Neutral Science?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So basically in Science there is no absolute truth.

I hope more "Scientists" would realise this. Especially the ones that build their beliefs on "Science".

The vast majority of them do. This definition does not negate science's results in any way. In fact, it's purpose is to protect science from dogma.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So science cannot prove a presupposition?

No. It can only disprove one.

😀

LH

Originally posted by Palynka
The vast majority of them do. This definition does not negate science's results in any way. In fact, it's purpose is to protect science from dogma.

So why would you suggest that anybody should take 'Science' seriously if has no absolute truth?

Why would you suggest that many "scientists" go on defending the TOE as if it is an absolute truth? Don't you think there is a link to relgious belief involved? Don't you think the Creation vs Evolution debate would be non-existant if all the 'scientists' understood that 'science' has no absolute truth?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So why would you suggest that anybody should take 'Science' seriously if has no absolute truth?

Why would you suggest that many "scientists" go on defending the TOE as if it is an absolute truth? Don't you think there is a link to relgious belief involved? Don't you think the Creation vs Evolution debate would be non-existant if all the 'scientists' understood that 'science' has no absolute truth?

You are so banal and predictable. Why don't you replace "scientists" with "christians" and see what you come up with?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So why would you suggest that anybody should take 'Science' seriously if has no absolute truth?

Why would you suggest that many "scientists" go on defending the TOE as if it is an absolute truth? Don't you think there is a link to relgious belief involved? Don't you think the Creation vs Evolution debate would be non-existant if all the 'scientists' understood that 'science' has no absolute truth?

So why would you suggest that anybody should take 'Science' seriously if has no absolute truth?
That is EXACTLY why science can be taken seriously.

Why would you suggest that many "scientists" go on defending the TOE as if it is an absolute truth?
Not as an absolute truth, but as the almost certain truth.
It is a plausible explanation, consistent with a sufficient ammount of , can be proven wrong if eventually such evidence arises, etc... It has all the traits needed for a scientific theory.

Don't you think there is a link to relgious belief involved?
No, except if the link is cognitive dissonance by its opposers.

Don't you think the Creation vs Evolution debate would be non-existant if all the 'scientists' understood that 'science' has no absolute truth?
Yes, creationism is a claim for an absolute truth since it is not based on evidence therefore it should be clear to everyone that only evolution should be taught in science classes.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]So why would you suggest that anybody should take 'Science' seriously if has no absolute truth?
That is EXACTLY why science can be taken seriously.

Why would you suggest that many "scientists" go on defending the TOE as if it is an absolute truth?
Not as an absolute truth, but as the almost certain truth.
It is a plausible explanation ...[text shortened]... herefore it should be clear to everyone that only evolution should be taught in science classes.[/b]

That is EXACTLY why science can be taken seriously.

So you are saying that absolute truths should not be taken seriously?

Not as an absolute truth, but as the almost certain truth.


So you are saying that an "almost" certain truth should be taken more seriously than an absolute truth?

It is a plausible explanation, consistent with a sufficient ammount of , can be proven wrong if eventually such evidence arises, etc... It has all the traits needed for a scientific theory.

So what if the evidence is ignored which proves the theory is totally haywire? What if all the evidence which shows that the TOE is wrong is simply sidelined and tagged as 'pseudo-science'? What then? Does the TOE not then loose all the traits needed for a scientific theory?

Yes, creationism is a claim for an absolute truth since it is not based on evidence therefore it should be clear to everyone that only evolution should be taught in science classes.

Are you seriously saying that you have never seen the evidence of Creation?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Don't you think the Creation vs Evolution debate would be non-existant if all the 'scientists' understood that 'science' has no absolute truth?

Anyone who has study a field of science long enough to be called a scientist must understand that scientific knowledge is based solely on the method of discounting propositions until one is discovered that seeming cannot be discounted, and then using that proposition as the basis for further study, unless and until it is discounted. In essence, the tests prove a number of specific items that should be true if our general hypothesis is true. When none of the specific tests that we generate fail, we consider the hypothesis to be successful. A scientist, however, will expect and understand others to find more tests that can either add to the credibility of the theory, or knock it down and make room for a more accurate theory to be developed.

It is by this method that science itself evolves continually.

For example: A man named Newton developed a series of theories about how physical things interact, now known as Newtonian Physics. Those concepts have for the most part withstood the test of time, until we discovered that the rules change at very high speeds or very slow speeds. Utilizing the concept of relativity, we have been able to successfully model these more extreme situations with a consistent model.

The scientific method (the basis of all things appropriately labeled "science" ) demands this continual review process by its very definition. Hypothesize. Test. Upon failure, develop new hypotheses and test again. If a reasonable amount of testing shows no flaws, publish the results for others in the field to review.

This organized and methodical system of "building" knowledge has gotten us to the point that we are; before the scientific method was developed, technological process was at best a random and uncertain thing.

With theories such as evolution and the big bang theory, scientists are continually looking for new tests, applying those tests, and examining the results to see how the effect the theory. Because of this, it is appropriate for these theories to be among the others taught in science classrooms -- all theories of science are open to be disproved, and are continually be reviewed whenever something suggests the theory might have a flaw. Other theories include the atom, relativity, the nature of light and electricity.

Intelligent Design or creationism do not take part in this method of development and review...and therefore are inappropriate to be taught in a science classroom. Perhaps in some other part of school, but not in a class that is supposed to be teaching science.

Edit: removed a typo that caused a smiley instead of the punctuation I was looking for.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]That is EXACTLY why science can be taken seriously.

So you are saying that absolute truths should not be taken seriously?

Not as an absolute truth, but as the almost certain truth.


So you are saying that an "almost" certain truth should be taken more seriously than an absolute truth?

It is a plausible explanation, consisten ...[text shortened]... ence classes.

Are you seriously saying that you have never seen the evidence of Creation?[/b]

Yes! Yes! Yes! dj2 you finally seem to have gotten it. Absolute truth should, in fact, NOT be taken seriously. Anyone claiming to have/understand absolute truth has stopped looking for further truth and can therefore not be trusted.

Your faith in God, Jesus the resurection and everlasting life is not, no matter how intensely you believe it, absolute truth. It is absolutely your opinion and your belief but NOTHING MORE!

The concept of absolute truth is for the simple minded. People unable or unwilling to go through the very difficult (and often annoying) process of having to constantly change what they believe in light of new truths. This is the process by which one finds absolute truth and it works so long as you realise that the process will never be complete. This process is completely and totally consistent with my Christian beliefs, BTW, and can be with yours as well.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by Palynka
It's indifferent, you just gave those as examples.

I'm not going to pretend I have a full understanding of the maths or the physics behind Maxwell's equations but who's to say if they are impossible to improve? A GUT would surely introduce a new light on electromagnetism...

Certainly not, since any data collected for that GUT would rely heavily on Maxwell's equations, for example : reliance on the field strength in a particle accelerator is totally based on the equations, without that reliance, particle theories would be meaningless.

You do realize you are suggesting that a Grand Unifiedfield Theory is going change the mathematic relationships that define "field"?

[i] This process is completely and totally consistent with my Christian beliefs, BTW, and can be with yours as well.

TheSkipper[/b]

I agree with most of what you have said here, up until this line.

Can you elaborate on why/how this process of finding the (never-ending) "absolute" truth/s is "totally consistent" with your Christian beliefs?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]That is EXACTLY why science can be taken seriously.

So you are saying that absolute truths should not be taken seriously?

Not as an absolute truth, but as the almost certain truth.


So you are saying that an "almost" certain truth should be taken more seriously than an absolute truth?

It is a plausible explanation, consisten ...[text shortened]... ence classes.

Are you seriously saying that you have never seen the evidence of Creation?[/b]

Are you playing the question game again? I don't play it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for once.

So you are saying that absolute truths should not be taken seriously?
I'm saying that people who claim absolute truths should not be taken seriously.

So you are saying that an "almost" certain truth should be taken more seriously than an absolute truth?
Read above.

So what if the evidence is ignored which proves the theory is totally haywire?
We recognize the failure of the theory and seek to improve it. The scientific community has no heart-feelings, only individual cientists.

What if all the evidence which shows that the TOE is wrong is simply sidelined and tagged as 'pseudo-science'?
The consistence of the evidence towards the theory prevents it from always being pseudo-science. And this, alongside with the possibility of new evidence arising contrary to the theory are two of the essential points for considering a theory as scientific.

What then? Does the TOE not then loose all the traits needed for a scientific theory?
Depends. Probably it will need to be adapted to be consistent with the new evidence. If it's not possible, perhaps the new evidence will raise new possibilities.

Are you seriously saying that you have never seen the evidence of Creation?
If you put it with a capital C, then I the answer is a big NO.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Certainly not, since any data collected for that GUT would rely heavily on Maxwell's equations, for example : reliance on the field strength in a particle accelerator is totally based on the equations, without that reliance, particle theories would be meaningless.

You do realize you are suggesting that a Grand Unifiedfield Theory is going change the mathematic relationships that define "field"?

No, I'm saying "why not?"

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Yes! Yes! Yes! dj2 you finally seem to have gotten it. Absolute truth should, in fact, NOT be taken seriously. Anyone claiming to have/understand absolute truth has stopped looking for further truth and can therefore not be trusted.

Your faith in God, Jesus the resurection and everlasting life is not, no matter how intensely you believe it, absolute ...[text shortened]... totally consistent with my Christian beliefs, BTW, and can be with yours as well.

TheSkipper

Actually, science would be meaningless if it weren't searching for the absolute truth, if it did not already believe that such a truth existed.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, I'm saying "why not?"

read this and see why not :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Stopping the Progress of Science?

By Brad Rowland

The creation evolution controversy continues to heat up and stir debate; praise God for that. Several times a week I read articles appearing in the news stating that teaching creation in schools has a negative impact on “science.” Evolutionists assert that “If we allow creation to be taught, or even allow the review of the problems with evolutionary theory, we will be leaving our children and our nation unprepared for the future, because after all, isn’t this a debate between science and religion? Should we just teach religion in schools and go back to the dark ages? Should we allow the nations of the world to progress beyond us in science because of religious ignorance and Christian creation dogma”? This is an interesting argument, and if pursued properly could shed great light on how evolutionary teaching has done more to hold back the progress of science than to advance it.

This is lenghty....if you would like to see the rest go here....

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=566&mode=&order=0&thold=0