Good discussion DFINITLYDISTRUBD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but religion?
|
I think science
should be held to this standard. It should be held to the scientific method, and for the most part, I think it strictly is. Scientists are more critical than anyone about enforcing what you say here.
While religion or superstition clearly isn’t held to this same standard - I don’t think (as others have said) the ‘testable’ or ‘falsifiable’ condition is too awfully useful in defining religion. Something could be a ‘religious truth’ and yet be falsifiable and even proven wrong. Something else could be untestable yet fall well outside religion. So, “testable” and “religious” surely have some different ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Then tell me...(how to put this)....How does science have any business whatsoever in things such as the begining of existance for example?
|
Observations today can agree with a model of conditions very shortly after the big bang. That is valid. It is often pointed out that the big bang theory does not claim to know what came before the singularity or what exists outside our visible universe. Until such things are testable they are purposely excluded from standard cosmology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Seeing as mankind will never know the answer and there is no possible way to test or prove any theory pertaining to it.
|
I think intent counts for something. It seems the objective of science is
always to create a hypothesis that can be tested either being tested successfully and becoming a good theory or tested unsuccessfully and becoming trash. That is fundamental to science. Just as fundamental to religion is how its principles should
never be tested. It is spelled out as a commandment in the Torah showing that the idea goes way back:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deu. 6:16
Ye shall not try [test, tempt, assay, prove (Hebrew: nacah)] the LORD your God
|
which is exactly the opposite of the scientific method. One system explicitly says ideas have to be tested while the other explicitly says they should never be tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
For all of it's griping about religion science has just as many contradictions in it's theories and laws (for lack of a better word).
|
I think this is missing the innate differences between the two. Science goes to such great lengths to try and find contradictory observations with which to amend laws and theories. New information that leads to inconsistency with current theory is not only welcome, it is sought with great effort. They’re spending 10 billion dollars to build the LHC. They’re basically trying to break the standard model of particle physics at any cost. Compare this to religion which does nothing to investigate inconsistencies in dogma. Historically religion and superstition reward such investigations into contradictions with pain and death. The difference is huge and absolutely fundamental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
For example it's impossible for matter to travel a the the speed of light...light is matter!
|
Special relativity is a very good example of a testable hypothesis that upset an old law and brought about even more testable things like GR and quantum electrodynamics. This would only seem to support the usefulness of the scientific method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Energy cannot be created or destroyed...Energy always involves matter*....(without matter there is no energy)....the universe is made up of matter (where'd it come from)...tricky one! *(electricity is electrons, heat is light which is made up of photons, and motion requires that something (matter) be moving)
|
The only problematic thing I see is “where’d [the universe’s matter] come from?” That is not a bad philosophical question but I don’t think it is something a scientific theory can address with our current knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Though I do believe it's time for the scientific community as a whole to accept that to believe in scientific theories that are impossible to prove is more religion (blind faith) than science and therefore it has no business attepting to pass these theories off as scientific fact (or even scientific in general)....
|
I was just watching a program on the History Channel the other day where some physicist was faulting string theory for just these reasons you point out. He actually said it isn’t a scientific theory but is rather religion because it has yet to make any predictions to test. Scientists are the first to point that out when it is the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
These are the types of things that damage the credibility of the scientific community.
|
I think the perception that theories like evolution or standard cosmology are baseless or based on ad hoc convention is so much worse than the truth of the matter. These theories have made good predictions that have been subsequently tested. They are internally consistent, agree with observation, and produce useful results. Whatever people’s problem with these theories or science itself - I don’t see how the problem could be that it’s not testable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
It's time to make sure that what is presented to the masses as fact actually is factual, provable, proven, and accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
When observation confirms a theory I don’t think it would be helpful to present it as proven or fact. There are good theories that are confirmed by observation and as always are subject to further investigation. I don’t think it is the job of science to persuade religion nor is it usually even possible regardless of how well the theory is confirmed or presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
The Big Bang for example is according to is either religion or unscientific and is no more a proveable theory than the theory of creationism. (I hope this is what I mean....creationism refers to the belief of a universe created by a god type being right??)
|
This is wrong. The big bang theory describes the history of the universe. The visible universe was a very small and very dense place 13.7 billion years ago. It has evolved since then like the big bang model describes. We know because there is evidence (quite a bit of it). To say this is unscientific is far off the mark. The theory has made predictions that have been confirmed. Evidence and observation are continually agreeing with the theory. This is good science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
the fact remains that no theory in this case is proveable one way or the other and very likely will never be...but look how fervently both sides argue that they're right and what they believe is fact.
|
Supporting the big bang has nothing to do with where the universe came from. I would really suggest you read nasa’s introduction to BBT:
WMAP Big Bang Concepts
because it addresses that kind of misconception. I’ll quote them:
Quote:
|
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
|
and:
Quote:
|
The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon
|
You are scolding science for doing something that it persistently avoids doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
I use this as an example because I can't think of any other that so perfectly fits what I'm trying to express not because I care either way. The Universe is here it was here billions of years before I was born and will likely be billions of years after I'm gone...big whup...but why does the scientific comunity consider creationism mythology and not scientific and Big bang theory more likely and scientific?
|
Because science holds to the method that you spelled out at the beginning of the thread. BBT is successful science because it agrees with observations and experiments. It satisfies the scientific method.
Creationism is successful religion because it avoids any test or observation. It satisfies the old testament commandment of not trying to test for or prove God.
The differences between the two are so fundamental it’s a bit befuddling to see them compared in this way. The cookie cutter answer is so often repeated because it’s ture: BBT is a scientific theory based on good physics and observation while creationism has no science, no theory, no physics, and no observation on which to stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
It just bothers me when I see all of the BS that is passed off as scientific fact when in fact it's untested and unproven.....Ie. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light (really how did they test this one),
|
With particles accelerated to very nearly the speed of light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
there's no such thing as perpetual motion (have they ever seen an electron circling in an atom stop, and if this is true doesn't that mean as time progresses we are slowly slowing down and drifting inexorably closer to the Sun in massive slow spiraling circles getting closer and closer every year and therefore warmer  ), |
Of course there is perpetual motion. Newton’s first law says: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” Getting unlimited energy from a perpetual motion machine is what can’t be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
etc.etc.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit gruff and I know these aren't the best examples but they'll do for now.
|
Examples of what? What are you trying to show - that science is no better than religion or superstition at supporting its ideas? That long-standing theories of science are not as well-supported as people think? If we were allowed to hold religion or creationism up to the same standard as the big bang or any other scientific theory then this discussion would be incidental because creationism would just instantly die.
-modest
PS - I know my reply here sounds like the same old crap rehashed at length - but it really is what I believe and I think needed to be said.
