Science, Technology, and Law of the NAS along with Arturo Casadevall, editor-in-chief of mBio®,the ASM’s online, open-access journal.
In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society’s confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall. Some of the retractions are due to simple error but many are a result of misconduct including falsification of data and plagiarism.
More concerning, say the editors, is that...
[...]
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Nothing wrong with science there. The problem is with the people using it.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Science is as science peoples.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Yeah, just as the principles of Islam teaches suicide bombing and the principles of Christianity taught the Inquisition. People use ideas.
People are often lousy practitioners of the scientific method.
But until we train robots to do it for us, "people" is all we gots.
(I'm betting that robots will be screw-ups too.)
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
People are also often lousy practitioners of religion. It's a good thing that all the scientism thralls realize that and are thus gracious toward religion and forgiving toward religious people.
...oh wait.