Is faith the backbone of Science?

[Guy Threepwood]

but this is exactly the opposite of what the scientific method does and certainly doesnt accurately describe science in general. So, what's your point here?

 

[Darkstorn]

^^ That doesn't invalidate his argument, nor does it defend your claim.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In your other post you were just name dropping, with no clue what any of those individuals thinks about science.

"science is a very subjective concept"

You are hyperbolizing. The scientific method is not very subjective, there are a few gray areas, but for the most part it is explicitly defined. But I understand that people like you want it to be "very subjective", as then you don't have to put forth the effort to learn it, and you can then pretend you know it as well as someone who did invest that time and effort.

"that's why you can even take a course in it"

I think you should take advantage of that aspect.[

"My point is that practical results are the best objective measure of scientific "

Now you are engaging in a straw-man, your argument up to now has been that science is based on faith, that was your point.

I think you are confusing me with another poster.

My point is that faith is NOT the backbone of science, which is why it has such a poor track record

 

[Darkstorn]

which is why it has such a poor track record

That's a subjective assessment elevated to the level of fact. An unfair and dishonest argument.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

^^ That doesn't invalidate his argument, nor does it defend your claim.

These were all presented in an attempt to support a predetermined conclusion.

The larger point being, that we all have beliefs, and that's fine, as long as we acknowledge them as such- aka faith, we can question them.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself, this does a great disservice to science

 

[metis]

And when you post trash like the above, do you really think we're so ignorant as to swallow it?

BTW, Lucy was not a chimpanzee, plus "Nebraska Man" was not accepted as anything but an early hypothesis, and "Piltdown Man" was a hoax almost a century old that rest-assuredly could not be pulled off like that again.

Basically, you seriously diminish your own position by posting such nonsensical positions that's supported only by garbage.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think you are confusing me with another poster.

My point is that faith is NOT the backbone of science, which is why it has such a poor track record

"I think you are confusing me with another poster."

I reviewed our conversation and no, I am not. You just seem to switch your position around whenever one falls out from under you. You are inconsistent in your meanings and arguments.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's a subjective assessment elevated to the level of fact. An unfair and dishonest argument.

It's my argument, my position, my belief yes, I'm not the one declaring facts. Declaring something as inherently speculative and remotely reconstructed as 'evolution' as undeniable fact, is the problem I am talking about which leads to such blunders as in the chart.

We have to be open to, happy even to be proved wrong,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"I think you are confusing me with another poster."

I reviewed our conversation and no, I am not. You just seem to switch your position around whenever one falls out from under you. You are inconsistent in your meanings and arguments.

If I said science was based on faith, I concede my mistake, that's certainly not the point I was making. Where did I say that by the way?

 

[leibowde84]

This is a great example of what you were complaining about. Making an assumption (that evolution is false) and cherrypicking things that support your assumption, ignoring all other evidence. This is exactly the opposite of what science employs. You proved my point.

Here's a bit on Ken Holvind.

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist and tax protester. He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement and his ministry focuses on attempting to convince listeners to deny scientific theories in fields including biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. He has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If I said science was based on faith, I concede my mistake, that's certainly not the point I was making. Where did I say that by the way?

Ya I have seen that trick before, you now want to turn this into an argument of semantics.

 

[Darkstorn]

Declaring something as inherently speculative and remotely reconstructed as 'evolution' as undeniable fact, is the problem I am talking about which leads to such blunders as in the chart.

But evolution has been shown to be fact through evidence.

It's an ages old creationist agenda-fueled foolish inane mistake to assume that evolution is the exact same thing as the theory of evolution. Evolution is NOT theory, it's fact. Theory of evolution is the theory supporting the facts... ;D

We have to be open to, happy even to be proved wrong,

You have been... Evidenced wrong. That good enough? Proof being the realm of mathematics...

Evolution is fact, and your disagreement with this fact doesn't change reality around you one bit.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ya I have seen that trick before, you now want to turn this into an argument of semantics.

I don't think you are dishonest or trying to trick me Jeremiah, you seem like a perfectly honest intelligent person to me, at the very least that assumption usually makes for a more interesting discussion than mud slinging

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But evolution has been shown to be fact through evidence.

It's an ages old creationist agenda-fueled foolish inane mistake to assume that evolution is the exact same thing as the theory of evolution. Evolution is NOT theory, it's fact. Theory of evolution is the theory supporting the facts... ;D



You have been... Evidenced wrong. That good enough? Proof being the realm of mathematics...

Evolution is fact, and your disagreement with this fact doesn't change reality around you one bit.

well few things are more subjective and less reliable than facts!

Case in point. The laws of classical physics were once declared so factual they were utterly 'immutable' and they were far more directly testable, observable, i.e. 'scientific' than evolution.

Likewise the universe was declared static and the idea of a beginning was so impossible as to be declared 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'big bang'


Do you think it was a complete coincidence, that Planck and Lemaitre were skeptics of atheism, men of faith? it was their faith, their skepticism of 'facts' that allowed science to progress.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

These were all presented in an attempt to support a predetermined conclusion.

The larger point being, that we all have beliefs, and that's fine, as long as we acknowledge them as such- aka faith, we can question them.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself, this does a great disservice to science

Truth does not exist in science, just scientifically significance results which are used to make approximations or estimates of truth; nothing is ever final. I don't know how you could view that as "blind" faith. I mean they are still trying to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity after over 90 years.

 

[leibowde84]

We have to be open to, happy even to be proved wrong,

This describes science well. So, I'm not sure how it helps your argument. Scientists constantly try to disprove theories posed by others. The whole idea of science is to never accept without verification.

 

[leibowde84]

well few things are more subjective and less reliable than facts!

Case in point. The laws of classical physics were once declared so factual they were utterly 'immutable' and they were far more directly testable, observable, i.e. 'scientific' than evolution.

Likewise the universe was declared static and the idea of a beginning was so impossible as to be declared 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'big bang'


Do you think it was a complete coincidence, that Planck and Lemaitre were skeptics of atheism, men of faith? it was their faith, their skepticism of 'facts' that allowed science to progress.

Faith is complete trust or confidence in something. Scientists constantly try to disprove theories put forth by others, never taking them as 100% correct.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Faith is complete trust or confidence in something. Scientists constantly try to disprove theories put forth by others, never taking them as 100% correct.

He is just playing a game of semantics.

 

[sayak83]

There must be a point here somewhere...

Maybe it runs like this,
It is possible to convincingly forge art and historical artifacts or misidentoify authorship
10 Most Incredible Forgeries (forgery, fake, art) - ODDEE

Therefore human civilization began in the 20th century and all artifacts of history prior to that are clever forgeries yet to be exposed.

I see, that makes sense..

 

[Darkstorn]

well few things are more subjective and less reliable than facts!

It's not this simple. Technically, theory is more important than fact for the purpose of science. Anyone can observe and feel gravity for example. Gravity, and it existing, it being observable, and it being falsifiable is accepted. It's fact. Then there's the theory of gravitation...

Same for evolution, we can observe it, we can try to falsify it, we can test it, etc. It's both within the framework of accepted science, as per scientific method, and strong enough to be considered fact.

The theory supporting it MIGHT be flimsy. But even then, PROBABLY not as flimsy as you would like to imagine it to be.

Case in point. The laws of classical physics were once declared so factual they were utterly 'immutable' and they were far more directly testable, observable, i.e. 'scientific' than evolution.

No they weren't. You're again mistaking the theory, laws and hypotheses to the actual observed... Phenomena. Laws, by definition, are not facts.

We have to use accepted definitions, otherwise your entire argument is pointless.

Evolution is equally directly testable, observable and as scientific as gravitation.

Let me ask you this: Do you accept "microevolution"?

Likewise the universe was declared static and the idea of a beginning was so impossible as to be declared 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'big bang'

Who declared it static?

Do you think it was a complete coincidence, that Planck and Lemaitre were skeptics of atheism, men of faith? it was their faith, their skepticism of 'facts' that allowed science to progress.

Being skeptical of facts is folly, on logical terms alone...

You can be skeptical of the mechanics, theories, laws, etc trying to support the facts. Evolution is fact. The mechanisms governing it, theory. And it's still more than what some people try to reduce it to.