|
Is really science true??
|
|
Not to bash on scientist or anything but i always questioned science and everything people believe in. I consider science as a believed truth, because it just so happen to always be changing, and no one can seriously prove it. I mean like in an experiment, a theory can be proven true when experimented with, but will it always be the same?? It can just so happen to be the same, it can also just seem like that. I mean there that whole evolution vs. religion thing and no one can really prove either one. I'm a very religious person who also believes in science, but only to a certain point where i can question the actual being. I know everyone's gonna be like 'heck your crazy' but i would just like to hear others opinions on the matter. if there is an issue... i just comfused myself.
kisu kisu
|
|
Re: Is really science true??
Link |
by
on 2006-03-06 19:50:37 (edited 2006-03-06 19:51:42)
|
|
I will not move this to another topic, even though the question is in violation of the topic rules. Questioning what others believe, in addition to curiosity, is the basis of the scientific discipline. The words truth, proof, and theory are ways we use to express a level of certainty. Nobody can be 100% certain of anything. However, when I drop a book, i am 99.9999999999% sure it will drop to the floor, and not fall up to the ceiling. Maybe God will cause a miracle, and it will float. Maybe a hurricane will suck my roof off when i drop the book, and suck the book up out the top of my house. I suggest you research the philosophical implications of Radical Skepticism. Anyway, to answer your question: Yes. Science is correct. 99.99999999% of the time. When we notice science is wrong in one case, such as quantum mechanics and special relativity, new theories are born. Many scientific theories change a lot over the course of history. However, there are several theories that are very VERY (99.999999999%) unlikely to change. For example, the origin of species. This problem has been solved so completely that it would be inconcevable to have any evidence against it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism 
|
|
Re: Is really science true??
|
|
I choose to believe that scientific theories devised by human minds are true, as I choose not to follow any religious teachings. Even though I acknowledge the fact that there may be a god/gods in some form or another, I choose not to follow these teachings as I find the freedom to learn and think in my own way without the constrictions of religious beliefs. Although I am not saying their is anything wrong with belieiving the teachings of any form of religion, as I was raised in religious surroundings and I have experienced a christian life, but I prefer the 'unrestricted' way of thinking that is allowed through science. The choice to 'not believe in science' is a very broad topic to talk about, as everything we see, smell, taste, feel, hear and think is based upon a scientific universe that no matter what some people may believe, is fixed to certain parameters, and as for science always changing, science isn't always changing, the theories behind science is what are always changing, as the human mind is not yet capable of contemplating every aspect of the universe, and as new things are learned, peoples opinions towards the universe change. I believe that the way we think and do things at this minute in time is affected by everything we have experienced in our life, even the small things for example, when you snap a pencil at primary school, will affect the way you think, and how you percieve things for the rest of your life, and since the brain is full of what could be called 'logical imperfections' each persons view on a single theory is differant and that is why 'science' always seems to be changing. Even though you say that 'god' may cause a miracle and make the book float, I think that the human mind creates unbelievable theories like this for incidents that it cannot explain, for example, in medieval times, if a woman as caught talking to an animal, she was accused of bieng a witch, merely because those accusing could not understand why she was talking to an animal. and rainbows bieng magic, up until the point where the creation of rainbows was understood. Unfortunatly, science can take the fun out of everyday mysteries, but the only way for us to advance as a civilisation is to accept scientific facts (not the teories) as the truth, and to cast off the belief that things happene because of some 'magic' or 'divine reason'. Unfortunatly for me and you, that last post was a mess, and had no structure to it, so my apologies in advance before you all have a go at me (^-^)  |
Hiroshi-sama |
Re: Is really science true??
|
|
Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings admiring, asking and observing, there we enter the realm of Art and Science. Science is simply the understanding of everything we as humans are capable of studying. "ALL" religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree, so dont think you have to pick a religion over science or vice versa. Science is based on fact, so no matter where you are or what you are doing 1 + 1 will always be 2 and even if you died it wouldnt change and is a fact of our very lives, you yourself are a product of the natural world, but science is really nothing complicated at all, its just how things work, of course things change but what you are probably thinking is the theoretical things that cannot be proven by means that will appeal to our senses, or probability. However, science is an extremely general term to describe the numerous subjects that come out of it, so in OUR understanding, yes the basic laws of the universe are unchanging, but you may be thinking about undeterminal things, like eventually a wooden desk will rot away, but as you see it now, it does not look as if it is changing at all. Everyone was born with their own limits, but some of us have tried to make sense of something beyond what we are capable of understanding and there forms religions and theorys. "Most scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well. This article concentrates on the more specific definition. Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, the application of research to human needs. Fields of science may also be classified along two major lines: Experiment, the search for first-hand information, versus theory, the development of models to explain what is observed Natural science, the study of the natural phenomena, versus social science, the study of human behaviour and society." -Wikipedia
Those who think they know everything annoy those who actually do.
|
|
Re: Is really science true??
|
|
Origin of species is one of those theories that is 99.9999999% true? I am guessing that you are referring to Darwin's book "Origin of Species". I would posit that there are some contradictions to his research. Example- the bacterial flagellum motor's development, that opposes Darwin's theory of natural selection. I agree with you that there are, for the most part, scientific principles that are beyond proving wrong because there is so much evidence. There are many such scientific principles that have that level of certitude(99.9999%), but I would like to see what you think about that bacterial flagellum motor thing that I mentioned earlier in light of Darwin's theory of natural selection. He makes some good points, but not all are as valid as they appeared to be 100 years ago. I originally just challenged you putting Darwin's theories in the same category as the laws of thermodynamics or the law of gravity. But, I changed it around because I read that I am not allowed to argue or complain with the administrator (I didn't realize at first that it was the Gendou the great that had said that), so I restated my post to just see what your opinion on the matter was, and that I think it is interesting at least. So, if you have any comment on it,(I assume that you know about it already, but if not I can provide a link or at least some info)I would like to hear it. I thought you might already know about it because you seem pretty slick with science stuff. Your physics posts show that you either are a huge fan or a professor. P.S. if there was anything wrong with my post, like if I appeared to argue with you or anything, please tell me how you would have wanted me to change my post Gendou. Thanks again for the forum. as for the "middle ages=superstitious peasants who opposed science" argument of hiroshi-sama, I would like to ask where "science" as we know it began? and where were the first great centers of science? And, what is the source of all these examples that people cite about the way people behaved in the middle ages? Monty Python movies are not historical documentries. |
|
Re: Is really science true??
Link |
by
on 2006-03-08 13:19:59 |
|
Obviously, Darwin's theory as presented in Origin of Species has been completely outdated by Genetics. I posit that his theory was neither complete NOR wrong. Don't worry about arguing with me in this topic, Physics is a free zone! :) I think that the following laws can be said very very unlikely to ever change: 1. Earth life forms all share a common ancestor. 2. Earth life forms use nucleic acids to pass on heredity. 3. Mutations in the base sequences cause mutations, and the accumulation of mutations explains all variations of life. ... and so on, very much like the laws of thermodynamics. Monty Python movies are not historical documentries. omg! i had no idea. :P
|
|
Re: Is really science true??
|
|
aaaaagh. First of all, lets not make a blanket statement like "science isn't true". I don't know of anyone who would say such a thing. I mean, you drive a car, watch tv, use a computer, all these are products of science. Plus, it makes you sound crazy if you say that you don't believe in science. You can say that you disagree with the certitude of some conclusions and theories, but that is totally different from disbelieving the body of knowledge we call science. Also, lets not bring religion into the discussion. It only convolutes the arguments. Nothing against religion in general, just about bad "fideistic" responses to situations. As a general rule, you should use logic to answer questions of logic and science, and faith to answer questions of faith. Your faith (if you have some in any religion) should be the overriding principle of your life, but it should never turn off your ability to use reason and logic, and it should not be used as a replacement for reason. Again, I am not trying to critique anyone, I am just trying to keep the forum from becoming "god vs. science", because that is just cheesey. And, I am sure that Gendou would appreciate if we keep to the subject of science, and not digress too far from the topic at hand. I am sure that some "religion" topic would be more appropriate for religious arguments on things.(if one does exist on here, I haven't checked) anyway, I think that Gendou simplified the principles of evolution to their most basic level. That is the way to argue, from facts and clearly stated principles. I may in fact disagree with the final principle, but only on the basis that it would have to be "un-packed", because there is alot there and I don't know exactly what he asserts in that statement. Nevertheless, he argues his point very clearly. I think that it would be much easier if everybody patterned their posts similarly. |
|
Re: Is really science true??
|
|
the claim of biblical inerrancy, ok, I won't touch that. That is a religious matter. As for the bible being a science textbook, I don't think I have ever heard anybody assert that. The one thing I will say is that it does say that God created everything. I don't think that that part of the bible is meant to be taken literally. So, out side of a few things that it asserts, it doesn't speak much of science. I don't think that the writers of the bible (I will even accomadate it being written by God through humans so that I can make my point)meant for it to be a source of scientific knowledge, but all things necessary for people to go to Heaven. Am I right? is there a bible passage that contradicts my theory? if not, then using the bible to prove any kind of scientific fact in a physics forum seems kind of futile, however well intentioned it may be. Do you see my point. as for Gendou's synthesis of the nature of the origins of diverse species, I will have to think about that. I personally think that his answer was a bit too simple, but, at least in the ball park. I don't think that he intended that to be his most complete answer, but, he has pushed me to read and learn more on the subject(which is always cool). And, I think that Science is a boon to society, but just demands alot of responsiblity from individuals and communities. |
|
Re: Is really science true??
|
| is science true? come on we have gone from using tools made out of stone to computers and robots and yet we still aske this question? of course science is true. it doesn't mean all theories and hypothesis are true. theories are theoreis just ideas not 100% accepted. as for evolution critics, I say sure ok so you say is not then what other theory do you offer, it's easy to say "it's not true" but to truly be able to say that you must offer some prove or something countering. |
|
Re: Is really science true??
Link |
by
on 2006-03-14 20:19:42 |
|
WARNING religion is not to be used in the Physics topic. violators of this rule will be banned.
|