I'm not a scientist man!

[kramerfan86]

Does that mean we are even now? Is that not what science claimed they were arguing against back when.

Personally, I am not keeping score. If a politician changes his mind he is unstable. If an educated man changes his mind, it is science. I can infer that science is unstable, but it does have practical applications that I like very well.

If a politician changes his mind because new facts have come to light he is simply making educated decisions. Science isnt like Mitt Romney where the position is changed out of popularity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, some questions.

What method is used to fault our previous conceptions because of new insight and understanding?
When that happens, on average, does our understanding merely change to some arbitrary other thing or does our understanding improve?
What is the goal of science?

guys...

 

[timtofly]

I'm just loving the fact the main criticism on science seems to be that it has a mechanism in it where it recognizes it's wrong and improves because of that mechanism.

Which gets me back on my claim that those people don't understand what science actually is, because of projection. They are arguing against a construct that does not exist.

If science recognizes it is wrong, it improves. If that is not change, then what is change? Your claim seems to be that whoever wrote the Bible is wrong. They missed the morning headlines some how and concocted their own story. I can accept the fact they may be wrong. I cannot accept that a modern perspective is what claims they were wrong. How do I know that modern man's theory is not a construct? Theories change do they not? What if a scientific finding proved the Bible was right? Then a year later, oops new evidence once again proves the Bible is wrong. Your solid foundation is built on change. The Bible is just a bunch of manuscripts that may have had some changes, but as many as science has?

Once again, I am not faulting change. Change is good, unless it is authoritarian, and then it gets bad real quick.

You claim science has not changed, but then say that theories change. Stop using theories then, because it seems to me that changing scientific theories would be unscientific if they did not change.

What is rubbish? So called creationism argues that science is a meaningless construct. Scientist claiming creation is a meaningless construct. Seems like a lot of wasted hot air to me.


Every time I read a book, I hope to find someone making a claim, but I do not view that book as an entity. What would be your preferred term to call those who oppose the views of the Bible when it comes to science?

Science is a method and as such can't be an authority.

It's annoying when people who don't know what science is try to talk about it.

It is very authoritarian if it is used to say that an opposing view is wrong. Now you may not do that, but I think that there are some very authoritative statements on both sides of the issue.

If a politician changes his mind because new facts have come to light he is simply making educated decisions. Science isnt like Mitt Romney where the position is changed out of popularity.

Come now? You are saying that peer review is not popularity? How many bad reviews are out there that tell people they are wrong and are idiots? There are critics of all types, but a popular view is a popular view, because it is accepted, not because it is forced on people. If people don't like your theory, you go back to the drawing board until a theory is provided that they do like. Oh yes and it can be disguised as science, because science covers a multitude of sins, that can be glossed over.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If science recognizes it is wrong, it improves.

Give me an example of science being wrong, and tell me the way we figured out it was wrong.

It is very authoritarian if it is used to say that an opposing view is wrong.

The claim is that ID isn't science and therefore should not be taught in a class teaching the scientific subject Biology.

 

[warpus]

It is very authoritarian if it is used to say that an opposing view is wrong. Now you may not do that, but I think that there are some very authoritative statements on both sides of the issue.

Science never says that anything is wrong. It is unable to do so - it is a methodology.

Experiments can confirm that a theory is wrong, yes, but that's pretty much it.

What's the issue you mention and what are the sides to it btw? I ask because I have no idea where you are coming from.

 

[Old Hippy]

Science and politics should be separate.

religion and politics being separate , not enough for you... ?

 

[kramerfan86]

Come now? You are saying that peer review is not popularity? How many bad reviews are out there that tell people they are wrong and are idiots? There are critics of all types, but a popular view is a popular view, because it is accepted, not because it is forced on people. If people don't like your theory, you go back to the drawing board until a theory is provided that they do like. Oh yes and it can be disguised as science, because science covers a multitude of sins, that can be glossed over.

Oh sure there have been true theories that were belittled when they first came out, the guy who explained how prions worked for instance, but eventually the truth has facts behind it, and it works its way out. Foolish pride tends to merely delay the factual new theory's acceptance, unlike religion it is never permanently buried as heresy.

 

[bhsup]

Science never says that anything is wrong. It is unable to do so - it is a methodology..

Science may not, but scientists sure do. All the time.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Science may not, but scientists sure do. All the time.

They sure do.

But we were circle jerking science here in this thread. The very thing that makes us figure out when scientists are talking out of their arse

A scientific theory merely states: this is the best model we've been able to come up with based on our observations and current understanding. Excuse it for shrugging when it's countered by: no it's not.

 

[timtofly]

Give me an example of science being wrong, and tell me the way we figured out it was wrong.

The claim is that ID isn't science and therefore should not be taught in a class teaching the scientific subject Biology.

There were scientist in geology that held that the surface of the earth was left untouched for long periods of time to allow sand to be layered giving us a time scale. With the advent of comets hitting the surface of Jupiter recently, they have come to see that such things could have happened more often than prevousley theorized.

I have never complained that science is at fault with anything. I said that it was a tool used to prove a point. That point then has to change because scientific theories change.

So in other words if one theorizes it is only ok if it fits the mold of the consensus, because we know that the consensus is never wrong and never changes, until something better comes along, but ID came first therefore it was discarded first. I get the point.

People here throw out the words truth and facts like candy, but I do not see how science can ever come to a truth, because there may be new evidence that changes that truth.

 

[Antilogic]

If science recognizes it is wrong, it improves. If that is not change, then what is change? Your claim seems to be that whoever wrote the Bible is wrong. They missed the morning headlines some how and concocted their own story. I can accept the fact they may be wrong. I cannot accept that a modern perspective is what claims they were wrong. How do I know that modern man's theory is not a construct? Theories change do they not? What if a scientific finding proved the Bible was right? Then a year later, oops new evidence once again proves the Bible is wrong. Your solid foundation is built on change. The Bible is just a bunch of manuscripts that may have had some changes, but as many as science has?

Once again, I am not faulting change. Change is good, unless it is authoritarian, and then it gets bad real quick.

You claim science has not changed, but then say that theories change. Stop using theories then, because it seems to me that changing scientific theories would be unscientific if they did not change.

What is rubbish? So called creationism argues that science is a meaningless construct. Scientist claiming creation is a meaningless construct. Seems like a lot of wasted hot air to me.


Every time I read a book, I hope to find someone making a claim, but I do not view that book as an entity. What would be your preferred term to call those who oppose the views of the Bible when it comes to science?



It is very authoritarian if it is used to say that an opposing view is wrong. Now you may not do that, but I think that there are some very authoritative statements on both sides of the issue.



Come now? You are saying that peer review is not popularity? How many bad reviews are out there that tell people they are wrong and are idiots? There are critics of all types, but a popular view is a popular view, because it is accepted, not because it is forced on people. If people don't like your theory, you go back to the drawing board until a theory is provided that they do like. Oh yes and it can be disguised as science, because science covers a multitude of sins, that can be glossed over.

Question: have you ever tried to publish something in a scientific journal? Have you been through the peer review process? Or did you just skim the criticism section on wikipedia?

Otherwise: the silly equatism between the Bible "changing" and the theories produced by science changing is pretty funny. Sounds like you are high.

I'm just loving the fact the main criticism on science seems to be that it has a mechanism in it where it recognizes it's wrong and improves because of that mechanism.

Which gets me back on my claim that those people don't understand what science actually is, because of projection. They are arguing against a construct that does not exist.

It's the same criticism that lets a flim-flam expert witness destroy an honest scientist's testimony in court.

People here throw out the words truth and facts like candy, but I do not see how science can ever come to a truth, because there may be new evidence that changes that truth.

There isn't any absolute truth if this is how you are using the word. A better way to phrase this would be that the scientific method yields the most accurate and closest representation of the truth known by man.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I am a scientist, obviously. Why else would Antilogic be crying so hard over my awesome exploits of rocketry?

On that note, I believe with all of my soul that the critics of science and the scientific method frankly don't have a clue what they are talking about. It'd be a bit like me talking about the mood affects of menstruation or something.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've always been a proponent of politicians answering whatever questions they were asked honestly and clearly, and I've always thought less of politicians who refused to do so.

I don't really mind if a politician refuses to answer this one. Its either a religious question, a scientific one, or both. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and so I couldn't care less if a politician, even the President, got it wrong. How old the Earth is just doesn't have anything to do with their job.

The only possible question that is remotely political is "Should intelligent design/YEC/whatever be taught in public schools." Which is a very different question than what one's personal religious beliefs are.

Even so, since education has nothing to do with the Federal Government it still doesn't matter what the President thinks about it.

I would personally like both theories to be taught just so kids can hear the pros and cons whatever they may be of both theories, or better yet, to simply not get into that stuff in the science classroom (The origin of the Earth isn't really that relevant to anything learned in science classes before the college level AFAIK.) That said, it really isn't a big deal, kids will generally believe their parents over the school anyway, and I really don't care much about this issue when it comes to who I would vote for, even at a state level. And this definitely is not a Federal level issue, it should be up to state or local standards.

Why should anyone care about politicians' religious beliefs?

This.

On that note, I believe with all of my soul that the critics of science and the scientific method frankly don't have a clue what they are talking about. It'd be a bit like me talking about the mood affects of menstruation or something.

It just doesn't matter what they think about it. Its a religious/scientific issue, NOT a political one.

I think that's precisely why Ron and Rand Paul (Both of whom are pretty blunt to the point where they criticized a portion of the Civil Rights Act for its effect on private property in spite of the huge backlash it could/has created) gave relatively vague answers to this question. I mean, should a politician be faulted for giving a vague answer as to what movies he likes to watch or how he feels about apple pie? If not, I don't see why they should answer this either. Its just none of the media's business frankly.

 

[kramerfan86]

Its less about the politician's religious beliefs and more about their thoughts on science. Federal government plays a role in regulating many things, many of which a basic understanding of science would be helpful to successful law creation. If a guy seemingly doesnt believe or understand even base level scientific principles that makes me uncomfortable having him in positions to regulate medicine or science.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Its less about the politician's religious beliefs and more about their thoughts on science. Federal government plays a role in regulating many things, many of which a basic understanding of science would be helpful to successful law creation. If a guy seemingly doesnt believe or understand even base level scientific principles that makes me uncomfortable having him in positions to regulate medicine or science.

Well, like it or not, Evolution IS debated in America. I don't believe in it but don't really have the knowledge to, or care to, argue that point.

How does not believing it, even if silly, affect how someone does their job as President? Heck, what if they believed in Santa Claus? Why cares?

I care about things like, what laws they will or will not pass, whether they want to kill people in other countries, whether they want to aggressively hunt down drug users, whether they want to have people raped on their way into airports, whether they believe spying on people and indefinitely detaining them without trial, what they are going to do about the economy, their views on torture, exc. far, far more than I do whether or not they accept Evolution.

 

[Old Hippy]

How does not believing it, even if silly, affect how someone does their job as President? Heck, what if they believed in Santa Claus? Why cares?

.

thats the problem with democracy... voters

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wasn't talking about voters, but the President of the United States.

I don't care about what his beliefs are on anything that does not have an effect on how he will run the country. So if he believes in evolution, creationism, santa claus, the tooth fairy, or no god at all, if it is not going to effect how he runs the country, I don't care.

The inevitable response, of course, is that religion has an effect on everyone's policies. More or less, yes. But not so much creationism itself as the moral precepts drawn from religion. And religion affects everyone's policies in different ways. If your Presidential candidate wants to have higher taxes for the wealthy in order to help the lower class, and so do you, you shouldn't care that he used religious reasoning to draw that conclusion, you should vote for him if you support his policies. If you oppose interventionist wars, but do so for religious reasons or otherwise, who cares WHY your candidate agrees with you, if he does, support him? (At least if that's the issue it comes down to.) And if a candidate personally believes in Creationism, who cares? If you agree with his stances, vote for him. I don't think most of you would vote for a candidate who was totally against your convictions on everything else solely because he supported teaching only evolution in public schools and oppose the candidate you agreed on everything else with but he also supported teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Which, this is the only real relation the issue of Creation and Evolution has to do with politics, education. Which the Federal government really has nothing to do with anyway, but even if it did, its far from the most important issue. Especially since nobody is really advocating that evolution not be taught. At worst, adding creationism wastes time. Is that really more important than all of the other issues I listed in my previous post (Whatever positions you may hold on them)?

EDIT: I think the reality is that you guys already don't like the Republican Party (Which is fine, I hate the GOP for the most part although the aforementioned Rand Paul is an exception along with his father and a few others) and so want to find any excuse to pick on them. Don't waste your time doing so for an issue that isn't political.

 

[Old Hippy]

Don't waste your time doing so for an issue that isn't political.

everything is political ... especially what the president of the free world believes in ... or dose not believe in

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, are you agreeing with me and just saying that voters are stupid for not? Or are you trying to say I'm wrong but not expanding on why?

I'm confused.

Can you either tell me that I'm right or otherwise explain to me why you think I'm wrong?

 

[Old Hippy]

Wait, are you agreeing with me and just saying that voters are stupid for not? Or are you trying to say I'm wrong but not expanding on why?

I'm confused.

Can you either tell me that I'm right or otherwise explain to me why you think I'm wrong?

I am saying that it is important what our political leaders believe in... I believed you were saying that even if the president believes in Santa clause, you don't care

from this I said that what is wrong with democracy is ... Voters, and if you can not yet vote... GOD help us , you will soon