What We Thought

[Jose Fly]

I have not put you on ignore, Fly, but I am not responding to repeated questions that have already been asked, and answered, and which are just comments about me, rather than discussion on anything related to the OP, or posts related to it, but rather bait for you to begin discussing nPeace with other users.
Oops.

That's an interesting response. Do you appreciate that religion and science utilize different ways of thinking and reaching conclusions, and that they approach their conclusions differently?

 

[ChristineM]

No need to reach a conclusion here.
That's like passing gas, and concluding you passed gas.
You know.

Now you are picked up by the cops for having stolen money, and you realize your expectation were dashed, and you are back to knowing that you are 20 dollars short... or more..

And passing gas twice concluded you are twice as stinky.

Being deliberately ignorant just shows one thing.

Do the cops arrest science for updating a conclusion following the discovery of more evidence? So why are you introducing stupidity to defend deliberate ignorance?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?

I assume pretty much everything we know is 'wrong' at some level of precision. Hopefully we can be less wrong than we were in the past. That's about it.

 

[nPeace]

That's an interesting response. Do you appreciate that religion and science utilize different ways of thinking and reaching conclusions, and that they approach their conclusions differently?

Well that's better than talking about me, or dropping comments about me. It's a fair question too.

I appreciate that they both use different approaches... with some similarities - different thinking sounds accurate...
After all, there are questions science cannot answer, and never can with any certainty, even if it attempts to.

For example, it may attempt to answer the question, 'How did life begin', but it will only be what scientists think - a belief, as per the point of the OP.

I'll allow others to explain it for me though.

‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’​

- Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, 101(1393):42–43, 19 January 1984​

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.
...
evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”​

- H.S. Lipson (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester) in a paper published by The Institute of Physics (1980).​

On the other hand, the Bible answers our very important questions, including 'How did life begin? Why are we here? Why do innocent people suffer? What happens when a person dies? Why is there so much war when mankind wants peace? What will happen to the earth in the future?'
Questions science does not answer.

So, the thing is, does science stay within its bounds, or does it take on the role or appearance of being religious?

The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate, highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.
.............
These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level—say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.

Do science and religion reach different conclusions?
I'm not sure about that.

It depends on what science you are referring to - the philosophical kind (scientism), or the science of the practical and experimental kind.

 

[nPeace]

View attachment 66474

And passing gas twice concluded you are twice as stinky.

Being deliberately ignorant just shows one thing.

Do the cops arrest science for updating a conclusion following the discovery of more evidence? So why are you introducing stupidity to defend deliberate ignorance?

I know when I find money and add $10 dollars to what I have.
I think I would have to be stupit to have to reach a conclusion about that.

... but then again, I might be slow.
My apologies to those who have to reason on it, to arrive at an opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...and therefore, "a conclusion" does not work as a replacement for "belief".
They are still correcting a belief.

...and... you answered my question.
Peace

Yes: they are still correcting a belief. This is much better than not correcting one's beliefs (as often happens in religion).

 

[nPeace]

Yes: they are still correcting a belief. This is much better than not correcting one's beliefs (as often happens in religion).

Yes, I agree it's a bad thing not to correct wrong beliefs, if they are discovered, and this is the case with some religions... Not all.

 

[stvdv]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?

A week or 3 ago, I heard a Scientist say that quite a few medical "facts" a medical student is taught today will be outdated ca. 25 years later.

Good to know, especially with all the so called Corana facts the past few years

 

[Truth in love]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

The article is just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize is not correct.

I am really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

That we don’t know it all seems obvious.
Though I wish I had a dollar for every “scientist” claiming that the science is settled, we have proven etc.

 

[nPeace]

That we don’t know it all seems obvious.
Though I wish I had a dollar for every “scientist” claiming that the science is settled, we have proven etc.

That's an easy 7 million dollars.
My, you're modest. I might have said 5 dollars, but that would be greedy.

 

[Father Heathen]

But anyway, this "gotcha" attempt was thoroughly shot down.

 

[rational experiences]

No human no stories. As humans die. No human consciousness. Is an exact warning to all humans.

Yet we live seeing it occur. Natural observation is not a thought. It's seen. Yet we are thinking...doing in living the whole time. Only natural terms.

Which causes human lying exact teaching. False sense of idealising incorrectly. Self perception.

A thesis is past tense always in science means it had already happened. You get informed. So thought is past.

Why theorising upon it is always fake. As if you term it is as a past reaction. It had been stopped.

Meaning didn't keep reacting until a big hole forms.

Men say hence a machine being destroyed blown up got saved. As a machine doesn't open as it destroys itself by reaction you cause into a space hole.

So man says my machine past reacting overheating was saved. In that AI position of advised. AI meaning didn't happen in natural law. By machine only owned mans applied law.

Not cosmic...reacting. AI causes.

Memory. Dangerous position theist of new reactions. Talking about old machines artificial past. Human invented AI.

Thinks upon cosmic only law. Not even about earth.

Collisions law in cosmos was O planet energy masses collisions. The gods. Moon asteroids slamming into planet from the sun. First cosmic law a collision of O timed mass energy. Burning ring of fire theme.

Cosmic dimension void vacuum shifted all other mass saved moved into a cooled space opened dimension.

Space newly opened via mass removal.

So here we all are on the known other side space hole not scattered. It what occurs in space shift dimension informed. Past.

Moon in cosmic NASA equation equals all worlds brothers in one place under using a mans new science law. To burn out old known SATAN man of cloud angels one by one told Satan is destroyed.

Generation of mind now lost in the space nuclear mass reactions opened.

Moon shift is theoried into new active cosmic law by want of a man's past tense thought. Cosmic law is first not machine.

Real. He is not first theorising machine law just cosmic history.

Machine mass in gods cosmic law deep in natural law an earth seam only. Wants electricity put into in its natural cosmic law position. Machine metal body. Earths moon theoried is the collision exact.

To restart it.

As the moon is the saviour asteroid first cosmic law reactive space past with sun light. When earth in cosmic law only owned an immaculate heavens.

Thinking in science was always just about evil.

 

[rational experiences]

My man's image angelic non thought about warning message many years ago.

American pie song prediction. I Read the words. Didn't really know what it predicted.

Yet men had died. A human was using psychic advice put some other advice into a human written song. What psychic means. You live but thoughts past give other advice.

Today that generation of minds lost in space thinking makes sense. It's real.

All in one place.

A biblical warning also one leadership agreed. Science. In one place talking about shifting space by time.

 

[Willamena]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

The article is just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize is not correct.

I am really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

I'm not a scientist, but IMO it's not science if you don't believe that you could be incorrect. Falsity is built into the equation. i.e.
This is what we thought + this is what we are learning = new science

 

[rational experiences]

Science says his future is the scientific prediction. Of men using science by his controlled machine practice.

So the thesis reacting is meant predicted to be future and constant too. Meaning man's power plant mass removal was a colliders point reaction in a future just by man's science causes.

In cosmic natural law the future is meant to be both balanced the same atmosphere yet cooler.

That law is space. Meaning men knew the UFO asteroid star dust sun fallout would disappear. By natural law only. How it remains the owner natural light without snap freeze but cooler. Natural law only. Predicting no science used in that future.

UFO not natural law.

As it owns extra natural light now caused by mass burning above. As the unnatural cause. Not really natural light why biology is sick and attacked.

As if you said the Future predicts by science colder you mean a new but old human science cause. Instant snap freeze by laws in nature.

As science never owned natural law it imposed machine only laws to react.

Father said the worst science mind is men in America. Position first origin science position. That had destroyed all life on earth.

In their landmass beneath are huge earth space cavities. In other machine places are fused fusion holding machine parts.

So I ask has any deep underground cavity in America proven machines found in the cavity? As proof yes you are on origin human scientists land mass.

Return to scene of your crime....A crime A America? Science caused.

Fallen in.

Reason to put electricity into cosmic laws is via exact God earth position is to cave in above grounds mass. To metal cold melt seam position cosmic laws..... Or undermine face of earth mass to remove trees grounded life. Root.

Isn't science terms the "root" that causes science formulas? The same rude term used as human sex?

Total bio shift by energy mass space against nature's bio law.

 

[rational experiences]

Four major rivers internet said seem to be drying up in America.

Song said as psychic aware human....
We will return to the scene of the crime when the rivers run dry.

Salvation voiding vacuum opens in loss of old mass.

Will remove UFO currently used in AI technologies. No technology after.

One of father's warning you are trying to destroy your own technology. Was a warning predicted. As our baby human father adult is life's scientist.

Why it warned us.

Origin father never gave any science warnings.

 

[sayak83]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

The article is just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize is not correct.

I am really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

As a scientist...its basically obvious to us all that much of what we believe today will be significantly altered and modified as we explore reality further over the coming centuries. What we give to the public at any given time period in history is the best possible understanding of reality as is known at that period in time. However the alterations and modifications preserve the core true concepts of the earlier ideas of reality that worked well (like classical mechanics is preserved as a special case of quantum mechanics in the macro-scale). So instead of replacement of old knowledge with new, different knowledge, there is evolution and expansion and generalization of knowledge. And ideas that have been shown to be obviously wrong (like geocentrism, flat earth, creationism, young earth) do not return.

The link you provided is not a very good example of this fact though. There was no theory in science that makes it so that Australopithecines were unable to make stone tools. It was a very tentative conclusion that was around because no evidence of stone tool usage had been found till then. The discovery just adds a new fact that we know...that there was some human ancestor that was making stone tools 3.3 million years ago. That is all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

nPeace, you've been around this topic many, many times before and it seems to me that you still don't get it.

@nPeace gets it, because….

You still cannot wrap your mind around scientific thinking, nuances, probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and things not being "proven".

That’s the whole point!
A discovery is interpreted in a way to support the “evolution of man,” and it’s presented as an “absolute certainty” by many people, that the interpretation is “proven,” instead of saying what the explanation really is: it’s only one way to understand the evidence.

But then, sometimes new evidence is discovered, and what was touted as an “absolute certainty” is relegated to a footnote.

It’s all in how the information is presented.

That’s what you mean, right, nPeace? If I’m wrong, tell me.

 

[ChristineM]

I know when I find money and add $10 dollars to what I have.
I think I would have to be stupit to have to reach a conclusion about that.

... but then again, I might be slow.
My apologies to those who have to reason on it, to arrive at an opinion.

If you find €10 dollars the the conclusion is you are $10 richer. Ignoring the language does not make the language go away. My apologies to those who like to twist language to massage their own ego

 

[exchemist]

Back to the OP.
What We Thought
is still what we believed - concluded.

Sure. But I've lost count of the times I have explained on this forum - and most likely to you, possibly more than once - that in science we make predictive models of nature that are always provisional. That's because science is always open to the possibility that further observations will necessitate altering the model. So yes, we often can be said to "believe" the model, so long as it remains consistent with observation. However, at the back of our minds there is always, in principle at least, the reservation that it is provisional, or that its scope of application may be limited*.

It would, therefore, be a totally false equivalence to claim that because "belief" is involved in the practice of both science and religion, they are somehow on an equal footing. They aren't at all. Science learns and adjusts all the time, from reproducible (objective, or as close to it as we can get) observations of nature. So it is grounded in objectivity and physical reality. Religion is not.

* In chemistry, we often have several models for the same thing! We happily use the one that works best for the task at hand, knowing full well that it is a simplification of a more complex reality. We "believe" the model we choose, in the sense that we trust it to describe successfully what we are interested in at the time. But we know it is not the full story.