Originally posted by Bosse de NageDid 'Columbus thought the Earth was flat' by the application of scientific method?
People often walk around with ready-made ideas about how things have been -- the Big Bang, dinosaurs, cave-men, and the rest -- without questioning whether these things are correct or not.
A good historical example would be 'Columbus thought the Earth was flat'.
The belief that ‘the Earth is flat' wouldn’t ever have been part of real science as the Earth cannot ever be scientifically proven to be flat via scientific method.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't think that is KJ's point, but his premise. His point is then that other theories are equally valid. So although his premise might be true, the conclusion is false because there are many different degrees of certainty between 'ironclad fact' and 'pure fiction'.
I think that's his point. Further few people are sufficiently aware of this -- most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science.
Correct me if I've misunderstood you, KJ.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonColumbus didn't think the Earth was flat. It's a myth used to illustrate the supposed ignorance of his times.
Did 'Columbus thought the Earth was flat' by the application of scientific method?
The belief that ‘the Earth is flat' wouldn’t ever have been part of real science as the Earth cannot ever be scientifically proven to be flat via scientific method.
Originally posted by PalynkaM'kay ...
I don't think that is KJ's point, but his premise. His point is then that other theories are equally valid. So although his premise might be true, the conclusion is false because there are many different degrees of certainty between 'ironclad fact' and 'pure fiction'.
Originally posted by FabianFnasAlso, the earth must be flat to see a tree in the center of it.
In the bible there are several passages that show that Earth is flat. To be a true christian, then you have to believe that the Earth is Flat in accordance of the bible.
Read and learn:
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a ...[text shortened]... in the Science Forum, but here in the Spiritual Forum. Because here the bible is the Truth.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAH dude,
[b]…most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science. …
Obviously, not all scientific theories are “proven” and, for those that are not proven, it would not be rational for a person to regard those theories as “scientific fact”. I can think of some such unproven theories that neither I nor most peo ...[text shortened]... believe that scientific fact because I can make measurements and observations to verify this.[/b]
I make my opinion clear: when I quoted that the scintific theories are not proven I meant that they always stand under constant cross-check. Science proceeds gradually seeking for concrete theories. Science does not act "in the name of the faith". The scientists have certain procedures regarding how they have to think instead of following blindly unproved axioms. The truth of KJ is based on a sacred book, therefore nothing is able to make him change his opinion. He is sure that his book says the truth, so he feels free to dismiss every fact that is against his faith. I don't stand for the theory of evolution due to my "faith" but because I checked on my own the facts. The scientific books are constantly checked by other scientists, and the possible errors are rectified; the sacred books are taboo.
That's why Thomas Jefferson said that "...all the priests are afraid of the evolution of the Science like the witches who are afraid of the down, and they are incensed at the inevitable announcement that forebodes the splintering of the sharp practice from which they live";
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage…Yet most people can't understand the proof so they have to take the scientists at their word. . …
Yet most people can't understand the proof so they have to take the scientists at their word.
Like it or not y'all are a bunch of techno-priests.
Correct. And, in this case, they have rational reason to take “scientists at their word” despite not understanding the proof simply because if they are wrong then modern technology wouldn’t work -it requires no “faith” to observe that modern technology generally works and then to rationally conclude from this that the scientists must know what they are talking about.
I don’t really fully understand how a TV works -does that mean I should conclude that electricians that do claim to know how it works and all the scientist that claim to know the physics behind it are all wrong just because I do not have the same level of understanding as they do? -I think that would be just pure arrogance on my part to assume that just because I don’t understand something somebody else understands that there is nothing there to understand.
Originally posted by Palynkargr that, Palynka;
I don't think that is KJ's point, but his premise. His point is then that other theories are equally valid. So although his premise might be true, the conclusion is false because there are many different degrees of certainty between 'ironclad fact' and 'pure fiction'.
Originally posted by PalynkaI should have put a 'lol' next to it.
You're making a similar mistake with the comment regarding 'faith belief' in scientific proofs and 'techno-priests'. It is not a binary choice between 'faith' and some fundamentalist notion of skepticism.
I was thinking about HG Wells' comment that given sufficient progress technology would be indistinguishable from magic. Also, I like the notion of techno-priests.
Originally posted by black beetleI totally agree with all of that 🙂
AH dude,
I make my opinion clear: when I quoted that the scintific theories are not proven I meant that they always stand under constant cross-check. Science proceeds gradually seeking for concrete theories. Science does not act "in the name of the faith". The scientists have certain procedures regarding how they have to think instead of following b ...[text shortened]... announcement that forebodes the splintering of the sharp practice from which they live";
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonPerhaps. It's possible the technology was discovered by accident and the conclusions derived from it false. X-rays were discovered by accident.
[b]…Yet most people can't understand the proof so they have to take the scientists at their word. . …
Correct. And, in this case, they have rational reason to take “scientists at their word” despite not understanding the proof simply because if they are wrong then modern technology wouldn’t work -it requires no “faith” to observe that modern ...[text shortened]... en to rationally conclude from this that the scientists must know what they are talking about. [/b]
You can make a lamp without fully understanding the properties of light. Just because 'computers work' doesn't mean there's nothing more to be discovered about particle physics.
It's immaterial -- you don't need faith in anything to live.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis is a completely wrong basis for belief. You do realize that the same argument could be said to justify things like astrology and cartomancy?
I don’t really fully understand how a TV works -does that mean I should conclude that electricians that do claim to know how it works and all the scientist that claim to know the physics behind it are all wrong just because I do not have the same level of understanding as they do? -I think that would be just pure arrogance on my part to assume that j ...[text shortened]... don’t understand something somebody else understands that there is nothing there to understand.
10 billion flies can be wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry. When you said
Columbus didn't think the Earth was flat. It's a myth used to illustrate the supposed ignorance of his times.
…A good historical example would be 'Columbus thought the Earth was flat'.. . …
I thought you meant that that statement was true! -but I didn’t want to point out the reason why it must be false because I didn’t want to get side-tract into explaining historical details which have absolutely nothing to do with what I wanted to say.