Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science. Does it ?

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree. Our helplessness in the face of Corona-virus tells us that are truthful measures all adopted. No harm in turning to G-d in these times as I understand. Right,please?

Regards

I agree with you. There is no reason not to turn to God at any time in my opinion, but we tend to be more prominent about it at times of need. Even those that do not believe, should find help from believers as this is their time of need as well. We are all in this together. There are very few times when that has been true, but this is certainly one of them. Perhaps we will all learn some valuable lessons about ourselves when we emerge from these troubles.

 

[paarsurrey]

We have a number of resources to turn to when seeking solutions to problems. Science and religion are two very important sources, but with each, the answers must be weighed and reviewed wisely. We may be able to do many exciting things resulting from what we learn about through science, but our ethics and values are there to keep us from running off the deep end with some of those exciting results. I hope. Religion has an important role in helping us with those ethical determinations, but it should not condemn science out of fear and ignorance.

" Religion has an important role in helping us with those ethical determinations, but it should not condemn science out of fear and ignorance."
The truthful religion does not condemn science rather it supports it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please give me one's own understanding. How does one know objective evidence from non-objective evidence?

Regards

If it's objective it means (in a general sense) the evidence is freely available for all to access.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

" Religion has an important role in helping us with those ethical determinations, but it should not condemn science out of fear and ignorance."
The truthful religion does not condemn science rather it supports it. Right, please?

Regards

I would agree with that. I understand that some are fearful when invoking certain means of interpretation and that the evidence and scientific conclusions do not corroborate those means, but that in no way is science proclaiming or demanding that others not believe as they choose.

My adviser in grad school was a Christian (we shared a birthday and were both Methodists) and later in my career, one of my favorite mentors was devoutly Christian and we would have long discussions about science, religion, politics and human behavior that have been of much use to me over the years.

A religious person can be a scientist. Many are.

 

[paarsurrey]

If it's objective it means (in a general sense) the evidence is freely available for all to access.

Thanks

Regards

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it's objective it means (in a general sense) the evidence is freely available for all to access.

And that it can be examined by anyone using repeatable methods and the evidence will not be different for different observers.

 

[paarsurrey]

I would agree with that. I understand that some are fearful when invoking certain means of interpretation and that the evidence and scientific conclusions do not corroborate those means, but that in no way is science proclaiming or demanding that others not believe as they choose.

My adviser in grad school was a Christian (we shared a birthday and were both Methodists) and later in my career, one of my favorite mentors was devoutly Christian and we would have long discussions about science, religion, politics and human behavior that have been of much use to me over the years.

A religious person can be a scientist. Many are.

"A religious person can be a scientist. Many are"

It is evidence that the truthful religion is an ally of science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

And that it can be examined by anyone using repeatable methods and the evidence will not be different for different observers.

Thanks and regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

"science is a way of learning about God"

Yes, doing science is a way to know G-d.
And truthful religions does not interfere with a science project. Right, please?

Regards

What are 'truthful religions'?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"A religious person can be a scientist. Many are"

It is evidence that the truthful religion is an ally of science. Right, please?

Regards

It is only my opinion and I really do not know exactly what a "truthful" religion means, but I agree that honest religious practice benefits from a recognition of the value of science. If by truthful, you mean one that is honest and values the precepts of its own foundation, then I would very much agree with you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks and regards

You are welcome. Stay safe and healthy during these difficult times.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And that it can be examined by anyone using repeatable methods and the evidence will not be different for different observers.

Not precisely, which is why it is necessary to repeat tests to ensure the same results are replicated, enhacing the quality of the evidence to support a hypothesis. It can still be objective evidence while simultaneously being a fluke of an oddball result that can't be replicated despite utilizing sound research methods and practices.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not precisely, which is why it is necessary to repeat tests to ensure the same results are replicated, enhacing the quality of the evidence to support a hypothesis. It can still be objective evidence while simultaneously being a fluke of an oddball result that can't be replicated despite utilizing sound research methods and practices.

Could you restate this? I do not think I am clear on what you mean.

If one researcher uses a method to determine results, another should be able to use the same method and achieve similar results. If there are radical differences, these should be addressed and explained where possible. However, outliers in data are still objective evidence as you state.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not precisely, which is why it is necessary to repeat tests to ensure the same results are replicated, enhacing the quality of the evidence to support a hypothesis. It can still be objective evidence while simultaneously being a fluke of an oddball result that can't be replicated despite utilizing sound research methods and practices.

I see. Of course. There can be variance in the data for different experiments. What I meant by the evidence being the same was that it would not be radically different. Outliers would not change that, though their occurrence can be accounted for statistically, they can still appear in otherwise similar data sets.

If you are counting the number of species in experimental plots, the experimental plots and species composition would not be dependent on which observer made the observations. If we were to ask observers their favorite ice cream flavor, we would expect it to vary depending on who we asked and even when we asked them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Could you restate this? I do not think I am clear on what you mean.

If one researcher uses a method to determine results, another should be able to use the same method and achieve similar results. If there are radical differences, these should be addressed and explained where possible. However, outliers in data are still objective evidence as you state.

Basically it is possible to produce objective evidence that is also a statistical anomaly. Its still evidence something can happen evem if it's not good evidence for or against a hypothesis.
Or, in gambling, such as poker, players can make informed and good decisions and produce the evidence to support their decisions, but the outcome can still be unfavorable to them.
Odd things where we exeptions instead of the rules. It can all still produce objective evidence, but it has to be further evaluated to know of it's good evidence or not.

 

[Tiberius]

Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science.
Does it ?

Regards

Science is all about trying to find out why things are the way they are.

When you say, "God did it," this will slow science.

When religion ruled the world, science was slowed to almost nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Basically it is possible to produce objective evidence that is also a statistical anomaly. Its still evidence something can happen evem if it's not good evidence for or against a hypothesis.
Or, in gambling, such as poker, players can make informed and good decisions and produce the evidence to support their decisions, but the outcome can still be unfavorable to them.
Odd things where we exeptions instead of the rules. It can all still produce objective evidence, but it has to be further evaluated to know of it's good evidence or not.

I do not think we are arguing the same thing here. Good results and bad results can be objective evidence, but if the methodologies are repeated under the same conditions, results should be in the same range of outcomes, though not the exact same results for the repeated measures.

Perhaps I was wrong and I am not following you as I thought I was.

The quality of objective evidence should not make it less objective unless there is subjective bias at play.

 

[MJ Bailey]

Science is made up of theoretical understandings. If you research the History of Science, it would still be in a "limbo" state if not for the quest of finding God.

 

[dfnj]

Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science.
Does it ?

Regards

Not all all. Science has it's own dogmas stalling its own progress.

 

[dad]

This is a misapprehension. Scientist do not look for "proof" of anything. What they look for is evidence: reproducible evidence.

God is left out of science because science is the study of nature: it looks for natural explanations of phenomena in nature, not supernatural ones.

In placing nature above the creator science has erred. Trying to explain away creation using natural explanations is ignoring God. That is a very grave sin and error.