|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Theory For Dummies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, but your statement is too broad. Science deals with scientific evidence, and uses scientific theories to explain that evidence. It does not deal with historical, or literary, or other types of evidence. It only puts forth a certain type of theory to explain this evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, "acceptance" and "confidence" are more normally used, and are more clear. But you are splitting hairs in your distinction. In this context, "faith" and "belief" are essentially synonymous with "confidence" and "acceptance." Here are the first few meanings of each from dictionary.com:
dictionary.com writes:
The words "faith" and "belief" are not restricted to a religious context. I have heard these words used by leading scientists in reference to scientific theories (though generally in casual conversation, not in careful technical writing). You are a scientist, I believe, and must have heard the same?
faith [feyth] Show IPA—noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. ----- belief [bih-leef] Show IPA—noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Both science and history try to figure out and explain the real world. Theology is trying to figure things out about the spiritual world. Problems only arise when people use theology to figure out and explain the real world.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You are a scientist, I believe, and must have heard the same? No, never. Not even in the context of where we have two or more competing theories, and someone is expressing an opinion on which way they "believe" the matter will be resolved in the future. Phrases such as "I think that..." or "I have a hunch that..." are common in that context, both of which would be immediately challenged with a "why do you think that?" Replies such as "well, I have faith that is the way it will turn out", or "it's just what I believe" would be laughed at, and opinions of said scientist would instantly drop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I've never heard it worded this way, either. I was referring to the way Coyote worded it in Message 7. I have often heard scientists say that they "believe" or "don't believe" a new theory. This is fairly common. It is standard English usage:
dictionary.com writes: believe [bih-leev] Show IPA verb,-lieved, -lieving.—verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. —verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). Let's look at actual usage. Here are a few quick examples from just one book, by a friend, mentor, and Nobel laureate in physics:
Luis Alvarez writes:
The second example above is clearly "belief" in a scientific theory.
"I operated on the belief that if engineers know that physicists are going to check their blueprints they won't be nearly so careful."--p.122 "Most nuclear physicists spent the war years secure in the belief that the mesotron was the particle Yukawa proposed and that it would be available for study when hostilities ceased."--p.183 "'I don't believe in your big chamber,' he told me, 'but I do believe in you, so I'll help you get the money.'"--p189 (Ernest Lawrence speaking of Luie's proposed new bubble chamber) (from Luis W. Alvarez, Alvarez: Adventures of a Physicist, New York: Basic Books, 1987) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:If you change "real" to "physical" both places above, I'll agree with you. ('Reality" is the province of metaphysics, not science or history, and I believe the spiritual world is every bit as "real" as the natural or physical world.) Stephen J Gould's "non-overlapping magesteria" (NOMA) avoids problems by not allowing religion to speak of the physical world. But this can't apply to most religions, of course, which are grounded in history and make historical claims about the physical world. Edited by kbertsche, : added sig I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:FYI, below are some quotes from another friend and mentor that get closer to your wording. I doubt that George's comments have caused opinions of him to drop, since he was awarded a Nobel prize in physics 13 years after this book was published:quote:No, never. Not even in the context of where we have two or more competing theories, and someone is expressing an opinion on which way they "believe" the matter will be resolved in the future. Phrases such as "I think that..." or "I have a hunch that..." are common in that context, both of which would be immediately challenged with a "why do you think that?" Replies such as "well, I have faith that is the way it will turn out", or "it's just what I believe" would be laughed at, and opinions of said scientist would instantly drop. George Smoot writes:
Unlike Kepler, Olbers believed that the cosmos was infinite, and he proposed a way to reconcile this belief with the dark night sky: p. 28 Building on his discovery by exploiting a technique developed earlier by the American Vesto Melvin Slipher, Hubble then struck at the centuries-old belief that the universe is staticthe notion to which Einstein clung so tenaciously.p. 46 It seemed like an epiphany, and it renewed Marc’s faith in the DMR.p129 (DMR=differential microwave radiometer) Go back further still, beyond the moment of creationwhat then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? Facing this, the ulitmate question, challenges our faith in the power of science to find explanations of nature.p.291 Einstein, remember, refused to believe the implications of his own equationsthat the universe is expanding and therefore must have had a beginningand invented the cosmological constant to avoid it. Only when Einstein saw Hubble’s observations of an expanding universe could he bring himself to believe his equations.p. 291 Our faith in the big bang is revitalized: To the dark night sky, the composition of the elements, the evidence of an expanding universe, and the afterglow of creation is added a means by which the structures of today’s universe could have formed.p. 295 (from George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, New York: William Morrow, 1993.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In your attempts to equate science and religion through common usage of the terms belief and faith, are you trying to elevate religion or denigrate science?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:First, I'm not attempting to equate science and religion. Second, I'm trying to accurately describe and elevate both. I see no need to denigrate either one, or to set up false dichotomies or conflicts between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote: For an accurate layman's description of science, I highly recommend the excellent article "What is Science?" by Helen Quinn, published in Physics today in August 2009:http://ptonline.aip.org/.../PHTOAD-ft/vol_62/iss_7/8_1.shtml Helen has been involved with science education on the national level for a number of years, and is a very careful, clear thinker and writer. Here's some of what Helen says about "scientific theory":
Helen Quinn writes:
Theories and models develop over time. Based on data, they undergo a long-term process of testing and refinement before becoming accepted scientific explanations or tools in a given domain. Contrast that with the usual description of the scientific method, which reduces continuous and iterative theory building to the idea that one makes and tests hypotheses. The use of a broad theoretical framework within which each hypothesis must fit, and that gets refined by each test, is generally lacking in the textbook account. Scientific theories, even when generally accepted after much testing and refinement, are still never complete. Each can be safely applied in some limited domain, some range of situations or conditions for which it has been well tested. Each might also apply in some extended regime where it has yet to be tested, and may have little or nothing to offer in still more distant domains. That is the sense in which no theory can be proven to be true; truth is too complete a notion. We need to emphasize that the incompleteness of theory in no way compromises the stability over time of well-established understanding in sciencean important notion that is seldom made explicit. Rather than trying to separate science from religion by "bashing" religion (a common occurrance here on EvC Forum), Helen points out the fundamental difference between them in a non-offensive way:
Helen Quinn writes:
In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. Modern science focuses our attention on just those questions that can have definitive answers based on observations. Where science does find a path to compare theory with observations, the theories so developed provide a powerful way to understand the world and even to make some predictions about the future. Science offers us new options that may be appliedfor example, in technology and medicineto change the way we live and extend our capabilities. However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi kertsche, nice article.
In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. The difference between "how" and "why" ... (where have I seen that before).
The use of a broad theoretical framework within which each hypothesis must fit, and that gets refined by each test, is generally lacking in the textbook account. We could also say that science is an approximation of reality, and that each refinement brings us closer. But science doesn't just look at what is true, it also shows concepts that cannot be true because of the contrary evidence. Sometimes what cannot be true is as/more important than what can be true. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: We could also say that science is an approximation of reality, and that each refinement brings us closer. So you are essentially a proponent of verisimilitude?
RAZD writes: But science doesn't just look at what is true, it also shows concepts that cannot be true because of the contrary evidence. Sometimes what cannot be true is as/more important than what can be true. Indeed. But if we are considering two explanatory theories neither of which has been falsified (maybe one has been designed to be unfalsifiable) is there any way to distinguish between the two in terms of verisimilitude? Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 828 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4731 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: I really don't understand this one. Because what confuses me is that it sounds like a person is supposed to do anything they can to find out if something is wrong, then if something is wrong then it calls the entire body of work into question. And that kind of thing is very bothersome to me. Because if that was the way science truly work, then how can there be any progress, since, anybody with enough skill can find something wrong with some part and turn it against the body of work? For this kind of thing I am keeping in mind the general practice of Creationists who do this kind of thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because what confuses me is that it sounds like a person is supposed to do anything they can to find out if something is wrong, then if something is wrong then it calls the entire body of work into question. In science that is pretty much what you try to do. Science advances by finding out what is wrong with current theories, but it usually only refutes one part of the body of work. The mistake Creationists make is in thinking that proving one theory wrong adds weight to some other theory. Don't work like that. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024