Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do science and religion have rights to some "explanatory space"?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 37 (491834)
12-21-2008 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
12-21-2008 9:28 PM


Pleasing evolutionists' constituents
OTOH, the evolutionist must assemble a complex and enormous volume of theory and hypothetical data over a very long time to come up with anything that will be considered acceptable by evolutionist constituents.
Close, but it doesn't work exactly that way.
Science starts with real (not hypothetical) data. Those are things that can be measured in some way, and on which there is little disagreement. Most anyone can verify the observations if there is any doubt. Sometimes established facts can change, but more often new facts are added.
Things in this category would include facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.
Based on these data points, scientists seek explanations. These explanations begin with hypotheses. Hypotheses are tentative explanations about the natural world, or concepts that are not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
There could be a number of different hypotheses for the same set of facts, and many hypotheses for overlapping sets of facts.
The next step involves testing those hypotheses. Where possible laboratory experiments could be conducted, but in some fields you just can't do that. The next best way of testing an hypothesis is by generating predictions. "If this hypothesis is accurate, then X must have occurred [or could not occur]."
Many a fine hypothesis has fallen victim to stubborn little facts that can't be explained, and just refuse to go away. Gradually, in most cases the hypotheses are dropped or modified, resulting in a single broad explanation that accounts for all relevant facts, and allows accurate predictions to be made. That is called a theory. There is usually no more than one theory at a time for a given set of facts. [String theory is actually an hypothesis, but even scientists are not always precise in their use of terms.]
But back to your post -- I wouldn't worry overmuch about evolutionists and evolutionists' constituents, and having to assemble some "complex and enormous volume of theory and hypothetical data over a very long time." That's already been done. It started centuries ago, and was given a boost by Darwin 150 years ago.
And it didn't come down from the top, from some mystical "evolutionists;" it was meticulously assembled beginning with individual facts, and small, simple explanations, by tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world working in hundreds of different disciplines. This body of research has grown, with much testing and verification, into the modern theory of evolution.
And its doing just fine, even though fundamentalists often disagree with it for religious reasons. So don't worry overmuch. Let scientists take care of these things, eh? They are the ones who are trained for it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 12-21-2008 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 5:45 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 37 (491887)
12-23-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by erikp
12-23-2008 5:29 AM


Logic, eh?
Science is therefore false, but hard to prove so; but sooner or later every scientific statement will turn out to be an error [Popper, Gdel]. Religion, however, is true, but impossible to prove so.
Therefore, as long as religious statements (theorems) are phrased as such that they impossibly be contradicted by future observations, the statements -- but also their antithesis -- must be considered to be true, though unproven. Any religious statement, however, that could be contradicted by future observations, is not a valid religious statement.
In my impression, both the Bible and the Koran, manage to stay clear of making unproven false statements (that is, scientific statements) by staying clear of phrasing statements that could be contradicted by future observations.
Religion may only contain proven true (facts, observations) and unproven/unprovable true statements (religious imperatives).
[b]
[color=red]
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.[/b][/color]
Murphy's technology laws
Frankly, you're spouting nonsense. Perhaps its logical, but it still amounts to nothing more than nonsense.
This serves as a prime example of why real scientists want to have nothing to do with philosophers, and, although they receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree, they now shun philosophers and the meaningless drivel they produce.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 5:29 AM erikp has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 37 (494078)
01-13-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by erikp
01-13-2009 11:30 AM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
This the standard definition in science for truth/untruth. The benchmark for truth/untruth is necessarily: reality, that is, facts. But then again, according to the same definition, unfalsifiable theories are simply true.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 11:30 AM erikp 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