Sciences as a religion.

[David M]

Religions are based on beliefs. Science is based on beliefs

No, science is based on evidence.

 

[bobhikes]

Popular science in mainstream news is hardly scientific.

To answer the question posed: there is no boundary to the universe, but it has finite volume.

Its funny nothing I post is good yet no one will provide me with a worthy challenge so I can put my money where my mouth is.

 

[outhouse]

All about science (web site)

"Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established"

Sounds like if you support the theory of evolution you might be relying on at least one belief that has yet to be proven.

you all over the board with your wild assertions.


some science is cut and dry as scientific theorys are.

hypothesis is however open for debate as that is how science works.

if we know it is a hypothesis we dont take it as a known fact.


your whole arguement from the start is flawed for the fact, science does not prove anything. They do however find facts and show how they relate to reality.

Those that are educated know this


all your doing is making a play on that wording. it holds no merit as science doesnt need proof. drop a apple it will fall, there is no question but at the same time it does not prove gravity or how gravity works. DESPITE no proof,, We do know the apple will fall, we do not need faith the apple will fall. it just does.

 

[Jose Fly]

PBS Science
"This horizon describes the visible universe—a region some 28 billion light years in diameter. But what are the horizons of a civilization that inhabits the most distant galaxies we see? And what about galaxies at the limits of their vision? There is every reason to think that the universe extends a long way beyond the part of the universe we can see. In fact, a variety of observations suggest that our visible patch may be a small fraction—maybe an infinitely small fraction—of the whole universe.

This view of the universe fits with the currently popular idea that the universe began with a vast expansion of size. The idea describes a kind of undirected energy present in the vacuum of space, called scalar fields, that somehow got channeled into a process called "inflation." By conservative estimates, the universe expanded so much during this period that something the size of an atom inflated to the size of a galaxy.

If this grand idea is correct, then the universe is larger than we ever could have imagined. But the question remains: Is there a boundary, and if so, what lies in the voids beyond? The answer, according to some cosmologists, is truly mind-boggling. If the universe sprung forth in this manner, then probably inflation has occurred in other places, perhaps an infinite number of places, beyond our horizon and outside of our time. The implication is that there are other universes, perhaps similar to ours or vastly different, each in its own space and begun in its own time."

I consider this a scientific belief not only that but very God like. How much do we really know if we only know our tiny area.

You've quoted something from a Public Broadcasting site, not a scientific paper. PBS is journalism, not science.

In a published paper that made such speculations, they would also present their empirical basis for those speculations. PBS doesn't do that.

Try again.

 

[Jose Fly]

All about science (web site)

"Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established"

Sounds like if you support the theory of evolution you might be relying on at least one belief that has yet to be proven.

Dean Kenyon is a young-earth creationist activist. His personal views on origins of life are not "science".

Do you understand what I mean by "published scientific paper"?

 

[bobhikes]

your whole arguement from the start is flawed for the fact, science does not prove anything. They do however find facts and show how they relate to reality.


all your doing is making a play on that wording. it holds no merit as science doesnt need proof. drop a apple it will fall, there is no question but at the same time it does not prove gravity or how gravity works. DESPITE no proof,, We do know the apple will fall, we do not need faith the apple will fall. it just does.

I will sort of agree that science does not have to prove everything and it does find facts and try to show how they relate to reality.

To define reality is a problem.

Of course I making play's on wording but it does hold merit. Drop an apple and it will fall. Are you sure that is always true. I can think of many ways the apple won't fall.

Irrationable faith in something is a basis of religion. If you want to believe gravity will always effect the apple you are doing the same as a person that wants to believe in angels.

I am sure you heard of spacetime. It is used in a lot of the formulas for gravity. There is a large scientific community that don't believe time exists. How do you explain the bending of spacetime then.

 

[bobhikes]

Dean Kenyon is a young-earth creationist activist. His personal views on origins of life are not "science".

Do you understand what I mean by "published scientific paper"?

A little bit of work, but here you go.
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf

"Recession velocities of individual galaxies are of limited use in observational cosmology because they are not directly observable. For this reason some of the physics community considers recession velocities meaningless and would like to see the issue swept under the rug (Appendix B: 24-25). They argue that we should refrain from interpreting observations in terms of velocity or distance, and stick to the observable, redshift. This avoids any complications with superluminal recession and avoids any confusion between the variety of observationally-motivated definitions of distance commonly used in cosmology (e.g. Equations(13) and (14))

The paper is pretty interesting. In it he points out a few misconceptions in cosmology. It certainly points to the fact the at least certain scientists have beliefs they do not want to give up.

I am pointing to the fact that he indicates certain Physicists do not want to follow the proper method and instead rely on belief. Either he or they have a belief they can't both be facts.

 

[outhouse]

Of course I making play's on wording but it does hold merit. Drop an apple and it will fall. Are you sure that is always true. I can think of many ways the apple won't fall.

if it doesnt we know exactly why

Irrationable faith in something is a basis of religion. If you want to believe gravity will always effect the apple you are doing the same as a person that wants to believe in angels.

wrong again

gravity is testable, it will always effect the apple despite what the apple does.

the other is a untestable manmade myth

I am sure you heard of spacetime. It is used in a lot of the formulas for gravity. There is a large scientific community that don't believe time exists. How do you explain the bending of spacetime then

space time is not gravity. I never said we know everything about gravity either. BUT i know how gravity works in my reality.

look your post is flat wrong, science is not religion. It is a study that helps us better understand reality. People do not worship in it,,,,, or put blind faith in it,,,,,, start wars over it,,,, molest little children because of it,,,, and so on and so on. science is not religion. end of story

 

[outhouse]

A little bit of work, but here you go.
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf

"Recession velocities of individual galaxies are of limited use in observational cosmology because they are not directly observable. For this reason some of the physics community considers recession velocities meaningless and would like to see the issue swept under the rug (Appendix B: 24-25). They argue that we should refrain from interpreting observations in terms of velocity or distance, and stick to the observable, redshift. This avoids any complications with superluminal recession and avoids any confusion between the variety of observationally-motivated definitions of distance commonly used in cosmology (e.g. Equations(13) and (14))

The paper is pretty interesting. In it he points out a few misconceptions in cosmology. It certainly points to the fact the at least certain scientists have beliefs they do not want to give up.

I am pointing to the fact that he indicates certain Physicists do not want to follow the proper method and instead rely on belief. Either he or they have a belief they can't both be facts.

your talking about scientific methods. this has nothing to do with science being a religion

 

[Jose Fly]

A little bit of work, but here you go.
The paper is pretty interesting. In it he points out a few misconceptions in cosmology. It certainly points to the fact the at least certain scientists have beliefs they do not want to give up.

But that's not what you argued in the OP. You didn't argue that "certain scientists have beliefs", you argued that "science is based on beliefs". That's completely different.

What specifically in that paper is "based on belief"?

I am pointing to the fact that he indicates certain Physicists do not want to follow the proper method and instead rely on belief.

The paper doesn't say that at all. If you're going to argue otherwise, show specifically where the paper makes that claim.

 

[bobhikes]

But that's not what you argued in the OP. You didn't argue that "certain scientists have beliefs", you argued that "science is based on beliefs". That's completely different.

What specifically in that paper is "based on belief"?


The paper doesn't say that at all. If you're going to argue otherwise, show specifically where the paper makes that claim.

As I said a scientific paper will never say belief. He clearly indicates that certain scientists are against his position.

Only one could be fact the other must be belief. You can't have 2 opposing facts or is science god like in that all things are possible.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that science works as well as religion. The computer does very little for me but provide entertainment.

Religion is also a method of viewing life and how to properly proceed through it.

If what we're talking about is gaining knowledge, in what way does religion "work?"

So you don't think science has advanced human knowledge much in the last 200 years?

 

[Jose Fly]

As I said a scientific paper will never say belief. He clearly indicates that certain scientists are against his position.

Again, if all you're arguing is that scientists disagree with each other from time to time, you shouldn't get anyone disagreeing with you on that.

But you specifically argued that "science is based on beliefs", but you have yet to show that to be so. You haven't shown anything specific in that paper that is "based on beliefs".

Only one could be fact the other must be belief. You can't have 2 opposing facts or is science god like in that all things are possible.

Who's presenting them as "opposing facts"? You or the author of the paper?

 

[bobhikes]

If what we're talking about is gaining knowledge, in what way does religion "work?"

So you don't think science has advanced human knowledge much in the last 200 years?

Why would I say science hasn't advanced human knowledge. Human knowledge advances day to day. Even mistakes advance human knowledge. Everything you do advances your knowledge and you have the ability to pass on that knowledge. Science or not.

In reading and learning words you get knowledge. Read a bible learn a lot of new words. In helping others you learn about them. In helping others you get learn new skills. In defending religion you learn to debate. Religion passes on a lot of useful societal knowledge that science has no concern for.

 

[bobhikes]

Again, if all you're arguing is that scientists disagree with each other from time to time, you shouldn't get anyone disagreeing with you on that.

But you specifically argued that "science is based on beliefs", but you have yet to show that to be so. You haven't shown anything specific in that paper that is "based on beliefs".

Who's presenting them as "opposing facts"? You or the author of the paper?

Did you read the paper you asked for? I did. There is far more than my one quote in it. I am not going to post the whole thing. I did what you asked. What I read is that he is trying to eliminate improper beliefs that exist in cosmology. He is presenting the facts.

You can take it as you want. Tommorrow some one will change the facts again and disprove his work. In a 100 years it will all be changed again. It is all a belief based solely on faith in today's knowledge. If you don't have faith in today's knowedge you won't believe if you do then you believe. This is religion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did you read the paper you asked for?

Yep.

I am not going to post the whole thing. I did what you asked. What I read is that he is trying to eliminate improper beliefs that exist in cosmology. He is presenting the facts.

I'm not asking you to post the whole thing. You claimed that "science is based on beliefs" and posted a link to the paper alleging it supported your claim.

You have yet to show anything specific in that paper that is "based on beliefs".

You can take it as you want. Tommorrow some one will change the facts again and disprove his work. In a 100 years it will all be changed again. It is all a belief based solely on faith in today's knowledge. If you don't have faith in today's knowedge you won't believe if you do then you believe. This is religion.

The above is all empty assertion on your part.

Provide something specific from a published scientific paper that is "based on beliefs" or acknowledge that you are unable to support your claim.

 

[outhouse]

In a 100 years it will all be changed again

Is this a blatant LIE! ????????????????????????????????/

look at darwin, it has not been changed. the foundation was laid and added to.

evolution has been solid science for what 150 years without change and you know it.

why are you spreading misinformation on purpose???????????

i noticed you could not refute my last post either once i boxed your silly post in a corner

 

[Autodidact]

Why would I say science hasn't advanced human knowledge. Human knowledge advances day to day. Even mistakes advance human knowledge. Everything you do advances your knowledge and you have the ability to pass on that knowledge. Science or not.

In reading and learning words you get knowledge. Read a bible learn a lot of new words. In helping others you learn about them. In helping others you get learn new skills. In defending religion you learn to debate. Religion passes on a lot of useful societal knowledge that science has no concern for.

Such as?

 

[meogi]

and you have the ability to pass on that knowledge.

Some (arguably most) do not have the capacity to learn it, however.

 

[Autodidact]

Science is a method, that is all. Not a belief system, not even a body of knowledge. It is a method that works to learn about the natural world.

Unlike religion, the scientific method includes the possibility that any specific belief can be changed, whenever evidence indicates it was wrong.

Because of these two important factors, science is not very much like religion at all.