Applying Science to Past Events

Just a nitpick... that's a bad example, because celcius is defined around the freezing and boiling points of water at one atmosphere Or at least, it originally was; perhaps they've quantified it with some more absolute physical constants (after all, "one atmosphere" changes).

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

This is why I do not ignore the data. I just do not take it as an end all.

---

Data is the only reliable thing we have. What else are we supposed to go on, tingly feelings in our gut? Let's pretend you are going to jump off of a building and someone says that you are crazy. Would you reply "I don't ignore the data, but it isn't the end all"? I would hope not.

quote:

---

Just a nitpick... that's a bad example, because celcius is defined around the freezing and boiling points of water at one atmosphere Or at least, it originally was; perhaps they've quantified it with some more absolute physical constants (after all, "one atmosphere" changes).

---

Just to nitpick back, when celcius is measured by a thermometer it uses the expansion of the liquid inside of the thermometer. Therefore, if using a thermometer, the boiling point of water is independent of the measurement. There are also other ways of measuring temperature which are also independent of the boiling point of water. I could use Kelvin, but the Kelvin scale uses the same increments of temperature as Celcius, so it really isn't a qualitative advantage in that respect.Also, atmospheric pressures do change over time. However, I am using the SCI definition which can be related to mm of Hg, PSI, Pascals, milliBars, etc.

Atmosphere is a standard unit of pressure. Type "1 atmosphere in psi" into Google (without the quotes).--Percy

This isn't getting anywhere, so let's try a different approach.If science is using invalid methodologies, how do you explain all the successes of science?--Percy

quote:

---

This is why I do not ignore the data. I just do not take it as an end all. There is just too much to know.

---

However, every scientist or interested lay person tries to learn as much as possible. The combined effort of many scientists (especially these days where much of science works in huge collaborative projects)is what allows knowledge to advance. Nobody throws their hands up in the air and says it is too complicated and there is to much to know so I just will assume that it is not everything i.e. an end all. But the individual effort required is why scientists make up a relatively small proportion of the population. It is not for lack of interest.I agree with you that 1000 years from now some of the currently well supported hypotheses in every scientific discipline will collapse or be heavily modified. If this were not the case, people would not go into science in the first place as it would be boring if it were static.

That is mis-understanding what I said.

Here's what you said: You're saying you don't limit yourself to just the data. You don't say what there might be in addition to data, but I assume they're the Bible and spiritual insights. If I've got this right, then Loudmouth's response would appear to be apropos. As far as science goes, data *is all there is. Knowledge gained through means other than our five senses cannot be scientific.--Percy

quote:

---

That is mis-understanding what I said.

---

Um, I would expect that you would clear up the misunderstanding? Do you think that we should look to things other than data? If data is not the end all, what is?

I love Bill the Cat BTW.I am talking about the data that is not collected as of yet, plus the things we just don't know. As with all non-Christians you automatically assume that I will refer to biblical things.However, I will not accept science as proving anything wrong in the bible, until all the data is collected, which may never happen. I do remian open minded about it, and realize that the bible was written by man inspired by God, not God himself. Then translated.

All the data.

quote:

---

I am talking about the data that is not collected as of yet, plus the things we just don't know.

---

But what you are doing is refusing to take in the data we do have, right now.If we follow your logic, then we can never make any determination about anything, ever.According to you, we could never say that matter is made up of atoms, because someday we just might learn that it isn't. Do we ignore all the data on matter and atoms that we do have?

No I am not. I accept it at face value. Well isn't that part of the scientific method? I am a realist. That is correct. We could theorizse that it is, but we may never know for sure. If we do, then thats cool too. We could also be slightly off on our theories, and think one thing for a long time, then base all other theories and assumptions on that theory, because the evidence is so over welming. But then one day, we would find out something that would change it all, and then we would say "we were wrong, and it is really like this" which then could one day be changed again.Science is cool, and helpful, and I enjoy it very much. I am all for finding out as much as we can, but to me, its not what really counts in life.

No, the scientific method means we come to conclusions, but they're tentative. They're all predicated by "it's this way to the best of our knowledge, but we might change our minds in the face of future discoveries."We don't know everything about medicine and the human body, for instance. But that doesn't mean we tear down the hospitals; it means we build more schools.

quote:

---

All the data.

---

So you are claiming that we cannot know anything about anything in until we know everything? We cannot know anything about heredity for example until we have a full understanding of every aspect of quantum mechanics? Yet you accept the bible without a shred of evidence to support it and without knowing everything about god i.e. as you said all the data ? A rather strange concept and if you are to be consistent, you should not believe in god because there is no data.As Crashfrog pointed out, there is a difference between the tentativity of scientific conclusions and not being able to draw any conclusions.