Science is close-minded

[alexander]

yes, and there is a separation between theories and facts, thus theory, by definition can not be proven, if it's proven, its a fact

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Who said they are mutually exclusive?
I was merely pointing out that this thread's intent is of science. For discussions of Science and God, there are other threads.

Then perhaps you could say something about how you view scientific knowledge. Would you include explanations of sources of force? Do you see scientific knowledge as including identities of causes for various patterns in changes of velocities?

Originally Posted by freeztar

The "cause" of the universe is a very interesting question of philosophy, but science does not address this. Science can not answer how the universe was created (if it was created). Since there is no data from the "creation", there can be no falsifiable predictions, and no legitimate scientific studies thereof.

Here I failed to communicate. My point does not have to do with establishing the cause for the origin of the universe. My interest is learning whether or not scientifically minded people here believe in basic causes such as electric charge, mass, space-time, etc. Are these accepted as purely theoretical ideas useful in physics theory or as established facts for electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects?

James

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Assuming I understand the intent of this quote: What do you or anyone else think is the scientific reasoning for declaring that God and science are mutually exclusive? I am not asking for a description or descriptions of stereotypes of God. I want to know what is the cause or are the causes for the operation of the universe? Names, alone, of theoretically proposed causes, for me, do not fullfill this request. What is it that you or anyone knows, scientifically, about 'cause' that makes clear the nature of the cause or causes for the operation of the universe? My opinion is: We do not know what are 'causes'. It is a matter of philosophical preference and not of science to declare that one knows what is the cause or causes for the operation of the universe.

James

I will try to answer your question.

God is something people believe in without any evidence. Science is a methodology, or a recipe, if you will, which if followed, leads to a process. The process is a process of discovery. It is dicovering things about nature. It has nothing to do with God. The methodology of science is a set of rules that establish restrictions on what questions may be asked, and how those questions may be asked. Theories of First Causes, (such as God created the Universe) are not in the scientific domain because of the rules, which say that any scientific theory must be falsifiable, and that there is a NATURAL explanation for what we see in nature. As far as I know, there is no scientific theory which says how the universe was created.

So, if you (or anyone else) comes along and posits a theory that the universe was created by God, scientist are going to say prove it. As far as how the universe operates, that is entirely within the domain of science, and it is not in the rules to appeal to the supernatural to explain what we see.

So, some people interpret this to mean that God and Science are mutually exclusive. That is unfortunate.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Overdog

So, some people interpret this to mean that God and Science are mutually exclusive. That is unfortunate.

Yes, but it is not closed-minded.

Well stated post, Overdog. Your writing is very clear, direct, and understandable. I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by James Putnam

My interest is learning whether or not scientifically minded people here believe in basic causes such as electric charge, mass, space-time, etc. Are these accepted as purely theoretical ideas useful in physics theory or as established facts for electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects?

These are well stated questions, James, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. Are you asking if scientifically minded people believe matter, energy and time factually or theoretically exist, or are you asking if they believe there is factual knowledge of the basic causes of these things in nature? Or maybe something else I've missed?

Would you clarify your question?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Then perhaps you could say something about how you view scientific knowledge. Would you include explanations of sources of force? Do you see scientific knowledge as including identities of causes for various patterns in changes of velocities?

I must admit that I do not understand your last question. As far as scientific knowledge and explanations of sources of force, there are 4 fundamental forces known to science.

All the forces in the universe are based on four fundamental forces. The strong and weak forces act only at very short distances, and are responsible for holding certain nucleons and compound nuclei together. The electromagnetic force acts between electric charges and the gravitational force acts between masses.

Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does science account for what makes (or create) these forces? Nope. There is no way to know, as of yet.
(ok, ok, with the caveat that we know how photons (EMR) can be created etc...)

Here I failed to communicate. My point does not have to do with establishing the cause for the origin of the universe. My interest is learning whether or not scientifically minded people here believe in basic causes such as electric charge, mass, space-time, etc. Are these accepted as purely theoretical ideas useful in physics theory or as established facts for electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects?

Short answer. They are accepted as theories.

Longer answer. Science does not express itself in terms of absolutes. "space-time" is a way to visualize Einstein's *theories*. It is not meant as a literal interpretation. It's important to understand that a lot of science (especially physics) works with complex math that is hard to translate from formulas written on paper, to abstract ideas in the mind. Most of us (myself included) need metaphors and examples to comprehend the physics.

So, if I understood your question correctly, hopefully that helps in understanding a bit more about scientific theory. If my objective failed, then I recommend the wiki on the Scientific Method.

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.[8] Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed.

Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I must admit that I do not understand your last question. As far as scientific knowledge and explanations of sources of force, there are 4 fundamental forces known to science.

My question raised the fact that all we know about evidence is that there are patterns in changes of velocity. It also recognizes that there are different recognized patterns. When the patterns appear to us to be so different that we are not able to see that they might be due to the same cause, we separate those patterns from others and credit some new property, such as electric charge, as the cause for their existence. Electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects, in other words 'patterns of changes of velocity', still appear to us to be so different that we cannot credit their existence to a single cause.

Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does science account for what makes (or create) these forces? Nope. There is no way to know, as of yet.
(ok, ok, with the caveat that we know how photons (EMR) can be created etc...)

I know that science cannot say what makes these forces. What I am asking as a clarification of scientific knowledge is: Are the forces real? Is it known that there is something material about the universe that causes changes of velocity. Is it the forces that are theoretical or is it just the cause of each type of force that is considered theoretical? What I want to establish or have refuted as scientific knowledge is that: These things called forces are purely theoretical. When it is said: that gravity causes recognizable patterns in changes of velocity; while, electric charge causes other recognizable patterns in changes of velocity; then what is it that represents scientific knowledge? Is it only the patterns that are scientific knowledge or is there something additional,with its own material existence, that is causing these groups of patterns of changes of velocity?

Short answer. They are accepted as theories.

Is electric charge an unproven theory?

Longer answer. Science does not express itself in terms of absolutes. "space-time" is a way to visualize Einstein's *theories*. It is not meant as a literal interpretation. It's important to understand that a lot of science (especially physics) works with complex math that is hard to translate from formulas written on paper, to abstract ideas in the mind. Most of us (myself included) need metaphors and examples to comprehend the physics.

Ok, so space-time is a prop.

So, if I understood your question correctly, hopefully that helps in understanding a bit more about scientific theory. If my objective failed, then I recommend the wiki on the Scientific Method.

I write for general readership. If there are things that are included in scientific knowledge as being real, then there are also things that are not real and are not scientific knowledge. When you said that this thread is about science, it peaked my interest to have defined what is or is not science? If the answer is that things happen in orderly manners, however, we do not know why, then this is an acceptable answer. On the other hand, if someone wishes to claim that something is known about why things happen in orderly manners, then I would like to hear how this is known?

Thank you for your courteous responses. I will be unable to answer any responses for a week.

James

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Thank you for your courteous responses. I will be unable to answer any responses for a week.

While I'd like to address your questions and points, one by one, I'm going to ask that you start another thread dealing with whatever you want as the theme. This thread, however, should remain on topic. You have not posited how science can be closed-minded or open-minded, so your comments are not beneficial to this thread, as of yet.

[InfiniteNow]

Enjoy.



Enemies of Reason: Episode 1

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (1 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (2 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (3 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (4 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (5 of 5)

[InfiniteNow]

This one, too. Enjoy!



Enemies of Reason: Episode 2

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (1 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (2 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (3 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (4 of 5)

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (5 of 5)

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by freeztar

While I'd like to address your questions and points, one by one, I'm going to ask that you start another thread dealing with whatever you want as the theme. This thread, however, should remain on topic. You have not posited how science can be closed-minded or open-minded, so your comments are not beneficial to this thread, as of yet.

Ok, I will drop this matter. The sole purpose of my questions had to do with demonstrating whether or not theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence are recognized as just helpful imitations of the nature of the universe. If such theoretical interpretations are presented as established facts, and, the disputing of them as being unscientific, then science may be close minded. So, I asked questions such as: Is electric charge a theory? I probably should have worded it as: Is the existence of electric charge a proven scientific fact as the cause of electromagnetic effects? If the answer is either a yes or a no, then this would, in my opinion, have gone to the heart of the topic of this thread. If this is not the way others see the purpose of this question, then, there is no need to repeat the question elsewhere. I assume that the question about close mindedness is being presented with an understanding that is different from the way I understood it.

James