Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Science is NOT
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 101 (22133)
11-10-2002 6:17 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 6:23 PM Chara has replied
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 11-11-2002 6:15 PM Chara has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 101 (22134)
11-10-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chara
11-10-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
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.
You won't find anyone who disagrees with you here.
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.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chara, posted 11-10-2002 6:17 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chara, posted 11-10-2002 7:24 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 101 (22140)
11-10-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
11-10-2002 6:23 PM


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 God
Now 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 6:23 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:31 PM Chara has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 101 (22161)
11-10-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chara
11-10-2002 7:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
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 God
Now 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]

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.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chara, posted 11-10-2002 7:24 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:51 PM nator has not replied
 Message 8 by Chara, posted 11-11-2002 11:41 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 101 (22162)
11-10-2002 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
11-10-2002 9:31 PM


On the other hand...
The Bible HAS made predictions which have not come true:
Mark 13:26,27
And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect form the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Mark 13:29,30
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
Of course you could argue that the use of the word "generation" is a metaphor or something, but then you are then frimly in the realm of unfalsafiable dogma, able to interpret at will to make things fit as you see fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:31 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 11-11-2002 1:07 AM nator has replied
 Message 9 by Chara, posted 11-11-2002 11:46 AM nator has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 101 (22168)
11-11-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
11-10-2002 9:51 PM


quote:
Mark 13:29,30
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
Of course you could argue that the use of the word "generation" is a metaphor or something, but then you are then frimly in the realm of unfalsafiable dogma, able to interpret at will to make things fit as you see fit.
You forgot about language translation. The word 'generation' could also be interpreted as race (ie the Jews). As you should know, words can have multiple meanings. Many words in English also have multiple meanings.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:51 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-11-2002 4:57 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 11 by nator, posted 11-11-2002 12:29 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 101 (22176)
11-11-2002 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by blitz77
11-11-2002 1:07 AM


[outsider nitpicking]
Anybody knew Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic? Maybe if we read its original texts we may have a clue what those passages suppose to mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 11-11-2002 1:07 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 101 (22239)
11-11-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
11-10-2002 9:31 PM


[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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:31 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 11-11-2002 12:35 PM Chara has replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 101 (22240)
11-11-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
11-10-2002 9:51 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:51 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-11-2002 12:20 PM Chara has not replied
 Message 13 by John, posted 11-11-2002 12:54 PM Chara has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 101 (22243)
11-11-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chara
11-11-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
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.

Or maybe the Bible is like any other text which makes nebulous predictions of which some come true and some don't (aka not yet come true / misinterpreted nebulous concept within text).
Here's my prediction for tomorrow:
For some readers of the EvC forum, unique new opportunities will bring pleasant surprises
PE
Edit: wrote "bile" instead of "bible". Bet Freud would have something to say about that.
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chara, posted 11-11-2002 11:46 AM Chara has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 101 (22244)
11-11-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by blitz77
11-11-2002 1:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
Mark 13:29,30
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
Of course you could argue that the use of the word "generation" is a metaphor or something, but then you are then frimly in the realm of unfalsafiable dogma, able to interpret at will to make things fit as you see fit.
You forgot about language translation. The word 'generation' could also be interpreted as race (ie the Jews). As you should know, words can have multiple meanings. Many words in English also have multiple meanings.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-11-2002]

Well, there you go. Unfalsafiability. Not scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 11-11-2002 1:07 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 101 (22246)
11-11-2002 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chara
11-11-2002 11:41 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][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]
quote:
Falsifiable, I assume, means that the hypothesis can be proven false.
Yes. There has to be some evidence, if found, which would falsify the hypothesis.
quote:
Is it not possible to examine and collect data over a period of time?
Yes, of course.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Edited thought: There is no time limit on the Scientific Method is there?
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.
[This message has been edited by Chara, 11-11-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chara, posted 11-11-2002 11:41 AM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chara, posted 11-12-2002 2:39 PM nator has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 101 (22248)
11-11-2002 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chara
11-11-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
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.
The predictions have to be precise and detailed or they are worthless
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chara, posted 11-11-2002 11:46 AM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-11-2002 2:21 PM John has replied
 Message 23 by Chara, posted 11-12-2002 2:53 PM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 101 (22262)
11-11-2002 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
11-11-2002 12:54 PM


okay so prophesies being fulfilled are not acceptable. how about archeologial evidence. is this sort of evidence submittable. not saying this piece alone is the answer, just some data. if something is described in detail in the bible and then discovered by a scientist with a shovel does that not give some credibility to the bible. i found this little nugget of info today. that would give some credit to the accuracy of the old testament.
(HOW A BIBLICAL REFERENCE ENABLED AN ARCHEOLOGIST TO MAKE A SUCCESSFUL PREDICTION
One Kings 9:15 reads: "Now this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer." Dr. Yigael Yadkin, an Israeli archeologist, dug up stables at Hazor like those found at Megiddo. Visiting back at the Megiddo site, Yadkin carefully wrote down a description of Solomon's gateway there. Figuring that since Solomon built the gateways at both Megiddo and Hazor, they would be similar, he told a few of his workmen exactly what they would find when unearthing the gate at Hazor. To the workmen's total astonishment, they found exactly what Yadkin said they would find: The gateways of the two cities proved to be identical. ( Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God )
yes this is only 1 piece of data, seems falsifiable, is archeological and historical evidence then allowed in the scientific process
------------------
saved by grace
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-11-2002]
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 11-11-2002 12:54 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 11-11-2002 2:58 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 11-11-2002 4:35 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 101 (22267)
11-11-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky
11-11-2002 2:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
okay so prophesies being fulfilled are not acceptable.
Prophecies are acceptable. If I told you that someone would die of a gunshot wound next week, you wouldn't consider me a prophet. The prophecy is too vague. If I cited names, times and places, it would be a different story. If I told you that I had predicted a murder and that the proof is that I said so in a book I wrote well after the murder, you would not consider me a prophet. These are reasonable conditions.
quote:
how about archeologial evidence.
Acceptable, most certainly.
quote:
if something is described in detail in the bible and then discovered by a scientist with a shovel does that not give some credibility to the bible.
It gives verification of that particular story. It does not mean that the Bible as a whole is accurate. These are the same conditions applied to any other ancient documents, so don't whine about it.
I am aware of some cases where archeology has corraborated some portion of a Bible story. The names of cities are mentioned, the names of rivers, even people. What you fail to realize is that the Isrealites would have had to have been complete idiots to have lived for generations in the region and not get some things right.
What is peculiar is that they got so much wrong.
You need archeological evidence for the major stories in the Bible-- the captivity in Egypt, the plagues of Egypt, the kingdoms of Solomon and David (as described in the Bible)
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-11-2002 2:21 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024