Definition of Science/Truth

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So you think Christ would have refused to engage with a Unitarian? There is a difference between a rebuke and a snubbing.

What DID JESUS SAY to the 'dogs' ? (As the Orthodox Jews called gentile(s))

Matthew 15:27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "even the dogs eat the ...
Matthew 15:27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table."
She replied, "That's true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters' table." English Standard Version She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

(He ONLY spoke with those the Father Sent Him to, or Sent to Him, and then ONLY what the Father Gave Him to Speak) (I'm still learning this - very much being or like being scourged, not to just simply reply to the world, or even to believers, except the Father directs to do so)

 

[DamianWarS]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

science is the study of that which can be observed. truth is that which both encompasses and surpasses science.

 

[AlexDTX]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

The word "science" comes from the Latin, scire, and simply means "to know". Interesting the root of the Latin word is skie and means "to split" as in take apart to find out what is in something.

King James uses the word science once.

1Ti_6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:​

Which is the Greek word, gnosis, meaning knowledge as well.

Knowledge, however, is not synonymous with truth, because one's knowledge can be in error.

Surprisingly, our English word, "truth" comes from the Old English, trewth, which means "loyalty" whose root, deru, means solid and firm. By extension we have the current understanding of the word, "truth", as meaning reality, since realty does not change.

As for the creationist view of the origin of the world, God does not tell us how he created the world, only that he did by speaking it into existence and the order in which he did. As such, the Bible is not a "science" book in the sense of taking apart creation for our understanding of how these were made. That being said, it is still an important guide in comparing the assumptions of origins from a secular point of view, which is radically different than what is declared in Genesis.

David said,

Psa_18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.​

Jesus said,

Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.​

Creations science applies the basics of scientific discovery to their hypothesis of how God created the universe by recognizing that the rock of truth knows what he is saying, therefore all hypothesis begins with what God has already said.

Does that mean the hypothesis of creation scientists is correct? No, not at all. It is still their opinion. However, I will place more confidence in their opinion because they use the words of Truth as their starting point, than the opinions of those who deny God and the spiritual realm.

 

[HehasRisen]

Science is another way of saying man's understanding

Truth is the objective realities of the universe regardless of if they transcend the understanding of man

 

[MrsFoundit]

So you think Christ would have refused to engage with a Unitarian?

I did not see anyone claim Jesus Christ would refuse to engage with anyone.

 

[Gup20]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

Science is the study and mastery of creation. It was commissioned by God in Genesis 1:28.

[Gen 1:28 NASB] 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."​

It is the study of "how things are now." The primary way we do science is by using observation in the present and experimenting so we can repeat our observations and verify our expectations and theories.

Origins, for example, is not a good example of science because it happens in a time when things were not as they are now, and there is no way to observe it (it happened before we were here to observe it) and it cannot be repeated. Pharmaceutical drugs, medicine, computers, physics, mathmatics, technology etc are all good examples of science.

Truth transcends science as it is not limited to "how things are now." Truth is part of the 7 fold spirit of God, and therefore is beyond the limitations of time, space, and matter.

[Jhn 15:26 NASB] 26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,​

Truth seems to be defined as transcendently accurate knowledge

[2Ti 2:25 NASB] 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

[2Ti 3:7 NASB] 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

Truth is what is right and correct whether or not it coincides with observation.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is a good question.
Science itself has drifted, and has gained a new philosophical status it certainly has not earned.

There are terse books (eg science before science - by quantum physics professor and christian, Rizzi) which explore what it can tell you and what it cannot.

As a (now retired) scientist, think of it this way.
Science is two things.

First a process. A method for testing ideas. Hypothesis. Experiment. Theory.

Second a model. The "laws" that represent the universe are not part of the universe, they are a part of a model of it. It is a suit of clothes that fits the Body of the universe where it touches within reasonable accuracy. It is not the body itself. New measurements are tested against that model, and on that basis modifications are suggested. The model evolves. But notice, nothing changed in the universe, only in the model of it. The model is man made. The universe isnt.

But here is the kicker. By definition it can only model things which repeat or which can be repeated.
All the concepts in the model are not "real" in the sense they exist in the world, they are a model of a behaviour observed. Both "what is an electron" or even "is an electron" do not have an answer.

Worse - it only models in things we can sense. The universe can have manymore dimensions than we can detect. So like a round object on a television screen, which could be a sphere, or cylinder. We have no idea what is actually there. We have a model of our projection of the universe - the things we can detect, not of the universe itself. Science for a bat would be different from ours.

Does that help?

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Does that help?

Very interesting - thank you.

 

[Hawkins]

Science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeatable phenomenon. It is about how humans can determine a truth to a level beyond doubt.

The nature of scientific truth is that, we humans don't have the capability to detect a future so if a theory which allows us to detect a future repeatedly without failure we thus know that this theory contains a truth. This is what science is about and how it works.

It is the predictability of science which confirms us that our theory makes no mistake before we decided to take a walk on the surface of moon (predictably). What could fail us is something else, such as humans errors and unpredictable factors, but not the theory itself (which behaves precisely as predicted). That's why whenever a space shuttle exploded, we never complain the physics theory itself.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

Science is the unraveling of God's truth in nature. Sometimes it is flawed because man interjects their bias and narrow view however, there are some who follow God's bread crumbs and use science for incredible discovery like DNA testing for criminal conviction as well as exoneration. I look forward to the goodness of science as delivered by God's will.
Be blessed!

 

[Halbhh]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

Great questions.

Science is the work and effort, over time, to try to understand how Nature works.

Of course, people then add a lot of personal opinions around it also, and it's usually not clear to non-scientists what is the science part and what is the personal opinion part.

Truth is the best of all competing answers/solutions to the question at hand -- the answer or solution that is superior to all other competing answers in terms of practical outcome.

Some examples of practical outcomes (I'll give more than one type of category to help):

In math: whether the answer is validated by various ways of checking/testing that answer.

In life and about how to live: whether the way to live, or rule or principle, is superior in actual outcome to all other competing ways or rules.

Example: Which of these 2 ways to live with neighbors is actually better in the actual, real life result in one's quality of life?:

a) "Love your neighbor as yourself"

b) "Pick a neighbor, or none, that you sorta like, and be pleasant or chat with them occasionally, but not too much. Ignore the other neighbors you routinely are around."

Which of these 2 has the most beneficial, good outcome of quality of life, when they are put into practice, tested?

(I did that test by the way )

 

[Halbhh]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

As you can see from the above, it is impossible for good science to ultimately contradict the Creator of that very same natural science.

But...good science could contradict a theory or doctrine people invent using scripture as a starting point and then adding extra ideas not in scripture.

Some theories/doctrines could be shown incorrect by the actual reality of what God created!

Example: Flat Earth -- invented using scripture as a starting point (selecting verses and isolating them away from their meaning as given by full context of full books).

Observation shows that doctrine is false.

We'd still be left with the other doctrines of course. The other doctrines from real believers that believe God created all that is.

And which fit all the scripture.

That's worth remembering.

In the end, don't put your faith in doctrines. Put it only in Christ, and as He said, build on the only good foundation for that faith:

 

[MrsFoundit]

It is about how humans can determine a truth to a level beyond doubt.

If science can do this, how come new discoveries within it can replace previously accepted ideas?

 

[Halbhh]

So, ultimately see, you don't always know which doctrine is correct (we know some, and may not know others).

But consider what Christ said.

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”


We see that getting doctrines, science, wisdom, etc. correct isn't the good foundation. Instead, listening to Christ and doing as He says to do is the only good foundation.

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

 

[Mountainmike]

Science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeatable phenomenon. It is about how humans can determine a truth to a level beyond doubt.

The nature of scientific truth is that, we humans don't have the capability to detect a future so if a theory which allows us to detect a future repeatedly without failure we thus know that this theory contains a truth. This is what science is about and how it works.

It is the predictability of science which confirms us that our theory makes no mistake before we decided to take a walk on the surface of moon (predictably). What could fail us is something else, such as humans errors and unpredictable factors, but not the theory itself (which behaves precisely as predicted). That's why whenever a space shuttle exploded, we never complain the physics theory itself.

As a scientist I have to disagree about the idea of objective truth in science. The best it tells us is observations we can expect to repeat , on the basis of previous repetition. Most of the time,

The model and process starts with the assumptions of unique ( an object has a single life history and future ) objective, ( it exists regardless of observer) deterministic ( that is, the subsequent state is a product of current state and laws of interaction) and causal that is the transition in state is as a result of a preceding cause.

Yet any student of quantum mechanics knows it is neither unique, subjective , deterministic or causal. The very fabric of science breaks down if you assume it is truth , rather than a convenient method of calculating behaviour from history. It breaks down because it is just a model.

The god of the gaps is a falasy because science explains nothing at all, in any absolute sense.

 

[Halbhh]

As a scientist I have to disagree about the idea of objective truth in science. The best it tells us is observations we can expect to repeat , on the basis of previous repetition. Most of the time,

The model and process starts with the assumptions of unique ( an object has a single life history and future ) objective, ( it exists regardless of observer) deterministic ( that is, the subsequent state is a product of current state and laws of interaction) and causal that is the transition in state is as a result of a preceding cause.

Yet any student of quantum mechanics knows it is neither unique, subjective , deterministic or causal. The very fabric of science breaks down if you assume it is truth , rather than a convenient method of calculating behaviour from history. It breaks down because it is just a model.

The god of the gaps is a falasy because science explains nothing at all, in any absolute sense.

I like you answer, but because of a background in physics and an ongoing interest in basic physics over the years, I can say we definitely do not know whether the Universe is ultimately deterministic, even though of course the laws result in statistical macro determinism on time scales of interest. I just mean, say what you are saying without accidentally adding a wording that suggests full-determinism has been shown. In actual experiments, it is actually looking less and less likely (see Bell Test Experiments). Nature, giving us a practical stability and limited time scale determinism, may be at heart indeterministic. (It can be helpful to come to understand such an indeterminism at the quantum level would not even be the slightest trouble for the Omniscient to predict the future in useful ways, and intervene as He chooses, to cause the outcomes He chooses, without any trouble at all from an (in)deterministic quantum level freedom.)

 

[Hawkins]

If science can do this, how come new discoveries within it can replace previously accepted ideas?

Such as ?

 

[Hawkins]

As a scientist I have to disagree about the idea of objective truth in science. The best it tells us is observations we can expect to repeat , on the basis of previous repetition. Most of the time,

The model and process starts with the assumptions of unique ( an object has a single life history and future ) objective, ( it exists regardless of observer) deterministic ( that is, the subsequent state is a product of current state and laws of interaction) and causal that is the transition in state is as a result of a preceding cause.

Yet any student of quantum mechanics knows it is neither unique, subjective , deterministic or causal. The very fabric of science breaks down if you assume it is truth , rather than a convenient method of calculating behaviour from history. It breaks down because it is just a model.

The god of the gaps is a falasy because science explains nothing at all, in any absolute sense.

It's not your field then. What science is remains a subject of the philosophy of science.

 

[Mountainmike]

Quantum uncertainty isn’t an illusion of randomness, it is actually random. And bell experiments show it isn’t inability to observe where things are, they don’t exist till observed.

Point is , the basis of objective existence and uniqueness have collapsed, as single electron interference patterns show.

All of the philosophical paradoxes fall if you stop believing it is other than a model, so continuity of existence no longer matters.

Hawkings concept of model dependent reality is the death knell for universal laws.

I like you answer, but because of a background in physics and an ongoing interest in basic physics over the years, I can say we definitely do not know whether the Universe is ultimately deterministic, even though of course the laws result in statistical macro determinism on time scales of interest. I just mean, say what you are saying without accidentally adding a wording that suggests full-determinism has been shown. In actual experiments, it is actually looking less and less likely (see Bell Test Experiments). Nature, giving us a practical stability and limited time scale determinism, may be at heart indeterministic. (It can be helpful to come to understand such an indeterminism at the quantum level would not even be the slightest trouble for the Omniscient to predict the future in useful ways, and intervene as He chooses, to cause the outcomes He chooses, without any trouble at all from an (in)deterministic quantum level freedom.)