What Science is NOT

In other discussions, I see people using the phrase "prove it to me" using Science as your base (or other words to that effect). I would like to suggest that Science is NOT a means by which something can be proven. The history of science shows that scientific conclusions are continually being changed based on new informtion. All it takes is once counter-example. Therefore the conclusions of science are always tentative.What can we do with science? We can study just about anything and attempt to answer just about any question. As long as we use the scientific method. Emphasis on the attempt part, because our conclusions could be wrong.We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

​

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.

---

​

Ah, for that you will need a testable hypothesis. Do you have one? No? Then the scientific method, & therefore science has nothing to say on the matter.

---

Well, I think that I have a testable hypothesis. [I think, therefore I am ] Anyway, Hypothesis: The Bible is the Word of GodNow we need some data ... let's look first at the Bible and see if we can find any evidence that either supports or contradicts the hypothesis.Well, after reading the Bible, I find that the Bible makes a lot of predictions about the future (I'm not talking about the bible code). Since parts of the Bible where written a long, long time ago, some of those predictions should have come true. After all, if the Bible is the Word of God, then God must have inspired it. Thus, any predicitions that it makes about the future must be true. However, if the Bible was, in fact, not inspired by God, then it wouldn't have a very good track record.To be continued[Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 11-10-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:Your hypothesis is not scientific, because it is not falsifiable.If there are any predictions in the Bible which are not true, one can always say that X hasn't come to pass yet.Therefore, there is no way for the Bible to ever be wrong.[/B][/QUOTE]Falsifiable, I assume, means that the hypothesis can be proven false.
Is it not possible to examine and collect data over a period of time? Granted that might mean that in my lifetime, I may not have been able to come to the point where I have a theory. The interpretation of my data collection would be tentative and still could be shown to be false over a period of time. On the other hand, as my data increases, I may find that the probablility of my hypothesis being true is correct.Edited thought: There is no time limit on the Scientific Method is there?[This message has been edited by Chara, 11-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
On the other hand...

​

The Bible HAS made predictions which have not come true:

​

---

Or my interpretation of the results may be flawed. Perhaps I have an incorrect understanding of the prediction, or maybe I don't have the information I need. I must be careful not to jump to conclusions based on my presuppositions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B]In other discussions, I see people using the phrase "prove it to me" using Science as your base (or other words to that effect). I would like to suggest that Science is NOT a means by which something can be proven. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]
Well, when I was reading Wolram's Book "A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE" (for which I am not done reading so can not give a full book review as I thought I was doing for Crick's but.in another thread...)it seems unproblemetical to me (if it is not and is problematical then I may "fall" in line with Mark's take off point etc) that COMPUTATION is not any APPLICATION OF SCIENCE such that science could be *used* to "proove" universality no matter ones sophisticated use of the stuff. [QUOTE][B]
The history of science shows that scientific conclusions are continually being changed based on new informtion. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

bEYOND THE CLAIM TO "UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION" WOLFRAM HAS POSITIONED HIMSELF FOR A FUTHER "ISSUE" AS TO EQUIVALENT SOPHISTICATION no matter HOW MUCH INFO OR CHANGE IN INFO THERE IS. [QUOTE][B]
All it takes is once counter-example. Therefore the conclusions of science are always tentative.

​

What can we do with science? [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]
i DONT DOUBT THAT WOLFRAM THINKS HE CAN DO THIS MUCH WITH THE STUFF OF SCIENCE AND IF HE CAN SO CAN I.

​

[B][QUOTE] We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.[/B][/QUOTE]

​

---

Still thinking on what others have said in previous posts (not ignoring the questions or comments) but I knew that I could quickly respond to your post Brad. I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Perhaps others will have something to contribute to what you said, but as for me, (as John encouraged me to say on occasion) you're toooooo smart for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

The point is, unless you set specific criterion ahead of time to test your theory that the Bible is inspired by God, all you are ever doing is interpreting after the fact.

---

[/b]Specific criterion, in this case would be?Prophecies used must be exact,understandable, written before the event, and have come true just as they said they would?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara: There is no time limit on the Scientific Method is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
No. The limitation on the scientific method is in the reliability of results.

​

I mean, you could use the scientific method to try to make a free energy machine, as many have done over the years, but at some point it is realized by most reasonable people that it just is not likely to happen.

---

The point being though is that we need to recognize that Science is always evolving when new data presents itself or we realize that we have misinterpreted the data? And in reference to bible prophecy, we can't close the book on the possibility that it is the Word of God. Would that not be a reasonable conclusion?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:The predictions have to be precise and detailed or they are worthless[/B][/QUOTE]Ezekiel 26
3 therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
4 'They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock.
5 'She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord GOD, 'and she will become spoil for the nations.
6 'Also her daughters who are on the mainland will be slain by the sword, and they will know that I am the LORD.'"
7 For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army.
8 "He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you.
9 "The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.
10 "Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached.
11 "With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground.
12 "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water. 13 "So I will silence the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more.
14 "I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken," declares the Lord GOD.
15 Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre, "Shall not the coastlands shake at the sound of your fall when the wounded groan, when the slaughter occurs in your midst?
16 "Then all the princes of the sea will go down from their thrones, remove their robes and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be appalled at you.
17 "They will take up a lamentation over you and say to you, 'How you have perished, O inhabited one, From the seas, O renowned city, Which was mighty on the sea, She and her inhabitants, Who imposed her terror On all her inhabitants!
18 'Now the coastlands will tremble On the day of your fall; Yes, the coastlands which are by the sea Will be terrified at your passing.'"
19 For thus says the Lord GOD, "When I make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and the great waters cover you,
20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lower parts of the earth, like the ancient waste places, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set glory in the land of the living.
21 "I will bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again," declares the Lord GOD.Would this prophecy qualify? It is detailed and precise. The city is called by name and there are specifics about its ultimate fate.

Tyre was built on a large island with a nice port. A smaller island, was linked to the larger one, making the city approximately 2.5 miles in circumference. The outer walls of the city, facing the mainland shore, were 150 ft. high. It was a major trading centre and eventually, an extension of the city had to be built on the mainland. In the words of Dr. Fleming (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre Columbian University Press: New York, NY, 1915, p.8) "...Tyre was not only a great city but was considered impregnable."Obviously, Ezekiel's prophecy would have been laughed at. If he had been trying to "make up" a prophecy, he probably would not have chosen Tyre (speculation tho' logical).The historian, Herodotus, relates that Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to Tyre from 585-572 B.C. In that seige, he was only able to take the mainland city and as a result simply laid a 13-year siege, stopping supplies to the island city, but not destroying it.Note that the prophecy says that many nations, not just Babylon will come against the city. So we see the prophecy saying that Neb will take the mainland, but "they" will throw Tyre's stones and timbers into the sea. Who are they?Moving on to 333 B.C., Alexander the Great demanded that Tyre allow him to occupy the island city. The King of Tyre would not allow that, so Alexander attacked. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Alexander didn't have any ships, so he completely destroyed the mainland city and dumped all of its debris into the ocean. Alex made a bridge and marched straight to Tyre.So, get this, the bridge that Alex built is the one that Zeke predicted .... "they will destroy the walls and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock."Remember, I said that Zeke predicted that many nations would come against Tyre? Well, the Seleucidae, the Romans, the Moslems, and finally the crusaders all took turns conquering Tyre, and it lay in ruins. Accorind to historian Nina Jidejian, "The port [of Tyre] has become a haven today for fishing boats and a place for spreading nets." (Nina Jidejian, Tyre Through the Ages El-Mashreq Publishers: Beruit, 1969, p. 139 - emphasis mine)Think about this for a minute. Zeke's prophecy was so precise he predicted the future use of Tyre ... a place for spreading nets. How can all this be explained? How could Zeke have made such an impressive prediction? Was he just really lucky?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Forgiven,

​

quote:

---

... cause then someone would just do what i wrote above, abandon induction leading to deduction and say "it hasn't been rebuilt *yet*"

---

​

And you guys wouldn't be guilty of the opposite, would you? It hasn't come to pass, *yet*

​

Mark

---

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "you guys", but just in case I am one of the guys, if you've read the posts so far on this thread, I think you will see that I have not used that argument, nor will I. If we do that, we have strayed off of the Scientific Method, as I understand it (something about falsifiability). One thing I am trying to remember is that we cannot prove anything, but we certainly can explore the probability/possibility of something being true (oops or false, sorry my presupposition slipping in).Having said all that, I think that we have also established that conclusions/interpretations are at best tentative and can change over time.

As I stated in the beginning post, when we find one instance of a counter-example, we need to reexamine the data, or our hypotheses. Obviously, the fact that there is some kind of population on Tyre shows that the prophecy of Ezekiel is not completely fulfilled. We can waltz around the semantics, but the end result has to be, "back to the drawing board."Others wisely stated in the beginning of this discussion that this investigation was futile because the hypotheses was not falsifiable. You were right and I was wrong.Does this shatter my belief that the Bible is the Word of God? No, because the conclusions of science are always tentative. The Word of God, and the truth found in it affect everything in my life. I don't want to base my life on something as tentative as science.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Convenient but technically unassailable, except on the grounds that it makes the position tautological. It is true no matter what, by design. Hardly convincing.[/b][/quote]I'm sorry John, but I didn't understand this statement. Can you simplify it for me?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Convenient but technically unassailable, except on the grounds that it makes the position tautological. It is true no matter what, by design. Hardly convincing.[/b][/quote]I'm sorry John, but I didn't understand this statement. Can you simplify it for me?[/B][/QUOTE]Your statement that the prophecy hasn't been fullfilled yet makes the prophecy tautological. That is, true by definition. 1=1 and 2=2 are tautologies. You can't argue against them, but at the same time they really don't mean much. In other words, the prophecy is insulated from reality. Tyre could grow to be a megapolis occupying the whole planet yet that fact would not damage the prophecy.I could say that eventually I will be crowned King of the United States and simply dismiss criticism with "Wait and see. Eventually it will happen." I doubt anyone would take me seriously, but that is very much the position taken when you say that "well, it just hasn't been fulfilled YET."[/B][/QUOTE]I think you read something into my statement that wasn't there .... I said that the prophecy had not been completely fulfilled. There is no "yet" there. I think you expected me to say "yet". I promised that I would not bring that "argument" to this thread.