[_ Old Earth _] What is Science?

[Dave...]

People use philosophy and/or 100% theory and call it science. I see evidence being disregarded and calling that science?

What is Science, really?

 

[Dave...]

No takers huh? :-?

 

[Quath]

I would say that science is the method for understading the world in which we live by using the scientific method to gain better confidence in the theories proposed.

So Intelligent Design is not science, because it proposes nothing that can falsify it. It is philosophy.

Nothing in science is ever proved as fact. Just the confidence that it represents a good model of something is increased.

Quath

 

[Drew]

I agree with everything that Quath has said. In addition I will say the following:

1. Science involves the construction of "models" to represent the world. The models should not be confused for that which they represent - an atom is a conceptual model - the world behaves as though it were constituted of atoms. I do not believe that most scientists would claim that atoms necessarily exist as "things in themselves". Something exists, of course, and the atom is a useful conceptual model to describe that "something".

2. The mechanism that fuels the scientific enterprise is experimentation - science as a method excludes claims that are not subject to empirical falsification. As Quath has stated, Intelligent Design is not science. However, the fact that it is "philosophy" does not somehow mean that its claims cannot be assessed and reasoned about - they just cannot correctly be called science.

3. The fact that scientific models evolve and are modified are hallmarks of the merits of the scientific enterprise and not signs of its weakness. Occasionally, the silly argument is made that the "changeability" of science is a reason to distrust science. This is simply soft thinking.

 

[lovely]

The TRUE Scientific Method approach is not followed by anyone. Christians shouldn't follow it, and all others who claim to are fooling themselves. EVERYONE has a philosophy behind their science. We can certainly make a hypothesis, conduct and experiment, and draw a conclusion. However, we will not always understand all the variables. There are no absolutes in science, and there are always things that we will not be able to understand conceptually, or in reality, completely. The absolute exclusion of God by many is also a grave error, and limits science. Many modern evolutionary scientists are guilty of doing the same exact thing the early church did, as well as a some Creationists, ID's, YE, or whatever of today. When are people going to learn from their history?

In my opinion, we need to understand that if a limited part of the Scientific Method works at all, it's because we have a very ORDERED Designer...otherwise, it is an ordered method, studying extremely ordered accidents? Come on. The idea that someone exists that does not have a philosophy behind their science is ridiculous, I haven't met this person.

Both sides have scientists who utilize a good portion of the Scientific Method, but as soon as a Creation scientist identifys himself as such...the evolutionary scientists are pulling out the Scientific Methodology handbook and telling them about their philosophy, while ignoring their own the whole time.

Blessings

 

[Bregalad]

=> What is science?

I would like to give a very simple answer to that:

It's the art of deduction.

Man observes his environment with his senses and tools and tries to give rational explanations for what he sees.

I don't see much philosophy in this simple concept.

 

[peace4all]

Well, I would like to know why this "ordered" stuff, doesnt have nice easy numbers to work with, Doesnt have simple formulas, and HECK! how long IS pi?

certainly doesnt seem ordered to me :/

 

[Bregalad]

What is a nice and easy number to you?

I think PI is extremely nice and ordered. You find that number in every single circular or cubic structure. Let it be a soap bubble or the trajectory a planet is taking around the sun or a soccer ball.

And it's only an infinitely long number in a decimal cartesian system, which is something invented by mathematicians. In nature it's just an amazing constant. One has to admit that.

 

[cubedbee]

And it's only an infinitely long number in a decimal cartesian system, which is something invented by mathematicians.

Actually, that's not true. It's been mathematically proved that an irrational number in our base 10 number system is irrational, and hence infinitely long and nonrepeating, in every possible number system.

 

[Quath]

In my opinion, we need to understand that if a limited part of the Scientific Method works at all, it's because we have a very ORDERED Designer...otherwise, it is an ordered method, studying extremely ordered accidents? Come on. The idea that someone exists that does not have a philosophy behind their science is ridiculous, I haven't met this person.

I agree with you that the scientists may have biases or philosophies they want pushed, but the scientific method eventually removes those biases.

Science doesn't look at things as "accidents" but more as processes with some statistics involved. For example, you roll 2 dice and get snake eyes. A scientist would not say that was an accident, just one possible outcome.

Both sides have scientists who utilize a good portion of the Scientific Method, but as soon as a Creation scientist identifys himself as such...the evolutionary scientists are pulling out the Scientific Methodology handbook and telling them about their philosophy, while ignoring their own the whole time.

If Creationism wants to reach the left of science, they have to give a theory. Not "God did it." But something like "A powerful being created everything in a few days and designed by function." This is different from the "evolution is wrong" line of ID. (Even if evolution was wrong, it doesn't mean ID is right.)

So people can compare the theories and see which better describes the universe. From their theories, they can make predictions. For example:

Evolutionist: I claim that proteins that have the same function but can have random junk in it should show that the random stuff is similar for a human to a chimp than a human to a dog. (This turnes out to be true.)

Creationist: I claim that all eyes should be designed the same since they have the same function. (Not true since octopus eyes have a better "design" by function.) Now this could have another explanation, but after getting a lot of "not trues" support for this their theory starts to wane.

After asking many questions and seeing which predicts the better, a scientist may say something like "I have 99% confidence evolution is a good model for how life diversifies and I have 2% confidence that Creationism explains how life diversifies."

Quath

 

[lovely]

Quath,

Actually, I agree with you on much of what you said. I think your examples stink, but that is because your bias is showing...lol :-D

I think both evolutionists, and creationists, would agree with this

Quath's first example

Evolutionist: I claim that proteins that have the same function but can have random junk in it should show that the random stuff is similar for a human to a chimp than a human to a dog. (This turnes out to be true.)

I think both would disagree with this.

Quath's second example

Creationist: I claim that all eyes should be designed the same since they have the same function. (Not true since octopus eyes have a better "design" by function.) Now this could have another explanation, but after getting a lot of "not trues" support for this their theory starts to wane.

I think the thing is, with your first example, that both groups see the same evidence, but draw different conclusions for it. Evolutionists... think that this concludes evolution. Creationists...similar design, same Designer.

Blessings.

 

[Quath]

Actually, I agree with you on much of what you said. I think your examples stink, but that is because your bias is showing...lol :-D

Heh.

I think the thing is, with your first example, that both groups see the same evidence, but draw different conclusions for it. Evolutionists... think that this concludes evolution. Creationists...similar design, same Designer.

There is a middle ground that divides out the two. If a creator created by the process of evolution, then both would be right. An ID could say that a Creator nudged evolution along. This would be untested scientifically. And so ID would go back to being theology and evolution would stay science.

I just saw a study today that says that about 40% of physical scientists do not believe in God while the rest do. This would mean that about 60% of scientists believe in God and evolution. So they believe in evolution in spite of their belief. in other words, their philosophy would point them towards a Creator rather than away from one. That just shows how good the evidence is for evolution.

Quath

 

[lovely]

Quath,

Why do you assume that all of the %60 percent remaining actually support evolution? Did you read something that said that as well?


Blessings

 

[Quath]

Why do you assume that all of the %60 percent remaining actually support evolution? Did you read something that said that as well?

Yeah. I am sorry for fortetting to mention it. A 1997 Gallup poll showed that 95% of scientists believe in evolution. So I was using round numbers when I said 60%.

Quath

 

[lovely]

Thanks, Quath, I would like to read this. Of course you know that is because I think other factors may be involved...LOL :-D

Blessings

 

[peace4all]

just a note.

there are always some constants. there have to be for things to exist.


near the surface of the earth, objects with no resistance will fall 9.8 (roughly) meters per second....

again, not another , nice number.

Nice numbers would be like, 1, 0, 10, 100, 20, 7, 12, a whole number...

 

[Quath]

Well, not only that, but the number varies as you move across the surface since Earth is not spherical and may pack different densities at different places.

However, there is a more fundamental gravitational constant, G = 6.6742x10^-11 N m^2 / kg^2. The force equation is force = G * mass1 * mass2 / radius^2

However, if you use Plank Units, then the speed of light (c), gravational constant (G), Reduced planck's constant (h_bar), Coulomb force constant (1/(4*pi*e0)) and Boltzman constant (k) are all equal to 1. These are jokingly referred to as "God's units."

So a lot of constants get removed, but there are still some left such as the fine structure constant.

Things get real interesting in such a unit system. For example, if the speed of light were cut in half, then the meter changes and grows longer. Time would slow down a little. The end result is we would not detect it because all of our measurements are relative to each other. We meaure time realtive to space (since they are the same thing for the most part).

It would also mean that it took light from the far away about 13 billion years to reach us. Even if you could play with the speed of light (as some YEC try) you just change the definition of length and still have not changed anything. YEC have to suppose that God created the light in flight to get around this.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on this.

Quath

 

[peace4all]

lol quath, i onyl payed attention for the first half of physics last year lol.. I was more interested in teh actualy experiments and theories, than numbers and formula.


god stats though.

 

[Imagican]

True science is nothing more than our beginnings of the understanding of the tools with which God used to create everything that we know of and the proof of it through an understanding of the evidence. Mathematics, Medicine, geology, astronomy=man's limited understanding of the means with which God created and the proof there of. This by no means indicates that EVERYTHING called science is indeed 'true science'. There is certainly false science too. The difference? If it is in direct opposition to the fact of creation, then it's not 'true science'.

 

[PHIL121]

Science is the study of the laws of nature; the way of determining how the world works.