Science isn't the only source of knowledge, and I'll be glad to detail other sources of knowledge as the thread progresses.
Here are some of the other sources of knowledge. Let me know which ones you prefer:
Magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, reading entrails, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.
Me, I'll stick to science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
So you'll disregard all that and go with only one thing, science, being reported to you by a special interest, led by the National Academy of Science, (about 93% of whom are atheists).
You don't care whether scientists are atheists or not. In reality, you only care that they come up with conclusions that dispute your religious beliefs.
From your quote:
How can we determine which facts are true? As human beings living in the 21st Century we are surrounded by a wealth of information but not all of it is trustworthy, so we must find a way to double check fact-claims. We must learn some-how to screen out the fictions but let in the facts. On what criteria can we decide what are facts and what are false claims?
From a list of definitions I put together many years ago:
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
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
From this, we see that facts are observations that can be confirmed by others and "truth" has no role in science.
How can we determine which facts are important? However, it is not enough to simply determine which facts are true, we must also consider which facts are useful. A correct catalogue of the size and shape of every blade of grass on my lawn may well be factually true but it will not be as useful as knowing that my lawn is on fire and about to engulf my house. Given the overwhelming number of facts available to us, what criteria can we use for deciding what is more important, what less?
Theory! That's what we use to organize and explain facts!
As Heinlein noted:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
And more from my definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
So, to answer your question about which facts are true and which are useful--we don't use either term in science. Rather we ask, does a theory explain the relevant facts? All of the relevant facts? Are there any facts that contradict the theory, or as we say in science, disprove it?
The problem creationists have is that the facts are not on their side, and the theories explaining those facts contradict religious beliefs. This is why creationists are trying to dispute the definitions used by scientists, and are trying to say things like, "They're both theories."
In other words, creationists have to distort science to try and make it come out as they want. That is why creation "science" was invented in the 1980s--to provide a different kind of "science," one that made things come out as creationists wanted.
Bah!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
The public, through their representatives, can choose what types of projects to fund with public funds, but they can't dictate the results. There is no role for public opinion there.
This is a lesson creationists have yet to learn.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".
"Atheism" is the absence of religion.
It is not a religion and no amount of creationist claims will make it into one.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
If it could be shown that complex, orderly biological systems like the bacterial flagellum could have been formed by ONE CERTAIN gradual Darwinian process, then ID would be falsified on the secular scientific grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when natural causes can clearly shown to be able to do the job. So far, no one Darwinian process has been clearly constructed by science to form the bacterial flagellum. Evolutionists demand proof that NO Darwinian pathway could have formed it, requiring an impossible, infinite search. ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution.
That has been done. The flagellum problem has been solved.
But here is another item that is quite interesting, and quite pertinent to this discussion.
It is an on-line lecture, close to an hour in length, but the points it makes are important. Give it a try:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell
Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
If you really want to discuss science, knock off the "atheist" crap and try again.
This is the free-for-all forum, and I'm responding to other posters comments about atheism.
You are peddling a standard creationist line of nonsense, which claims any science they agree with is "real" science, while any science which disproves some of their religious beliefs is "atheist" science.
That's nonsense from start to finish.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
You can do un-American science, just don't try to smuggle it into the U.S, they have special conservative dogs that can sniff out facts in your luggage.
You mean "fundamentalist" dogs, not "conservative" dogs.
There are a lot of conservatives who support science, so don't lump us all in with the fundamentalists.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
Sorry, but given that conservatives as a group support creationism, deny climate change, and misrepresent the facts about contraceptives, abortion and AIDS for political purposes, your assurance that "a lot" of conservatives support science fails to convince me.
You paint with too broad a brush.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
™ Version 4.2
(1)