Belief Versus The Scientific Method

Anyhow, deal with it. At least state some position clearly. If you feel some need to define what you BELIEVE a scientific theory is, go ahead. Just drop the empty whining routine.
Try to remember that you have an opinion. Upchucking out ridiculous proclamations and insults does nothing more than show you are full of pious hot puss.

Rather than cry like a baby, try to show your belief set to be something other than what millions of people know it to be. Don't waste our time.

quote:

---

ALL of the evidence supports the conclusion that if GOD exists it is an unknown God

---

False. He is well known.

More spam blather. Boring. I prefer intelligent debate

Great, you use the scientific method in some unmentioned field. So what? Would not the two doctors in the OP do something similar?
You do confirm that science is pretty well a religion to some people though, by taking offence to the fact some faith is involved.
Oh, and by the way, interpreting evidence involves belief and in a systematic way!Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

coward

quote:

---

We can have faith (using the word in its confidence in outcomes sense) in science, as a result of science needing to be falsifiable.

---

That is not the issue. The issue is not having faith or not IN a religion. The issue is whether that religion is a religion.

quote:

---

Here is an extract from the Wiki page on the scientific method:

​

A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question.

---

Yet that same 'knowledge, in the case of the OP cannot be actual knowledge! Otherwise thousands of men of science on both sides could not use it! What we actually have is falsely called knowledge. A misuse of the English language and a lie using word games.

quote:

---

The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

---

Again, false! In the OP and other articles I posted, we see scientific studies that say that for example masks are basically useless. In one article I linked there were 150 studies cited! Yet the other side claims they have tests that show the opposite! So what we really have is faith. Belief. Interpreting data, and hiring scientists to say what we want said. That is not knowledge.

quote:

---

So far, the vast field of science has not been falsified in any major way.

---

That says nothing. When we look at specifics we see that it is a fool's notion to assume that faith based theories that are based on the natural world could ever be held to some falsification standard when dealing with things that are spiritual or supernatural. The whole concept of falsification assumes that they have some ability or power TO be able to falsify! That ability is limited in the fields of science. In some cases it applies. In other cases, such as origin sciences, and cosmology, and dating and etc it does not apply! Falsification for many so called sciences is just an impossible charade and facade to protect the system of beliefs that is science! A shrill hypocrisy used by the weak and cowardly and ignorant to try and protect their beliefs when they are intellectually unable to do so!

quote:

---

As yet, the only people with beards who are involved in the Sat nav system are those male Sat nav scientists and engineers who choose to wear them.

---

Sorry, I don't share your fear of beards. Hey, Darwin had one!

quote:

---

So when it comes to having faith in something guiding me safely and efficiently from home to a new garden centre my wife would like us to visit, I put mine in the (sometimes) bearded folk of science, rather than getting in my car and having faith in some bearded bloke from some iron age stories, to tell me where to go.

---

You are welcome to have faith in whatever you like. If the satellites happen to go down in a war or something, hopefully, if you are still alive, you have the wherewithal to find your way home anyhow. Good luck.Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

What spirit are you coming from? Be brave.

Jesus. Why, you believe in spirits? By the way since you claimed I was a troll, why are you constantly responding??Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Why would we do that? Is this thread about discussing medical procedures we may have done?

Not sure why they let you get away with such demon talk here. Sad

Not sure why you try to drag all of science into it? The issue was how that the scientific method is not applicable for some aspects of what is called science today.
I think I cited a few examples. Of course this natural world has certain realities/laws/forces that work and that are used in the scientific method in a very many cases. Don't try to paint this as it is either total blind faith in all of what is called science, or we are science deniers!

So those who chose to believe the tens of thousands of experts on one side are irrational? It seems to me that those who think all people must accept their beliefs are the irrational ones.

In post 128 I mentioned how men of science with opposing claims each believe that the evidence supports them. Do you think they do not use the scientific method? If their field does, then what we have is belief, not knowledge. The data that may have been gotten using a scientific method in and of itself seems useless and merely something from which people use beliefs to interpret it!In another post I noted what another man of science said
"Saying that no laws existed as the little blob that would become the universe began it's magic superspurt of growth requires faith. Believing one expert over another about covid requires faith. Believing that all things observed in the natural worls and universe had to have resulted from processes or laws that now exist on earth requires faith. Believing that time exists as we know it in the distant universe requires faith. etc"Arizona State University physicist Paul Davies has noted that the work of science depends upon beliefs—that the hidden architecture of the universe, all the constants and laws of nature that sustain the scientific enterprise, will hold. As he wrote in his book “The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World”: “Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will therefore rise tomorrow. The belief that it will—that there are indeed dependable regularities of nature—is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.”At Its Heart, Science Is Faith-Based TooSo many feel that beliefs are involved. Feel welcome to prove otherwise. The responses I have gotten seem to be rude and empty so far. Funny that you ask me for something, when the rude and vacuous spammers are ignored?
When I showed a poster wrong on what the Canadian PM said, I saw no admission of error on their part. Other points I raised and they were not addressed. I understand a lot of the old guard here have passed away, and that there seems to be not much new blood. Is that why the rude people seem to get a pass?

I am pro real science. You should try it sometime. PS we are not in a UK kangaroo court. Say hi to Prince PhilipEdited by drlove, : No reason given.