Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 8:45 AM
24 online now:
edge, Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Stile (6 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,799 Year: 9,835/19,786 Month: 2,257/2,119 Week: 293/724 Day: 18/114 Hour: 4/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   On the Nature of Science
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006

Message 1 of 6 (395527)
04-16-2007 9:07 PM

I have noted a paper in the links section that deals with the nature of science. It can be found at http://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf

The main point made is that scientific models should be judged on their ability to make correct predictions. If a model's predictions correspond to carefully obtained observations, the model is considered to be successful.

The author also points out that the difference between science and religion is mainly that science is derived from observations while religion is derived from authoritative texts and persons.

With this account in view, I would like to ask: What correct predictions have any creationist models produced?

Also, if religion is based on arguments from (usually ancient) authority, why would one expect religion-based models to have predictive power and so qualify as science?

perhaps in Is It Science ?

Edited by Woodsy, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by pwnagepanda, posted 05-30-2007 12:20 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

Inactive Administrator

Message 2 of 6 (395633)
04-17-2007 7:48 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Junior Member (Idle past 4319 days)
Posts: 7
From: Piedmont, California, USA
Joined: 05-29-2007

Message 3 of 6 (402798)
05-30-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Woodsy
04-16-2007 9:07 PM

religion is not falsifiable, therefore it is not science. Faith is required for religion, and evidence for science

sorry, but science needs evidence
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Woodsy, posted 04-16-2007 9:07 PM Woodsy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 7:36 PM pwnagepanda has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005

Message 4 of 6 (403904)
06-05-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by pwnagepanda
05-30-2007 12:20 AM

Re: exactly
what? maybe im misinterpereting what youre saying here, but from what my measly powers of dedution tell me religion is NOT falsifiable? logically that doesnt make sense, seeing as there are a little bit more than only one religion, and theyre mutually exclusive.

This statement is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by pwnagepanda, posted 05-30-2007 12:20 AM pwnagepanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2007 8:28 PM Damouse has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Zhimbo, posted 06-05-2007 9:31 PM Damouse has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 5 of 6 (403911)
06-05-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Damouse
06-05-2007 7:36 PM

Re: exactly
Religions make both falsifiable and nonfalsifiable claims. For instance, "there was a man called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans" is a falsifiable claim. "Everything that happens does so for a reason, even if we don't know what it is" is not a claim that can be falsified.

That may be the source of your confusion. Religion makes both falsifiable claims of fact and unfalsifiable claims of teleology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 7:36 PM Damouse has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 4184 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001

Message 6 of 6 (403918)
06-05-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Damouse
06-05-2007 7:36 PM

Re: exactly
Just because religions are mutually exclusive doesn't make them falsifiable - it just means you don't know which one is true.

Crash's distinction is a good one, but many religious viewpoints are not falsifiable even on points of fact. Noah's flood is thoroughly falsified in any number of ways, but if you're allowed to invoke miracles - supernatural interventions to circumvent natural law - then no scientific objection matters. Indeed, many creationist organizations explicitly state than on any matters that science conflicts with the revealed word of God, science must be mistaken, and will eventually be shown to be consistent with scripture.

That's pretty frickin' unfalsifiable.

Edited by Zhimbo, : typo fix.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 7:36 PM Damouse has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019