[_ Old Earth _] Reliable science?

[Corn Pop]

Just wondering how science is reliable when its consistantly changing.

Do you think its unfair over years someone failes an exam because of the answer and another passes yet the answer all along was wrong?.

Example.

1980. The universe is entirely made of atoms. Pass
2015. The universe is entirely made of atoms. Fail.

How is science reliable?. I have no idea when this is how it works.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Science is method of study and forming theories and laws about what we can define as reality. What is reliable is that we can take something we can observe and start collecting data and information on what we can observe. Science builds onto our current understanding of our surrounding and refines our knowledge.

For instance in your example of the universe is made up of atoms still holds true today, that didn't change. What changed is what we are capable of observing. As technology becomes more advance, the more we can observe and record data, the more we understand about the subject, and the more variable we learn about.

I think many people misunderstand the discoveries of science, with science. Science in itself is pretty dry because its just a methodology of collecting data and refining knowledge. Its a lot of observing, measuring, recording, explaining, presenting, cataloging, etc. Application comes after in the engineering and art fields.

 

[Milk-Drops]

As for do I think its unfair that people are failed because they gave an answer that is right in our current understanding but wrong in time period or vice versa? Not necessarily, because how things are revolutionized is by people being able to explain why the current status is wrong and by showing a better, more consistent explanation.

 

[Corn Pop]

For instance in your example of the universe is made up of atoms still holds true today, that didn't change.

so dark matter is made of atoms?

 

[Corn Pop]

As for do I think its unfair that people are failed because they gave an answer that is right in our current understanding but wrong in time period or vice versa? Not necessarily, because how things are revolutionized is by people being able to explain why the current status is wrong and by showing a better, more consistent explanation.

So they work off there own failures through time with a better explanation. That sounds reliable.

 

[Milk-Drops]

so dark matter is made of atoms?

Dark matter is a component of some atoms theoretically. Look at it this way. Saying a boat is made of wood and then discovering cells, doesn't change the fact that the boat is still made of wood, we just learned something new about he wood.

When you start talking about dark matter, you are entering theoretical quantum physics, where atoms are particle physics.

 

[Milk-Drops]

So they work off there own failures through time with a better explanation. That sounds reliable.

I think you are using a very broad definition of failure.

The scientific method isn't failing because its not regressing. The entire point of the method is to continually expand our understanding. So far its just that and allowed for people to take what has been learned and observed and make things. If it was a failure, we wouldn't be able to learn anything from science, when that is clearly not true. Especially considering how much medical, engineering, chemistry, and physics has improved over just the last decade.

Like I said before, the factoids aren't science the method is science.

 

[Barbarian]

1980. The universe is entirely made of atoms. Pass
2015. The universe is entirely made of atoms. Fail.

Wrong. Long before 1980, we knew the universe was made of matter and energy. And they were interchangeable. And dark matter has been hypothesized since the 1930s. And it is theoretically possible to have dark matter atoms, in spite of the baryon problem.

It is the nature of science to move from wrong to more subtly wrong. Think of a man playing a game in which he has no idea of the rules. As he continues, he learns what moves are impossible, and what moves do various things. That's science. We're trying to infer the rules by checking particulars.

This might seem like a rather ineffective process, but it taught us how to make computers from dirt.

 

[Edward]

Just wondering how science is reliable when its consistantly changing.

Do you think its unfair over years someone failes an exam because of the answer and another passes yet the answer all along was wrong?.

Example.

1980. The universe is entirely made of atoms. Pass
2015. The universe is entirely made of atoms. Fail.

How is science reliable?. I have no idea when this is how it works.

Oh that's how you get extra credit on tests, by spotting flaws in the test, lol. Same thing with science. Science can only be as reliable as it's willingness to be able to discard previous misconceptions that have been proven of late, and move on. There's always some die hard science fans that cling to old notions because they like them. All the scientists have made mistakes, including Einstein. There's a fierce competition to get their name out there and funding so when a scientist comes along and proves an earlier theory wrong...it's a slugfest to discredit the truth. So the truth is out there, but so is a lot of misinformation. We get to wade through it, joy, lol.

I think that science and creationism will mesh perfectly one day. We just don't get it yet.

 

[Barbarian]

I think that science and creationism will mesh perfectly one day. We just don't get it yet.

About as likely as the evil spirit hypothesis of infectious disease.

 

[Edward]

I stand confirmed, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

(Koch rolls in his grave)

Koch's Postulates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates

 

[brother Paul]

About as likely as the evil spirit hypothesis of infectious disease.

I know how unlikely is it that we would discover life forms invisible to the eye that cause disease? Sheesh! What were they thinking? Oh thats right, bacteria are living beings invisible to the eye (until the microscope)....wow, what do you know, many diseases are caused by life forms that were invisible at that time...

 

[Barbarian]

Which is why it's a bad idea to try to tie God down to geocentrism, lightning as His weapon of vengence, infectious disease causing evil spirits, and creationism.

Time moves on and what used to be cited as evidence for God turns out to be nothing of the sort.

 

[Sparkey]

Which is why it's a bad idea to try to tie God down to geocentrism

Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary in 1992!

lightning as His weapon of vengence

Go home. You're confused.

infectious disease causing evil spirits

Medieval peasants have been taught by the church that any illness was a punishment from God for sinful behavior. Illness was thought and taught to be self-imposed. Hindu myths and legends include a pantheon of demons that disease. What is your point?

and creationism.

Oh. I see now. You don't believe that God created like He said. Fine. You saw a chance to slap and took it. Those who believe different are dumb. Okay. Maybe you should install a lightning rod?

 

[Barbarian]

Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary in 1992!

Not quite. The Vatican officially apologized for the treatment of Galileo. Unlike Lutherans and Calvinists, geocentrism was never offically part of the Magisterium.

Barbarian mentions:
lightning as His weapon of vengence

Go home. You're confused.

Medieval and Reformation theologians cited Psalms 144:
Psalms 144:5 Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke. lightning, and scatter them: 6 shoot out thine arrows, and destroy

Medieval Christians thought that God's wrath might be turned aside by ringing church bells. Ironically, the steeples were often the highest point in a town, and so they often struck, electrocuting the bell-ringer.

infectious disease causing evil spirits

Medieval peasants have been taught by the church that any illness was a punishment from God for sinful behavior. Illness was thought and taught to be self-imposed. Hindu myths and legends include a pantheon of demons that disease. What is your point?

That we shouldn't try to make religious dogma out of what science doesn't know. Time moves on, we learn otherwise, and this (as St. Augustine noted) make Christians look foolish.

and creationism.

Oh. I see now. You don't believe that God created like He said.

I've pointed out that creationism doesn't say God created like He said. For example, His use of nature to produce life.

Fine. You saw a chance to slap and took it. Those who believe different are dumb.

You think being wrong means one is dumb? I don't.

Okay. Maybe you should install a lightning rod?

Churches with steeples have them. I know a guy in E. Texas, who makes these fine fiberglass steeples, some quite large. They have fitting for internal lightning rods. My house, if struck by lighting, will conduct the charge to ground. I think all houses are built like that, now.

Edit: Modern homes, using plastic plumbing lines, are actually at higher risk. The structure will probably not get hit directly, due to the electrical wiring, but such a path is likely to overwhelm the conductor and cause a fire.

 

[Barbarian]

I know how unlikely is it that we would discover life forms invisible to the eye that cause disease? Sheesh! What were they thinking? Oh thats right, bacteria are living beings invisible to the eye (until the microscope)....wow, what do you know, many diseases are caused by life forms that were invisible at that time...

Right. Do you see why it's such a bad idea to use the unknown as evidence for God? Often, we later understand the unknown, and then it puts our faith in bad repute.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So they work off there own failures through time with a better explanation. That sounds reliable.

If they find new data that contradicts a portion of a theory, would it be better to ignore that new data? Does that sound reliable?

Let's say you have a belief that Al Qaeda has a leader in Damascus, and yet he is then spotted in Baghdad. Does it make sense to continue on with the belief that he is in Damascus, or does it make more sense to base your theory off of the best data available.

We're all learning and science isn't a completed effort, it is an ongoing effort and just because we are improving based upon better observational data, does not mean it is not reliable. Indeed it means it is reliable in that self corrects itself when it is wrong.

What really is your problem with science? You seem to have some deep personal reservations against it.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

All you scientists make science in this thread sound good.
But at the same time you talk about things as being fact and then confuse the rest of us.
That is not reliable data.

 

[Milk-Drops]

All you scientists make science in this thread sound good.
But at the same time you talk about things as being fact and then confuse the rest of us.

What facts were said that you are confused about?

That is not reliable data.

This thread also is not going to validate or invalidate science. I would suggest anyone wanting to know how science works take some time to look into the history of science and how it works.