Viker
Häxan
Closest thing I can come up with is science misunderstood, science misrepresented and even pseudo-science. I could be wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is provable science?
- Thread starter Dan From Smithville
- Start date
When scientific theories are supersede, it's called scientific progress. When theologic doctrine is superseded, it's called heresy.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That explains why some people don't like science.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I suppose reproducible observations are considered facts and in a trivial sense provable, in that someone else can observe them for themselves, too.
But people who speak of theories being "proven" or "unproven" reveal themselves to be ignorant of science (- or in some cases engineers
).
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
— [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is a bit glib, though.
In politics people are ALWAYS changing their minds - though it's true that "I was mistaken" is not so often heard. Also in religion, there are a great many people who are not dogmatic and fixed in their ideas.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
We wouldn't have got to the moon without discarding wrong information.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
When scientific theories are supersede, it's called scientific progress. When theologic doctrine is superseded, it's called heresy.
Brilliant. I'm stealing that one!
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
A scientific theory something which is supported by the facts (Germ Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Atomic Theory etc.) I think the word 'hypothesis' is the word you are looking for.
I think I recognize who the source is, an extremely zealous creationist whose principle position is that nothing that contradicts scripture can be true, therefore the science is wrong. This person can't see any evidence, so when science contradicts creationism, it's wrong and nothin more than assumption and speculation. So, provable science means what can be demonstrated to this person, a person with a stake in not having this science proven to them.
What's interesting is that this creationist also can't tell if the science creationists don't challenge is correct - the so called proven science - since the creationist generally lacks the tools to think critically and understand and be convinced by a sound, compelling argument, but likes to give the impression that they actually engage in rational thought, too, and that reasonable things can be proven to them.
Never mind that they misuse the word prove however many times they are told that scientific theories aren't proved, just confirmed that they can unify observation with a narrative and make accurate predictions about outcomes using the theory.
So the who argument is nothing but a creationist with a head in the sand, trying to defend a false belief from a sea of contradictory evidence. The solution is to simply pretend it doesn't exist and pretend that the creationist could actually identify a compelling argument, nor even consider it seriously.
This is part of the larger game of trying to put religion on an equal footing with science by implying that religious people also use reason and science to come to their beliefs. They do this by massaging evidence after they have decided what is true before seeing it. They cherry pick whatever they think can support their argument such as, it is a well established principle in science that life never comes from non-life, one cannot add information to a genome with mutation, macroevolution has never been observed, and various other sciencey sounding proclamations.
This creationist wants you to believe that evidence was examined first and sound conclusions reached by applying valid reason to it, when no such thing happened or ever happens. The answer should be, "I reject the science because it contradicts my religious beliefs, and I reject any science that does that sight unseen." That would be honest. Instead, what we get is the implication that the creationist shares the rational skeptic's respect and appreciation for science, but this isn't good science. "It's unproven science."
The bad science creationist sites offer their believers cannot be critically evaluated by them. They just see what looks like science and feel better that they have science, too. Apologists on these threads don't know how weak their arguments are and how easily they are debunked by those skilled in evaluating such things, because who that they trust will tell them? Those apologetics are for Sunday school, not the marketplace of ideas in which skilled, informed debaters will immediately cease taking the poster seriously. But not knowing that, they bring it here anyway, and offer it as compelling, and then get frustrated when it is rejected. They don't know why. It was science, right?
For completeness, the other arm of this false equivalency between science and religion as a source of truth is to declare that science is all just faith anyway. That's what's being implied with the phrase 'proven science.' Scientists accepting the scientific account of biological evolution are doing so without the support of proven science, and are therefore also just repeating unsupported ideas. The attitude is, "We have science, too. You have faith, too. Even Steven. Your ideas are no better than ours."
Once again, that's not going to be very convincing to a seasoned critical thinker, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to convince the faithful that their beliefs are just as sound as the scientific ones contradicting them.
And when I get an infection from that hammer blow, it is proven to be caused by tiny organisms I cannot see?Provable science
Take a hammer, smack it in your own head, scientific proof would be pain and blood you should feel and see momentarely
PureX
Veteran Member
I suspect that to the person in question (in the OP) a theory is a hypothetical. And they aren't completely wrong, as in science all theories remain relatively hypothetical, even when they 'work' via experimentation.
Do you know for a fact that every time a person does this the result is pain and blood?Provable science
Take a hammer, smack it in your own head, scientific proof would be pain and blood you should feel and see momentarely
The natural world is the only thing we can test. We cannot test for the supernatural. If we can observe a phenomenon, we can come up with tests. If we can test it, we can try to devise explanations based on those observations and tests.
Anyone can come up with an explanation for something, no matter how fanciful, but are they any good as explanations?
Like the claim that getting hit with a hammer always ends in pain and blood. Claiming science has proven this, is not true. However, the evidence and science have convinced me that hitting myself in the head with a hammer is not a good idea. Since the likely outcome is not going to be pleasant.
Of course, I could put on a hard hat and then, no pain, no blood.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
But we can only see, test, and experience the natural world subjectively using our conscious minds. Philosophically, the opposite of Materialism is Idealism, which asserts that reality is inseparable from perception. Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world, while Idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness, as the basis of reality.
I think the hammer experiment previously mentioned is a good example of an experiment where the expected outcome would be pain and blood in nearly every instance. But there is always the chance, no matter how small, that it might not be. So even an event with an outcome of very high likelihood would remain unproven. Then of course, there are a multitude of variables to consider. What is the hammer made out of. How much force is used to wield the hammer. How thick is the skull to be hit. How thick is the hair on that head. Do they have helmet on? And so on.
LOL!But people who speak of theories being "proven" or "unproven" reveal themselves to be ignorant of science (- or in some cases engineers
OK. What is provable science in this context?
Explanations and conclusions are tentative and might change upon the discovery of new data. Some theories have stood up so well and for so long, that the new data would have to be very robust.