Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, I am not haggling over semantics. It is pointless.

So how do you understand words? How do you understand your OP question?

 

[nPeace]

I suspect my lifestyle is very similar to what it would be if I were religious.

Yes. I suspect you would choose a religion which allows you to live as you want.
For sure, it would not be SDA or JW.

People do that whether or not they follow the Bible (or any other religious text).

I think you are jumping all over the place.
We were talking about your claim that religion does not lead to knowledge.
Let's stick with that.
So you agree then that people gain knowledge in religion?

And how is it actually *religious* knowledge? It sounds to me like some of the common sense stuff you find everywhere.

Now what are you talking about?
You did not start off arguing against religious knowledge, but knowledge.
Your claim is that religion is not a path to knowledge. In other words, that one cannot gain knowledge from religion, and I don't believe you meant religious knowledge, although you are arguing against that also.

There are a lot of things people learned, when man believing in his common sense, was ignorant to.
These men are intellectuals, at that.
Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it.
.............
Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.

Superior "common sense" often prove to be nothing more than prideful arrogance, and common stupidity, as shown here.

Going back in history, we can find many words of advice that have to this day proved to be of practical value. These found mostly in the book of Proverbs - wise sayings - knowledge leading to wisdom.
It is in this book where this admonition was penned, and is viewed as as one of the earliest records on drunkenness... given by religious people, and found in a religious book... and adopted by many... and found to be factual.
Alcohol in the Bible - Wikipedia
The original versions of the books of the Bible use several different words for alcoholic beverages: at least 10 in Hebrew, and five in Greek. Drunkenness is discouraged and not infrequently portrayed, and some biblical persons abstained from alcohol. Wine is used symbolically, in both positive and negative terms. Its consumption is prescribed for religious rites or medicinal uses in some places.

Some of these words have overlapping meaning, particularly the words in the Hebrew language compared to the words in Koine Greek, the language of both the Septuagint and the New Testament. While some deuterocanonical books may have been originally written in Hebrew or the Aramaic language, some were written in Greek. Hence, the meanings of the words used for alcoholic beverages in each of these languages has bearing on alcohol in the Bible.

This is knowledge gained that helps one act wisely.

That is correct. The knowledge we gain has nothing to do with religion. And religion has no special knowledge it can convey. At least, that's how I see it.

How you see it is inaccurate, and seems evident to me, a closed minded bias.

No, I am saying that wisdom is different than knowledge. And that religion adds nothing to knowledge and very little to wisdom.

Opinion acknowledged.

Again, I do not believe there is a 'true religion'.

You are not alone in your belief, but that is not any special piece of information.

Seems beside the point (as well as false).

How is it besides the point or false? A river does not have a source?
You said basically that you see no value in religion.
One can simply deny the evidence that the river has a source.
The effects produced by true religion is evident, whether one chooses to accept it, or deny it.

I'm saying it is not special religious knowledge. It was derived from a different source.

I'm saying you can't prove that claim, and the fact is written in a religious book. It is knowledge gained by millions from a religious book.

And I see you as having the blinders on. To each their own.

I presented the facts to you.
Science is not a perfect system where no mistakes are made, and lessons learned (If they are considered) the hard way.
One who denies this is wearing the blinders.
It's when one closes their mind to what cannot be refuted, that we can say they are wearing blinders.
What facts have I denied? None that you presented.
So your accusation is nothing more than a claim that is empty. It's one of those, "Just say so" moments.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. I suspect you would choose a religion which allows you to live as you want.
For sure, it would not be SDA or JW.

No, I would choose a religion that I thought was true. That is the critical aspect.

I think you are jumping all over the place.
We were talking about your claim that religion does not lead to knowledge.
Let's stick with that.
So you agree then that people gain knowledge in religion?

No. What they gain is not knowledge.

Now what are you talking about?
You did not start off arguing against religious knowledge, but knowledge.
Your claim is that religion is not a path to knowledge. In other words, that one cannot gain knowledge from religion, and I don't believe you meant religious knowledge, although you are arguing against that also.

There is no knowledge that is specific to religion. If a religious text says that rain falls from the sky, that does not make it knowledge based on religion. It means that religion has co-opted the ordinary knowledge gains by observation.

There are a lot of things people learned, when man believing in his common sense, was ignorant to.
These men are intellectuals, at that.
Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it.
.............
Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.

Superior "common sense" often prove to be nothing more than prideful arrogance, and common stupidity, as shown here.

And how many times have people had 'common sense' that lead to bad consequences?

Going back in history, we can find many words of advice that have to this day proved to be of practical value. These found mostly in the book of Proverbs - wise sayings - knowledge leading to wisdom.
It is in this book where this admonition was penned, and is viewed as as one of the earliest records on drunkenness... given by religious people, and found in a religious book... and adopted by many... and found to be factual.
Alcohol in the Bible - Wikipedia
The original versions of the books of the Bible use several different words for alcoholic beverages: at least 10 in Hebrew, and five in Greek. Drunkenness is discouraged and not infrequently portrayed, and some biblical persons abstained from alcohol. Wine is used symbolically, in both positive and negative terms. Its consumption is prescribed for religious rites or medicinal uses in some places.

Some of these words have overlapping meaning, particularly the words in the Hebrew language compared to the words in Koine Greek, the language of both the Septuagint and the New Testament. While some deuterocanonical books may have been originally written in Hebrew or the Aramaic language, some were written in Greek. Hence, the meanings of the words used for alcoholic beverages in each of these languages has bearing on alcohol in the Bible.

Again, so what? It is common knowledge that is not specific to the Bible. That the religion took ordinary knowledge and wrote about it doesn't make it religious knowledge.

This is knowledge gained that helps one act wisely.

How you see it is inaccurate, and seems evident to me, a closed minded bias.

Opinion noted.

Opinion acknowledged.

But the truth of it denied?

You are not alone in your belief, but that is not any special piece of information.

Just as the knowledge gained from religious texts is not special knowledge.

How is it besides the point or false? A river does not have a source?

You are claiming a source for religion that is true. So point out that source.

You said basically that you see no value in religion.

Not completely true. It provides the basis for morality tales and myths. It can inspire art and literature. Those are good things.

One can simply deny the evidence that the river has a source.
The effects produced by true religion is evident, whether one chooses to accept it, or deny it.

The effects produced by *any* religion are evident in what the people who believe in it do and say. And, based on that, there is no 'true religion' because no religion consistently promotes truth.

I'm saying you can't prove that claim, and the fact is written in a religious book. It is knowledge gained by millions from a religious book.

Of course I can prove it. The Greeks brought in their understanding and those who wrote Job adopted that viewpoint. It is, however, wrong: the Earth does NOT 'hang' in space.

I presented the facts to you.
Science is not a perfect system where no mistakes are made, and lessons learned (If they are considered) the hard way.

Precisely. People make mistakes. They get distracted or confused. That is part of being human.

But the point is that the scientific method allows us to correct our mistakes over time. By requiring that all proposals be tested, it helps us to get around our biases by mixing them with the opposite biases of others.

At any point in time, there will be things science gets wrong. But, over time, those errors are corrected and we get closer and closer to the truth by throwing away the falsehoods.

One who denies this is wearing the blinders.
It's when one closes their mind to what cannot be refuted, that we can say they are wearing blinders.

What facts have you presented that cannot be refuted?

What facts have I denied? None that you presented.
So your accusation is nothing more than a claim that is empty. It's one of those, "Just say so" moments.

You have chosen to ignore what science has discovered, claiming it is of no value, while using a computer to communicate with others. You claim the discoveries are irrelevant to you, but you use computers and cell phones without understanding how they work. You denigrate those who are trying to figure out how the universe works because you see such understanding as useless.

You claim that what you have is superior, but give nothing other than thin gruel.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, science has different divisions and also branch into the study of psychology. But science is cold so cannot interact with people on an emotional level. Even psychologists tend to have a detached impersonal approach when dealing with their patients.

First.

You do realize that being a psychologist, therapist, counselor or other related profession, needs to not get close to patients, because if they fall in love with patients or become obsessive, it is not only unprofessional, they are also liable for lawsuits.

Now I have never study psychology at all, but as I understand it, therapy and counseling involved communication, so there are more to psychology than just merely giving solutions or advice. It involved communication, especially listening to the patients.

There is no “one solution” to solve all problem in psychology, because every individuals are not the same, and one solution may work for one patient, but may not work for everyone else.

That’s why communication is so important, and the psychologists or therapists should only assist the patients to find the right solutions for themselves.

And because everyone are different in their own ways, psychology isn’t exact science.

Religions cannot do that.

 

[gnostic]

It ends with what knowledge is and if it has limits.

Here is a test:
Someone: Religion is not as reliable as science for the term knowledge.
Me: Correct for a certain understanding of knowledge.
Someone: So you admit that science is more reliable?
Me: Yes, in one sense, but that doesn't stop me from believing in God.

That is where it ends. It is true for a certain kind of knowledge science is more reliable than religion, but that has a limit, because I can still believe in God. In fact I am doing it right now. So it seems there is something missing in what reliable means?!!

The problem with believing in god, it is merely faith.

Faith is about conviction - or to put it another way - conviction is about putting trust in belief, and that’s not knowledge.

 

[Samael_Khan]

First.

You do realize that being a psychologist, therapist, counselor or other related profession, needs to not get close to patients, because if they fall in love with patients or become obsessive, it is not only unprofessional, they are also liable for lawsuits. I understand that and I am not saying that the approach is wrong. I approve of that approach for the reasons you mentioned and more.

Now I have never study psychology at all, but as I understand it, therapy and counseling involved communication, so there are more to psychology than just merely giving solutions or advice. It involved communication, especially listening to the patients.

There is no “one solution” to solve all problem in psychology, because every individuals are not the same, and one solution may work for one patient, but may not work for everyone else.

That’s why communication is so important, and the psychologists or therapists should only assist the patients to find the right solutions for themselves.

And because everyone are different in their own ways, psychology isn’t exact science.

I don't disagree with you. I think I should try to communicate what I mean in a different way.

Many religions aim to manipulate people and prey on their emotions, which indoctrinates people and shapes their psyche. So they can manipulate people to doing many things that they wouldn't do if they weren't religious, because of some sort of promised reward. This promised rewards provides people with hope which allows them to overcome many adversities.

Psychology does not aim to manipulate people and prey on their emotions, therefore it cannot achieve what I have described above. And that is because psychology has an ethical standard which prevents the practitioners from doing so. Plus it involves a long scientific process which religion isn't limited to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem with believing in god, it is merely faith.

Faith is about conviction - or to put it another way - conviction is about putting trust in belief, and that’s not knowledge.

Now with truth/proof/evidence show it is a problem.

 

[nPeace]

No, I would choose a religion that I thought was true. That is the critical aspect.

True in what sense? True to you? True to science?

No. What they gain is not knowledge.

Quite confused now about what you are saying.
What did you mean by your response here, "Yes, but not about religious topics."?
Did you mean yes, it is knowledge, but not religious knowledge? Did you mean, yes it is not factual, and one does not experience it?

There is no knowledge that is specific to religion. If a religious text says that rain falls from the sky, that does not make it knowledge based on religion. It means that religion has co-opted the ordinary knowledge gains by observation.

Please explain what you mean by knowledge based on religion.

And how many times have people had 'common sense' that lead to bad consequences?

You are the one who was talking about common sense. I am only showing you that common sense can be common stupidity,

Again, so what? It is common knowledge that is not specific to the Bible. That the religion took ordinary knowledge and wrote about it doesn't make it religious knowledge.

Please provide the link to credible evidence that what was written was common knowledge.

Opinion noted.


But the truth of it denied?

What truth? Yours? Definitely.

Just as the knowledge gained from religious texts is not special knowledge.

If it is unknown, and later discovered to be sound. Of course it is special.
That's why it is later "adopted" and recommended.

You are claiming a source for religion that is true. So point out that source.

How many times do you want me to point it out, and you deny it?
I'm sure even you wouldn't deem that sensible.

Not completely true. It provides the basis for morality tales and myths. It can inspire art and literature. Those are good things.


The effects produced by *any* religion are evident in what the people who believe in it do and say. And, based on that, there is no 'true religion' because no religion consistently promotes truth.

...and science does???

Of course I can prove it. The Greeks brought in their understanding and those who wrote Job adopted that viewpoint. It is, however, wrong: the Earth does NOT 'hang' in space.

Wow. Proof is revealed in uttered claims. Unbelievable.

Precisely. People make mistakes. They get distracted or confused. That is part of being human.

But the point is that the scientific method allows us to correct our mistakes over time. By requiring that all proposals be tested, it helps us to get around our biases by mixing them with the opposite biases of others.

At any point in time, there will be things science gets wrong. But, over time, those errors are corrected and we get closer and closer to the truth by throwing away the falsehoods.

I think that is a philosophical bias. Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.
I think the scientific method is a good thing too. From what I heard, not all scientist use the method however, and publish papers, and it is evident that biases are still common.

What facts have you presented that cannot be refuted?

Hmm. He ignores my post, and then asks me about it, as though he didn't see it. Grand.

You have chosen to ignore what science has discovered, claiming it is of no value, while using a computer to communicate with others. You claim the discoveries are irrelevant to you, but you use computers and cell phones without understanding how they work. You denigrate those who are trying to figure out how the universe works because you see such understanding as useless.

What science did I ignore? Please specify.
Please specify where I said it has no value.

You claim that what you have is superior, but give nothing other than thin gruel.

Being able to call up someone on a device, and chat with them is a useful. It's not better than experiencing love in action among people of all races, nationalities, and cultures, united in the same "mind".
Yes. Some things are of greater value than material possessions. Many realize this, and have proven it to themselves. Was it you I linked Kenneth's experience? Yes. I think it was you.

 

[gnostic]

Now with truth/proof/evidence show it is a problem.

Faith isn’t a problem in the domains of religion or spirituality, or in theology.

But faith-belief is just that, mikkel, it is BELIEF...what it is not knowledge.

You do understand the differences between “knowing” and “believing”, don’t you?

To give you some examples: meteor and meteorite.

No one know what they were, until the 19th century, and realise that the light emitted from the metallic or rocky objects were caused by their entry to the Earth’s atmosphere.

We know that these meteors are not stars.

And if these meteors happened to crash to Earth, these are called meteorites, definitely not stars. If star actually smash into Earth, there wouldn’t be much left of the Earth.

Ancient and medieval people used to believe that meteors were falling stars, because they thought stars were observed as tiny lights in the night sky, so they assume these were stars that have fallen. They didn’t know what stars and meteors were, and had no idea just how large stars were.

The Bible make a number of references to falling stars.

29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days

the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

10 The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water.

1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit;

In this one passage, the morning star or Day Star in this translation below, is actually referring to the planet Venus:

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

The Day Star or Morning Star is associated with prophecy of the King of Babylonia, mentioned in verse 14:4, but in the 4th century CE, Latin translation, the Vulgate Bible, St Jerome associated Venus with Lucifer, son of the Roman goddess of dawn, Aurora (Eos in Greek myth), while medieval Christians associated Lucifer with Satan.

The points are that falling stars are meteors, not stars (or planet in the case of Morning Star/Venus).

If Jesus was son of god, and knows everything that god knows, then the fact that he describe stars falling from heaven, only demonstrated he know no more than contemporary average astronomers.

I don’t expect Jesus to coin the word “meteor” or “meteorite”, but if Jesus know more than ordinary humans, wouldn’t and shouldn’t he know the differences between space rocks entering the Earth’s atmosphere and actual stars?

What the Bible describe about stars down from sky or heaven, demonstrated that it is belief, not knowledge.

Even if you were to consider belief to be equated with knowledge, then it is bad knowledge, whenever these so-called religious knowledge be scientifically tested as incorrect.

 

[Polymath257]

True in what sense? True to you? True to science?

True doesn't have modifiers.

Quite confused now about what you are saying.
What did you mean by your response here, "Yes, but not about religious topics."?
Did you mean yes, it is knowledge, but not religious knowledge? Did you mean, yes it is not factual, and one does not experience it?

Let me give you an example. Suppose that it is common knowledge that there are stars in the sky. Suppose that some religion teaches that there are stars in the sky. That doesn't mean that stars being in the sky is knowledge from that religion.

Suppose that it is common knowledge that drunk people are unreliable. And suppose some religion teaches that drunks are unreliable. That does NOT mean the drunks being unreliable is knowledge from that religion.

My point is that there is no knowledge that is specifically religious knowledge: there is no knowledge that *requires* the position of some religion to find it out or to know it.

Please explain what you mean by knowledge based on religion.

Knowledge that is specific to some religion that cannot be determined by secular methods.

You are the one who was talking about common sense. I am only showing you that common sense can be common stupidity,

Please provide the link to credible evidence that what was written was common knowledge.

The sphericity of the world was common knowledge by about 500BC. The book of Job was written after that.

What truth? Yours? Definitely.

Truth is not a personal matter. If 'your truth' and 'my truth' are different, someone doesn't have the truth.

If it is unknown, and later discovered to be sound. Of course it is special.
That's why it is later "adopted" and recommended.

Except that the adoption is the other way around. It was common knowledge *first* and included into the religion after.

How many times do you want me to point it out, and you deny it?
I'm sure even you wouldn't deem that sensible.

No, you have not pointed it out. You have claimed there *is* a true religion, but have not said how or why anyone would accept that claim. All you have give is vague 'well, you can tell' statements.

...and science does???

Absolutely. Even when mistakes are made, when they are discovered, the true position is upheld and not the mistake.

Wow. Proof is revealed in uttered claims. Unbelievable.

Well, the Earth does not 'hang'. It moves at about 18 miles per second around the sun. That is hardly the same as 'hanging'. But, at the time, the idea that the Earth was stationary was the common belief and so was picked up by the religious writers.

I think that is a philosophical bias. Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.
I think the scientific method is a good thing too. From what I heard, not all scientist use the method however, and publish papers, and it is evident that biases are still common.

Looks like something written by a philosopher, not a scientist.

But I would point out that you have your own philosophical biases. The difference is that those of science can be used to gain more knowledge about the universe.

Hmm. He ignores my post, and then asks me about it, as though he didn't see it. Grand.

What did I ignore?

What science did I ignore? Please specify.
Please specify where I said it has no value.

You were pretty clear about thinking that knowledge about gravity is of no value.

Being able to call up someone on a device, and chat with them is a useful. It's not better than experiencing love in action among people of all races, nationalities, and cultures, united in the same "mind".

I'd rather have a diversity of views. It is much more likely to end up with truth as opposed to unquestioned assumptions.

Yes. Some things are of greater value than material possessions. Many realize this, and have proven it to themselves. Was it you I linked Kenneth's experience? Yes. I think it was you.

Again, a personal opinion, which is not the same as knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Faith isn’t a problem in the domains of religion or spirituality, or in theology.

But faith-belief is just that, mikkel, it is BELIEF...what it is not knowledge.

You do understand the differences between “knowing” and “believing”, don’t you?

...

Yes, I understand the difference and I understand the limit of knowledge:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

And I understand the limit of faith-belief. That is why I only have beliefs about that where there is no knowledge. It is simple, use knowledge where there is knowledge and use beliefs where there is none.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, I understand the difference and I understand the limit of knowledge:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

And I understand the limit of faith-belief. That is why I only have beliefs about that where there is no knowledge. It is simple, use knowledge where there is knowledge and use beliefs where there is none.

And that’s why I find belief and faith to be unreliable.

I am not saying that knowledge is perfect or have answers to everything. That’s not the case.

In science, past and current knowledge require testings, even after they have already been accepted as “science”.

All models - scientific theories - are only provisionally true, as each of them can be modified and updated, and even replaced by better models supported by evidence.

Science don’t have all the answers.

But religions also don’t have all the answers. The differences between religions and sciences, is that science can change, can be corrected, can be improved.

Religions on the other hand, don’t change much, so often get stuck in old outdated values, and with its so-called knowledge on nature, not only is it outdated and often wrong, it is often based on superstition/ignorance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that’s why I find belief and faith to be unreliable.

...

As long as you know when you use subjective opinions and not science, then you are doing fine.

 

[nPeace]

True doesn't have modifiers.

Cool.

Let me give you an example. Suppose that it is common knowledge that there are stars in the sky. Suppose that some religion teaches that there are stars in the sky. That doesn't mean that stars being in the sky is knowledge from that religion.

Suppose that it is common knowledge that drunk people are unreliable. And suppose some religion teaches that drunks are unreliable. That does NOT mean the drunks being unreliable is knowledge from that religion.

My point is that there is no knowledge that is specifically religious knowledge: there is no knowledge that *requires* the position of some religion to find it out or to know it.

Your opinion, you mean.
Suppose it's not common knowledge that there are stars in the sky, and some religion teaches that there are stars in the sky, then that means that stars being in the sky is knowledge from that religion.
Thanks.
It was not common knowledge that the earth hanged on nothing.
It was not common knowledge that the earth was round.
it was not common knowledge that the hydrologic cycle and water cycle existed.

Spoiler

Among the peoples of antiquity, the Greeks are renowned for the large effort their natural philosophers made to arrive at a rational explanation of the physical world in which they lived (e.g., Burnet, 1930; Freeman, 1953). Not much is left of their original writings; moreover, whatever is left is not easy to interpret, not only because major parts of the early theories are deduced from secondary sources, but also because the meanings of even the most elementary concepts have evolved in the mean time. Still, inspection of these works and theories shows that evaporation m'lst have occupied a central position in the cosmology of the ancient Greeks.

... and on and on, and on...

Knowledge that is specific to some religion that cannot be determined by secular methods.

False. Knowledge that has been verified by secular methods.

The sphericity of the world was common knowledge by about 500BC. The book of Job was written after that.

False.
Again. making claims is not proof.... and...
Scholars believe that it was written between the 7th and 4th centuries BCE.

Truth is not a personal matter. If 'your truth' and 'my truth' are different, someone doesn't have the truth.

Cool.

Except that the adoption is the other way around. It was common knowledge *first* and included into the religion after.

False.

No, you have not pointed it out. You have claimed there *is* a true religion, but have not said how or why anyone would accept that claim. All you have give is vague 'well, you can tell' statements.

No. I did.

Absolutely. Even when mistakes are made, when they are discovered, the true position is upheld and not the mistake.

Science does not consistently promote truth. Truth is not relative. Truth does not change.

Well, the Earth does not 'hang'. It moves at about 18 miles per second around the sun. That is hardly the same as 'hanging'. But, at the time, the idea that the Earth was stationary was the common belief and so was picked up by the religious writers.

Hang and move are two different things, as you obviously are well aware of.
A man hanging from a rope, hangs from the rope, regardless of if he moves or not.
Whether he moves or not, is irrelevant. Whether the earth move or not, is irrelevant to what is written - that the earth hangs on nothing.
Being difficult only reveals the emotional state of a person, and is a good thing, because we like to see when persons reveal their true self - what's in their heart.
The Bible says nothing about a stationary earth.

 

[nPeace]

Looks like something written by a philosopher, not a scientist.

But I would point out that you have your own philosophical biases. The difference is that those of science can be used to gain more knowledge about the universe.

You have a problem with philosophers of science?

Philosophers of science; Scientists; it does not matter. They all say the same thing, when it comes to this truth.
You can't change it, no matter how hard it is for you to accept, and acknowledge.... but then there are a lot of things you can't change, simply because you don't like them.

Bias and values in scientific research

Spoiler: Excerpts

Abstract
When interests and preferences of researchers or their sponsors cause bias in experimental design, data interpretation or dissemination of research results, we normally think of it as an epistemic shortcoming. But as a result of the debate on science and values, the idea that all “extra-scientific” influences on research could be singled out and separated from pure science is now widely believed to be an illusion.

Bias is becoming increasingly recognized as a serious problem in many areas of scientific research. Of particular concern are cases in which research results seem directly to reflect the preferences and interests of certain actors involved in the research process. Troubling examples of this have been identified, especially in privately funded research and in policy-related areas.

Intuitively (and traditionally) it seems clear that the suggested kind of bias constitutes outright epistemic failure. But philosophers of science have begun to realize that the ideal of pure and value-free science is at best just that — an ideal — and that all scientific practice involves all kinds of value-judgments. While some philosophers have sought to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable influences of values on science, efforts to draw this distinction in a principled way have proven immensely difficult.

1. Preference bias
In the context of science and values, a phenomenon that I will call preference bias is of particular interest. It occurs when a research result unduly reflects the researchers’ preference for it over other possible results.
One important caveat is that preference bias should be distinguished from outright falsification or fabrication of results. Preference bias works in a more subtle way, by increasing the likelihood of the preferred outcome rather than by bluntly fabricating it.

Spoiler: Example

Bisphenol A is used as a monomer in polycarbonate plastic and has been related to cancer and other health problems. Its toxicity is associated with its similarity to human estrogen. A controversial issue is the health risk of exposure to low doses. Biomedical scientists Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes noted that 90% of government-funded experiments on low-dose exposure to bisphenol A reported significant effects, while not a single industry-funded experimental study did so (vom Saal & Hughes 2005). What is more, they found that some industry studies used a strain of rat (the CD-SD strain) that is particularly insensitive to any estrogen.

Preference bias can also be found after experiments, trials or studies have been performed in accordance with a certain design. Another toxic substance used for polymerization is vinyl chloride. Its toxicity is in many respects well established, including its carcinogenic agency with regard to cancer of the liver. However, its link with other kinds of cancer became subject to protracted dispute, despite accumulating evidence for its linkage with, among others, cancer of the brain (cf. Sass et al. 2005, Markowitz & Rosner 2002, ch. 7). In 1988, a review of epidemiological data from several European and North American studies on men occupationally exposed to vinyl chloride reported an increased occurrence of brain cancer, the standardized mortality ratio (SMR, i.e. the ratio of observed deaths to expected deaths times 100) being 148. In his interpretation of this result, Richard Doll, the author of the review, chose one small contributing study and subtracted the four cases of brain cancer death reported by it from the total in his survey, on the grounds that this study was itself the origin of the hypothesis that vinyl chloride might cause brain cancer and therefore this hypothesis should be tested by the remaining data, and also because it was “not a cohort study” (Doll 1988, p. 70).
.........
A decade later, a third study again reported excess brain cancer deaths among exposed workers (SMR 142, and SMR 177 among subjects with the longest work history), but when they turned to an interpretation of their findings regarding mortality from brain cancer, the authors commented that “its relation with exposure to vinyl chloride remains unclear” (Mundt et al. 2000, p. 774). Jennifer Sass and colleagues (2005) have concluded that the evidence for the linkage of vinyl chloride with brain cancer has been consistently downplayed.

Editorial practices and journal referee decisions are thought to be partially responsible for publication bias (ibid., pp. 28-30). But also the reluctance of investigators or their sponsors to see unwelcome results published is known to contribute to the effect, in which case we are confronted with clear cases of preference bias (ibid., pp. 30-32). There is evidence to suggest that in biomedical research, subtle and not so subtle mechanisms frequently prevent or delay dissemination of results when they run counter to the business interests of sponsors (Blumenthal et al. 1997). Recently, evidence has solidified that selective publication does not only affect complete studies, but that also within studies (which typically result in a large set of outcomes), outcomes are often reported selectively, depending on the nature of each respective result. Cautiously, the authors of the respective investigation note that as a result, the published literature may “overestimate the benefits of an intervention” (Chan et al. 2004, p. 2457).

These cases give only a small sample of the many ways in which judgements and decisions of scientists can be affected, and they can only hint at the larger consequences for science (for a wealth of cases, see Krimsky 2003, Resnik 2007). Nevertheless, the examples given suffice to illustrate how preferences of investigators (and indirectly also preferences of research sponsors) can exert their influence on research outcomes at several major steps of the research process.

You don't like Philosophers of science? Do you think they are liars? Do you think the know nothing?
Dr. Maria Asplund
Cristin G.Welle
Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back
As scientists and engineers, we must recognize the overwhelming evidence that we each harbor bias that influences our professional decisions. Yet, solving today’s increasingly complex public health challenges requires diverse perspectives from multidisciplinary teams. We all have the opportunity to actively promote a more representative scientific community; let’s harness the power of collective action to build diverse teams that deliver the most innovative science.

The 4 common biases that lead to bad science.

What did I ignore?

Don't hurt your head...

You were pretty clear about thinking that knowledge about gravity is of no value.

I'd rather have a diversity of views. It is much more likely to end up with truth as opposed to unquestioned assumptions.

Diverse assumptions and unquestioned assumptions are the same thing, though.

Again, a personal opinion, which is not the same as knowledge.

I was not claiming that to be knowledge. What? Sure, it's an opinion - an opinion based on knowledge.

 

[metis]

It is so utterly nonsensical that many theists believe that science is so biased and unreliable, and yet they can't see the plank in their own theistic eyes that's built on basically nothing that's really objectively derived.

Science tends to be self-correcting over time because for every mistake or bias there's others standing in line to correct it. OTOH, this cannot be said about most theological concepts.

 

[cladking]

I think of science as more reliable for understanding the world around us and religion as (somewhat) more reliable for understanding the world within.

They are both the only game in town (such as they are).

 

[gnostic]

False.
Again. making claims is not proof.... and...

You still don’t understand what proof means.

In the worlds of mathematics and natural/physical sciences, proof is merely logical/mathematical models often expressed in forms of mathematical equations, which include variables, constants and numbers.

Proof don’t determine which hypothesis or theory “is science” and which “isn’t science”. Only through multiple OBSERVATIONS or EVIDENCE, not by proofs.

Only observation or evidence can test a model (hypothesis or theory).

A hypothesis or theory is explanation of a model.

Proof as expressed in a mathematical formula or equation, is also a model.

Model (explanation + proofs) is required to be tested.

You heard of expression “empirical evidence” being a terminology used in science, haven’t you?

Well, there is no such as “empirical proof”.

The mass-energy equivalence equation:

E = m c^2 ​

...that equation is an example of a proof, not an example of evidence for Special Relativity.

Newton’s equation for a forces:

F = m a​

...that another example of proof, not evidence.

If you wanted to show evidence, you would for example, perform experiments on multiple objects of different size and masses, measure the velocity by measuring the distance traveled and measuring the time to travel that distance.

Every masses, length/distance and time, and all the calculations (velocity and acceleration, are used to calculate and obtain the forces) are all data that are essential parts of evidence gathering; they are evidence. And if you recorded each test in the experiment on video, this too would be considered as evidence.

Evidence are all measurements and observations acquired, whether through fieldwork or through lab experiments.

Evidence, not proofs, that objectively determine which concept is science and which isn’t science.

 

[gnostic]

I think of science as more reliable for understanding the world around us and religion as (somewhat) more reliable for understanding the world within.

The “world within” is rather vague, as it can be interpreted in so many different ways.

Can you be more specific what you mean by this? Can you clarify?

 

[cladking]

Can you be more specific what you mean by this? Can you clarify?

The world in front of our eyes/ the world behind our eyes.