Can Christians here describe the Scientific Method?
What is it?
How does it work?
Can you define a "theory"?
What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?
Do you accept that scientists have discovered other planets in other solar systems many light years away?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind how they are presumably detected?
Does it matter to you?
Do you accept that there are electrons, neutrons, protons, photons and other tiny things that you cannot see?
Why?
Do you understand the science of how these things are detected, manipulated as well as how theories on their behavior are derived?
Do you accept that human-induced global warming is occurring?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind conclusions regarding global warming?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?
Do you accept evolution as a verifiable scientific fact?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind evolution?
Do you understand the science behind evolution better than you understand the science in the topics listed above?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?
Did you know that all the topics listed above involve use of the Scientific Method in order to draw conclusions?
I am truly interested in your answers!
The scientific method
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
Too true -- and it doesn't end there! Anyone who is persuaded of "design arguments" in general needs to study The Anthropic Principle for complete balance. Observers like us "stranded" on an island universe (technically within a light-cone) have no way of knowing how "special" we really are. If that we could take a peek from the vantage point of some wider context (if one should exist!) we might see a reason for our inevitability and have no reason to express surprise at our fortune, but then again we might not. However, no such observational location is ever likely to be acquired nor can we know if one even exists so we really should accept the inherent ambiguities -- no matter how persuasive apparent coincidences might be. They can mean nothing.Cmass wrote:We are highly anthropomorphic when it comes to evolutionary biology.
Post #12
No, that's false, and is not what the wikipedia article indicates, until you get to "variants" of the anthropic principle.QED wrote:Too true -- and it doesn't end there! Anyone who is persuaded of "design arguments" in general needs to study The Anthropic Principle for complete balance.Cmass wrote:We are highly anthropomorphic when it comes to evolutionary biology.
Observers like us "stranded" on an island universe (technically within a light-cone) have no way of knowing how "special" we really are.
Which is exactly like saying that we can never convict anyone for a crime based on circumstantial evidence, regardless how pointed, since there is always a possiblity that reasonable doubt exists just beyond what we know.QED wrote:If that we could take a peek from the vantage point of some wider context (if one should exist!) we might see a reason for our inevitability and have no reason to express surprise at our fortune, but then again we might not. However, no such observational location is ever likely to be acquired nor can we know if one even exists so we really should accept the inherent ambiguities -- no matter how persuasive apparent coincidences might be. They can mean nothing.
That argument is still lame, QED.
Post #13
The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. It is an educated guess that you cannot prove as true.
All you can do is create counter arguments or null hypothesis and try to tear down your original hypothesis.
If your original hypothesis holds up to the null hypothesis then you get a piece of a model to a theory.
If the theory holds over time and you can make accurate mathematical prediction with it, the theory becomes a law, but the law is always provisional.
This is theoretical science. In applied science we accept some things to be true so we can move on with actually applying it.
In experimental science the hypothesis just sets up an experiment and in knowledge science such as the genome project there is no hypothesis, you are just working out DNA sequences.
All you can do is create counter arguments or null hypothesis and try to tear down your original hypothesis.
If your original hypothesis holds up to the null hypothesis then you get a piece of a model to a theory.
If the theory holds over time and you can make accurate mathematical prediction with it, the theory becomes a law, but the law is always provisional.
This is theoretical science. In applied science we accept some things to be true so we can move on with actually applying it.
In experimental science the hypothesis just sets up an experiment and in knowledge science such as the genome project there is no hypothesis, you are just working out DNA sequences.
Post #14
How is it false island? No information can be gained from beyond an observers light cone so we cannot "see" beyond this extent. Any amount of space-time may lie outside this boundary which it is constantly opening up for us (we will see more of the universe tomorrow than we can today). We simply do not know what the full extent of the universe is.island wrote:No, that's falseQED wrote:
Observers like us "stranded" on an island universe (technically within a light-cone) have no way of knowing how "special" we really are.
I suggested looking into the Antrhopic Principle for balance. As you point out it has many flavours. But the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is an independant principle that has something to say about the amount of surprsise we are justified in having when we see vertain "cosmic coincidences". The other principles in no way nullify this particular one. This is why I mentioned it, in isolation, as a matter of fact.island wrote: and is not what the wikipedia article indicates, until you get to "variants" of the anthropic principle.
Yes it is a little like that, but I don't think it's as lame as you make it out to be. I agree that according to the WAP we should still maintain that there is an ambiguity even if every bunny rabbit, tree and mountain had "made by God" stamped on it. But that just highlights the problem of assessing probabilities. Your confidence in the circumstantial evidence is most likely based on the assumption that the visible region of the universe is the only space-time in existence. This is already known to be highly dubious, but furthermore why would anyone assume this? Sure it's "big" and has an awful lot of "stuff" in it! But I simply don't see any reason to assume that this is all there is.island wrote:Which is exactly like saying that we can never convict anyone for a crime based on circumstantial evidence, regardless how pointed, since there is always a possiblity that reasonable doubt exists just beyond what we know.QED wrote:If that we could take a peek from the vantage point of some wider context (if one should exist!) we might see a reason for our inevitability and have no reason to express surprise at our fortune, but then again we might not. However, no such observational location is ever likely to be acquired nor can we know if one even exists so we really should accept the inherent ambiguities -- no matter how persuasive apparent coincidences might be. They can mean nothing.
That argument is still lame, QED.
Historically we have made this sort of assumption over and over again -- only to discover how misguided we were by our instincts about the extent of things. Now I hope you see that I am trying to be open about this (else I might not have mentioned the bunnies!) so I would welcome any suggestion that enables us to make an objective assessment of the full state-space available to existence.
Post #15
I just tried to preview and lost everything. I really do hate that.
We can know the full extent if the universe is as finite as the most natural extension of general relativity predicts is the case, QED, and your leap of faith to conclude that this is "already known to be highly dubious"... tells me that you put way too much more credence in hyped and popularized cutting edge theoretical physics than you should, if you don't know about how sad and desparate things really are down in the trenches. That's neither here nor there tho... I guess.
I suggested looking into the Antrhopic Principle for balance.
Variants aren't "balance"... My point is that you have to dig deep to find the rationale that you're using, and that's not balance.
As you point out it has many flavours. But the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is an independant principle that has something to say about the amount of surprsise we are justified in having when we see vertain "cosmic coincidences".
Nope, the WAP is subject to cosmological and environmental interpretation:
Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
That's a very strong statement in a finite universe, but regardless, "not equally probable" is expected to mean that there is no other possible configuration once the stability mechanism that explains why the actual structure of the universe occurs in dramatic contrast to any and all practical turbulance driven models, so many fixed balance points that are all commonly/coincidentally pointing directly toward carbon-based life, indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow “specially” related to the existence of carbon-based life.
The clear implication is that we are directly connected to the stability mechanism, so the evidence is telling us that we should look for something about us, or something that we do that explains why this is so. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the other more-distant possibilities, it just means that other explanations are not what is most apparently indicated by the evidence, so they don't supercede nor equal the most apparent implication, per the scientific method.
sites where carbon-based life can evolve aren't restricted to Earth by the evolutionary physics, although they are restricted to a "plane" of similarly evolved galaxies, so that's where the expectation for life elsewhere is, and that is also an indication of what needs to be considered in context with the mechanism for stability.
We can know the full extent if the universe is as finite as the most natural extension of general relativity predicts is the case, QED, and your leap of faith to conclude that this is "already known to be highly dubious"... tells me that you put way too much more credence in hyped and popularized cutting edge theoretical physics than you should, if you don't know about how sad and desparate things really are down in the trenches. That's neither here nor there tho... I guess.
I suggested looking into the Antrhopic Principle for balance.
Variants aren't "balance"... My point is that you have to dig deep to find the rationale that you're using, and that's not balance.
As you point out it has many flavours. But the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is an independant principle that has something to say about the amount of surprsise we are justified in having when we see vertain "cosmic coincidences".
Nope, the WAP is subject to cosmological and environmental interpretation:
Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
That's a very strong statement in a finite universe, but regardless, "not equally probable" is expected to mean that there is no other possible configuration once the stability mechanism that explains why the actual structure of the universe occurs in dramatic contrast to any and all practical turbulance driven models, so many fixed balance points that are all commonly/coincidentally pointing directly toward carbon-based life, indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow “specially” related to the existence of carbon-based life.
The clear implication is that we are directly connected to the stability mechanism, so the evidence is telling us that we should look for something about us, or something that we do that explains why this is so. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the other more-distant possibilities, it just means that other explanations are not what is most apparently indicated by the evidence, so they don't supercede nor equal the most apparent implication, per the scientific method.
sites where carbon-based life can evolve aren't restricted to Earth by the evolutionary physics, although they are restricted to a "plane" of similarly evolved galaxies, so that's where the expectation for life elsewhere is, and that is also an indication of what needs to be considered in context with the mechanism for stability.
Okay, Einstein wasn't wrong and I can prove it... how's that?...I would welcome any suggestion that enables us to make an objective assessment of the full state-space available to existence.
Post #17
Exactly...Cmass wrote:Let me modify my original question:
Do Christians pick and choose which scientific theories they will trust or dismiss using the same criteria each time?
...and my point would be that this is the differentiation between real science and abuse that sadly doesn't get recognized, all the way to the highest levels of science and evolutionary theory, for the same misguieded reasons, so scientists end up arguing against science, by *automatically* arguing for somekindofa SUPER-Copernican cosmolgical extension that isn't observed, nor causally accounted for.
That's probably why John Barrow and the templeton foundation like many-worlds so much... How can a supernatural extension disallow a supernatural being?
The answer is that both sides are eqally reactionary to the detriment of science. They will both jump ship and abandon anything that no longer benefits their side.
What's far worse for the world though, Cmass, is that both sides will ignore important evidence that doesn't benefit either... like it's not even there. You know what I mean?
Post #18
Christians scare the hell out of me when it comes to science. Our democracy relies upon well educated individuals making rational decisions and when I see the depth of confusion and flat-out ignorance of science among such a large portion of our populous, I get nervous.
Too many people don't really even understand what science is. Take for example the difference in how "science" approaches the beginning of time and how "the bible" approaches it. The biblical story is not a scientific one, whereas Big Bang theory is a scientific 'story'. You cannot compare and judge two descriptions of an event based on systems of knowledge that have no common denominator. The methods of scientific investigation and experimentation, the process of asking questions and challenging the answers, and the process of constructing falsifiable theories, are the fundamental tools of the scientific approach to acquiring knowledge about the world. This is not the same process and rules of operation that biblical literalists use to argue the merits of the Creation story.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that a scientific theory can never become a 'fact', but the point is that the scientific theory generates many predictions that are testable and can be experimentally shown to be false.
The Creation story begins with the assumption that it is the literal Word of God and is therefore correct. All of the activity is focussed on finding 'evidence' that substantiates it, and no one tries as hard to investigate alternate non-supernatural evidence that could refute it. The most often used argument against Big Bang theory is that scientists, like sheep, flock to this theory and in some grand conspiracy, suppress all evidence that refutes this theory. This argument works because very few non-scientists have a clue about the history of science. Do you really think that if some scientist could prove that quantum mechanics or Einstein's relativity were false, that he/she would be vilified? Or do you think that he/she would receive a Nobel prize? The most astounding ideas about the physical world have come from the minds of scientists, not from philosophers! This proves that when it comes to the major ideas in science, there is tremendous pressure to innovate and find better explanations for the data at hand. This process knows no bounds, respects no preexisting authority, and is slavishly devoted to testing all ideas against the searing, hard reality of concrete experimentation and observation.
The process of science does not require you to 'believe' anything. If you were to jump off your chair, it is not a matter of belief that will change the outcome, it is a matter of Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation that dictates what will happen. You do not have the choice to quibble over whether it is 'only a theory' that explains what will happen next. Your destiny as a physical object can be computed to 10 decimal places by this 'theory' and that is the only standard we use in science to determine the value of a theory; Are its predictions compatible with the evidence? The Genesis Story, taken literally, makes no predictions that are testable to falsify it, unless like a careful shot in billiards, you line up the investigation so that it only yields the outcome demanded by the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Do I 'believe' in the Big Bang theory? If the comparison is between one methodology that respects contrary evidence ( the Scientific Method ), and one that suppresses it and is based on ridicule, political intimidation, and a deceitful use of evidence ( the Creationists approach ), I believe that the scientific story is far more accurate as a story about the physical world. Among western biblical scholars, those individuals who actually take the time to look critically at the Bible, there is unanimity that the scientific story is not at all in conflict with Genesis. Even the Pope accepts Big Bang theory as a fleshed-out description of God's handiwork!
If you now argue that Big Bang theory is just a theory and that all theories are not proven fact, then you have just reduced all of science to some kind of silly passive process of recording events with no meaningful certainty in interpreting them. This is, of course, a meaningless quibble which many people have difficulty with, especially those vocal few who wish to insert Creationism into our schools as an equally scientific 'theory' of the beginning of the universe. Their proposal for 'balance' falls on receptive ears because who would not want the process of investigation to be a democratic one with all voices respected for their views. The problem is that the advancement of science has nothing to do with democracy or with what feels good and makes sense. Quantum mechanics and relativity don't make much sense to anyone, and relativity certainly doesn't make anyone feel good. Like the slogan on the T-shirt says " The speed of light is not just a good idea, it's the LAW".
If we want to respect balance between conflicting ideas, and use our schools as the venue to air them, then we must open our doors to the value of slavery as an economic tool, and to female genital mutilation ( 160 million women have been victimized in this way in many societies ) as a culturally-valid mode of ethical behavior. Obviously this will not happen, so clearly we apply this standard of fairness in presenting mixed views in very lopsided ways depending on the political and moral leanings of the times.
The debate over the Big Bang theory vs the story of Creation taken literally, is a debate that does NOT belong in the classroom. The debate cannot continue and be engaged unless society demands that a single standard of evidence be applied.
The confusion surrounding science among Christians that I see on this forum, in the media and in person is staggering and scary. I can only hope a (human) Christian leader will soon arise to re-define the religion in a way that renders curious, questioning and scientific individuals worthy of praise and encouraged rather than scorn and suspicion.
Too many people don't really even understand what science is. Take for example the difference in how "science" approaches the beginning of time and how "the bible" approaches it. The biblical story is not a scientific one, whereas Big Bang theory is a scientific 'story'. You cannot compare and judge two descriptions of an event based on systems of knowledge that have no common denominator. The methods of scientific investigation and experimentation, the process of asking questions and challenging the answers, and the process of constructing falsifiable theories, are the fundamental tools of the scientific approach to acquiring knowledge about the world. This is not the same process and rules of operation that biblical literalists use to argue the merits of the Creation story.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that a scientific theory can never become a 'fact', but the point is that the scientific theory generates many predictions that are testable and can be experimentally shown to be false.
The Creation story begins with the assumption that it is the literal Word of God and is therefore correct. All of the activity is focussed on finding 'evidence' that substantiates it, and no one tries as hard to investigate alternate non-supernatural evidence that could refute it. The most often used argument against Big Bang theory is that scientists, like sheep, flock to this theory and in some grand conspiracy, suppress all evidence that refutes this theory. This argument works because very few non-scientists have a clue about the history of science. Do you really think that if some scientist could prove that quantum mechanics or Einstein's relativity were false, that he/she would be vilified? Or do you think that he/she would receive a Nobel prize? The most astounding ideas about the physical world have come from the minds of scientists, not from philosophers! This proves that when it comes to the major ideas in science, there is tremendous pressure to innovate and find better explanations for the data at hand. This process knows no bounds, respects no preexisting authority, and is slavishly devoted to testing all ideas against the searing, hard reality of concrete experimentation and observation.
The process of science does not require you to 'believe' anything. If you were to jump off your chair, it is not a matter of belief that will change the outcome, it is a matter of Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation that dictates what will happen. You do not have the choice to quibble over whether it is 'only a theory' that explains what will happen next. Your destiny as a physical object can be computed to 10 decimal places by this 'theory' and that is the only standard we use in science to determine the value of a theory; Are its predictions compatible with the evidence? The Genesis Story, taken literally, makes no predictions that are testable to falsify it, unless like a careful shot in billiards, you line up the investigation so that it only yields the outcome demanded by the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Do I 'believe' in the Big Bang theory? If the comparison is between one methodology that respects contrary evidence ( the Scientific Method ), and one that suppresses it and is based on ridicule, political intimidation, and a deceitful use of evidence ( the Creationists approach ), I believe that the scientific story is far more accurate as a story about the physical world. Among western biblical scholars, those individuals who actually take the time to look critically at the Bible, there is unanimity that the scientific story is not at all in conflict with Genesis. Even the Pope accepts Big Bang theory as a fleshed-out description of God's handiwork!
If you now argue that Big Bang theory is just a theory and that all theories are not proven fact, then you have just reduced all of science to some kind of silly passive process of recording events with no meaningful certainty in interpreting them. This is, of course, a meaningless quibble which many people have difficulty with, especially those vocal few who wish to insert Creationism into our schools as an equally scientific 'theory' of the beginning of the universe. Their proposal for 'balance' falls on receptive ears because who would not want the process of investigation to be a democratic one with all voices respected for their views. The problem is that the advancement of science has nothing to do with democracy or with what feels good and makes sense. Quantum mechanics and relativity don't make much sense to anyone, and relativity certainly doesn't make anyone feel good. Like the slogan on the T-shirt says " The speed of light is not just a good idea, it's the LAW".
If we want to respect balance between conflicting ideas, and use our schools as the venue to air them, then we must open our doors to the value of slavery as an economic tool, and to female genital mutilation ( 160 million women have been victimized in this way in many societies ) as a culturally-valid mode of ethical behavior. Obviously this will not happen, so clearly we apply this standard of fairness in presenting mixed views in very lopsided ways depending on the political and moral leanings of the times.
The debate over the Big Bang theory vs the story of Creation taken literally, is a debate that does NOT belong in the classroom. The debate cannot continue and be engaged unless society demands that a single standard of evidence be applied.
The confusion surrounding science among Christians that I see on this forum, in the media and in person is staggering and scary. I can only hope a (human) Christian leader will soon arise to re-define the religion in a way that renders curious, questioning and scientific individuals worthy of praise and encouraged rather than scorn and suspicion.
Post #19
I agree 100% in principle but unfortunately I am forced to bear the point that the constant pressure that gets imposed by the more extreme, also draws an equally extreme reaction that often occurs without much thought for science, and that has nothing to do with anything that QED said, I have nothing but respect for his apparent self-honest integrity.
The culture war isn't helping anything, but luckily for all of us, the diametrically opposing runaway nature of extremists on both sides also defines the near perfect characteristics of an anthropic balance to the "TEE"... so all is well with us, or in spite of us...
The culture war isn't helping anything, but luckily for all of us, the diametrically opposing runaway nature of extremists on both sides also defines the near perfect characteristics of an anthropic balance to the "TEE"... so all is well with us, or in spite of us...
Post #20
island wrote:I agree 100% in principle but unfortunately I am forced to bear the point that the constant pressure that gets imposed by the more extreme, also draws an equally extreme reaction that often occurs without much thought for science, and that has nothing to do with anything that QED said, I have nothing but respect for his apparent self-honest integrity.
The culture war isn't helping anything, but luckily for all of us, the diametrically opposing runaway nature of extremists on both sides also defines the near perfect characteristics of an anthropic balance to the "TEE"... so all is well with us, or in spite of us...
Hmmmmm. ...OK. I guess. Or perhaps we enthropically consummate efforts controlled by enigmatic carnopula in keeping with enthroscopic didactic calcentrenticities we have no choice but to emulate in the balance imposed by the amniotic entromidosis.
-------------
There are no 2 "extreme" groups fighting each other here. There are (relatively few) "extremists" who may also work as scientists, but science itself is not a field which lends itself to "extremism". I can't remember the last scientist who blew himself up in the name of evolution. Some religious groups are attempting to invent a war because some things that scientist are presenting are in conflict with religious dogma.
Religious people often pick and choose which scientific topic they are comfortable with "believing". This is true even when the amount of data and level of analysis is greater for the topic that makes them uncomfortable than for the one they are comfortable with. "Fundamentalist" Christians pick evolution as their whipping post (and love to call it "extremism") but not atomic physics. This is because, on the surface at least, atomic physics does not directly contradict biblical stories. (and very few people really understand it) The bible never mentions atomic physics (since the authors knew nothing of it). But it is fairly explicit as to how life began - which is in direct conflict with one of the most thoroughly studied topics in the history of science; evolution.
Claiming they are challenging the "science" or "extremism" when challenging evolution is a red herring. They are simply reacting to what they percieve as a threat to a rigid, pre-defined belief system. A threat to a system of beliefs they think will give them eternal life. And I could certainly understand how scary that must be for them.
