What We Thought

[Mock Turtle]

So, what is it correcting? What is the previous understand called - a fact, belief, or something else?

Usually it's called a theory, or even hypothesis, and even if this works and is useful to us, such is usually open to be challenged and revised. That is the advantage of using reason, rationality, and evidence when pursuing science. Shame such is less likely to be used when investigating and/or accepting religious beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

So, what is it correcting? What is the previous understand called - a fact, belief, or something else?

It is correcting or refining a hypothesis, theory or model. Not a fact. The facts, in science, are the observations (suitably corroborated) of nature on which these are based and against which they are tested.

Goodness me, this really is not hard. I don't understand why you are labouring so much over it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's an example of how one learns more and how one's models get more accurate as more evidence is discovered.

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

What else did you expect?
Scientists, anybody really, can only paint a picture as good as the available evidence allows.

Additional evidence may consolidate your picture or it may force you to tweak it to accommodate for this new evidence. But even when it is in line with your picture / model / theory / whatevs, still new evidence will add additional data / detail.

It's called learning. Very often, when one learns something, it is by finding out that what one previously thought or expected was incorrect.

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.

It implies progress and learning. It implies that science as a quest to zero in on truth while never assuming you've reached the truth, works as a method of inquiry to get to ever more accurate answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't understand.
An unquestionable assumption is not a belief?
If there is no proof for an _______, is it not a belief?

What are you talking about. What "unquestionable assumption" are you referring to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you believe that religion "in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself"?

Do you read this forum?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Why do you think it is so important to call it a belief?

I smell a semantic argument and / or a false equivalence coming up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Goodness me, this really is not hard. I don't understand why you are labouring so much over it.

I do.

It's a desperate attempt to discredit science in order to try and drag it down to their own level of religious make-belief, so that they can then claim that religious beliefs are "just as good" as scientific "beliefs" because "it's just a different way of looking at the evidence".

I'ld say it's very telling.

 

[exchemist]

I do.

It's a desperate attempt to discredit science in order to try and drag it down to their own level of religious make-belief, so that they can then claim that religious beliefs are "just as good" as scientific "beliefs" because "it's just a different way of looking at the evidence".

I'ld say it's very telling.

Hmm, I did wonder if it was all an elaborate attempt to get scientists to admit to believing things, so that some sort of false equivalence could be asserted, hence the way I phrased my initial response.

The proposition: "Both scientists and religious people believe things, therefore science and religion are equivalent" doesn't bear a moment's examination, obviously.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Well, I'm content to let scientists decide for themselves what they can and can't study and investigate.

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.

This is kind of what I was getting at.

Sure, the Bible does "answer" those questions, but how does it do so? It does so via revelation from a god to a religious authority, which is then written down, put into a book, and then preached to people by authorities.

Contrast that with how science attempts to answer questions, namely via collection and analysis of data, from which conclusions are drawn. Then all of that is written into papers that describe each step of the process in painstaking detail. The papers are published for anyone to read, and if anyone finds an error or flaw then can write the journal and/or authors so the mistake can be corrected.

Further, in religion the revelations from the gods, once received, are typically considered to be absolute and unchangeable.

But in science, as your OP evinces, all conclusions are considered tentative and open to potential revision.

Pretty different processes, eh?

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

That's a good question. I can see how some folks who are more used to religious environments and religious ways of thinking could project some of that onto science. I can also see how some in science can get a bit full of themselves and start to act in ways similar to religious authorities.

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

Depending on the religion and the topic, they most certainly do. The evolution vs. creationism battles are a prominent example.

So back to the main point....as I described above, science and religion do have very different ways of reaching conclusions (revelation vs. analysis), and they treat those conclusions very differently (absolute vs. tentative). I think those fundamental differences are what's behind threads like these. Some religious folks apply the expectations of religion onto science, and are baffled when they see science not working the way they expect.

The OP is a good example. It seems to carry the expectation that when a scientist reaches a conclusion about something (e.g., first tool use in hominids), that conclusion is akin to a revelation from a religious authority where it's set in stone, is forever true, and is not open to questioning or revision. So when scientists collect more data and revise their previous conclusions as a result, the person looking at it all through a religious lens sees that as some sort of fundamental flaw, when in reality it's simply how science works.

That's why so many replies to the OP boil down to people saying "That's how science works".

Make sense?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Please provide a specific example.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please provide a specific example.

Take your pick of any superseded scientific theory. There have been quite a few:
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
These were not hypotheses, they were accepted.
I agree with you on most religions’ absolutes on their dogma, in many cases that is inappropriate. For Christians and others who adhere to the Bible, they should keep in mind Proverbs 4:18 “..the path…shines brighter & brighter.” Which means IMO that understanding was ‘darker’ in the past, than now.
That reasoning can fit any field of human knowledge, too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Take your pick of any superseded scientific theory. There have been quite a few:
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
These were not hypotheses, they were accepted.

But that's not what you claimed. We all agree that science has revised and even discarded some theories.

Your claim was that there are discoveries regarding human evolution that "are presented as an “absolute certainty” by many people, that the interpretation is “proven,”".

So again, please show a specific example of a discovery relating to human evolution that was presented as an absolute certainty and the interpretation of which was depicted as "proven".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take your pick of any superseded scientific theory. There have been quite a few:
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
These were not hypotheses, they were accepted.
I agree with you on most religions’ absolutes on their dogma, in many cases that is inappropriate. For Christians and others who adhere to the Bible, they should keep in mind Proverbs 4:18 “..the path…shines brighter & brighter.” Which means IMO that understanding was ‘darker’ in the past, than now.
That reasoning can fit any field of human knowledge, too.

Most of those were not even scientific theories. That was why he asked for a specific example.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Most of those were not even scientific theories. That was why he asked for a specific example.

Tell Wikipedia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that's not what you claimed. We all agree that science has revised and even discarded some theories.

Your claim was that there are discoveries regarding human evolution that "are presented as an “absolute certainty” by many people, that the interpretation is “proven,”".

So again, please show a specific example of a discovery relating to human evolution that was presented as an absolute certainty and the interpretation of which was depicted as "proven".

He may be irritated because he disapproves of human evolution being a scientific fact. Facts can be refuted. But that occurs very rarely. And scientific facts are almost never refuted. Creationists want to use the concept of "proven" in the mathematical sense which is rather hypocritical when one is following a faith based belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell Wikipedia.

Did Wikipedia say that those were scientific theories? It is rather clear that they were using that word in the colloquial sense.

 

[Jose Fly]

He may be irritated because he disapproves of human evolution being a scientific fact.

Well, for Jehovah's Witnesses human common ancestry with anything is non-negotiable. It's a line in the sand that they absolutely will not cross under any circumstances.

That's why I liken showing evidence of human/primate common ancestry to a JW (or fundamentalist Christian or Muslim) to offering an Orthodox Jew a ham sandwich. In both cases, your audience is fundamentally opposed to what you're offering.

Facts can be refuted. But that occurs very rarely. And scientific facts are almost never refuted. Creationists want to use the concept of "proven" in the mathematical sense which is rather hypocritical when one is following a faith based belief.

IMO, it's a defense mechanism. By holding things they don't believe in to a standard of absolute proof, while simultaneously knowing that's not how science works, they can always maintain a safe fallback position if things go bad in a debate. When all else fails, they can just say "But you have no proof" and feel secure that their beliefs are safe and intact.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But that's not what you claimed. We all agree that science has revised and even discarded some theories.

Your claim was that there are discoveries regarding human evolution that "are presented as an “absolute certainty” by many people, that the interpretation is “proven,”".

So again, please show a specific example of a discovery relating to human evolution that was presented as an absolute certainty and the interpretation of which was depicted as "proven".

It wasn’t my intent to apply that tactic narrowly, to apply it to interpretations of discoveries of only human evolution…. but that is how my post came across.

Well, off the top of my head, I would use the example of Piltdown Man.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years.” Over 40, to be exact. But then, it was corrected…so, hurray!

But until that time came in 1953, it was considered “proof” by many. Especially British scientists of the time.

Somewhat similar with Nebraska Man?

 

[Jose Fly]

It wasn’t my intent to apply that tactic narrowly, to apply it to interpretations of discoveries of only human evolution…. but that is how my post came across.

Okay, I understand.

Well, off the top of my head, I would use the example of Piltdown Man.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years.” Over 40, to be exact. But then, it was corrected…so, hurray!

But until that time came in 1953, it was considered “proof” by many. Especially British scientists of the time.

Somewhat similar with Nebraska Man?

I've not seen any examples of scientists referring to either as an absolute certainty or their interpretation as having been proven. Do you have any?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Facts can be refuted

No, facts cannot be refuted. However, interpretations of those facts / evidence can.