Definition of Science/Truth

[MrsFoundit]

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.

 

[-57]

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.

Is something like this video what you're looking for?

This short 3/12 min video is a great animation of how digital information directs protein synthesis.

It asks where did the information come from?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Welcome MrsFoundit!

Science is the study of creation.

 

[section9+1]

Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved. Since science has a given presupposition that the natural universe is all that there is or can be, God is automatically left out of it and no matter what it finds out it is already a given that God is not an option. That doesn't mean science is not useful. It has done some great things and I expect it will do more, but the bottom philosophy is that God is absent. Truth is something else. You cannot find or define truth without some other ground to stand upon. Science is self-contained and it cannot reach outside of itself to find any truth. It isn't that it won't find truth but that it can't. A foundation of science is that it is its only truth and no other brand is allowed. That limits it considerably. In order to find what you are looking for you must search in the right places. I'm not going to find an elephant in my closet no matter how many times I may go and look. Truth transcends natural reality and truth will not be limited by it. It requires a different set of eyes altogether.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

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.

I have found the 1828 edition of Webster's dictionary to be most valuable in defining terms from a pre-Darwinian perspective.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - science

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - truth

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Well, in the dictionaries we get something like this:

sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/


noun
noun: science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"

Problem is... science used to make a thesis, do an experiment, observe the results, repeat for validation and draw conclusions...They would use this data to make another thesis.. and continue as these procedures helped truth unfold, raise new questions and new experiments.....

Now, however, they have firmly decided what their "Truth" is and all data that leads to this is golden.. Anything that deviates is ridiculed, denied, destroyed or hidden. ....

 

[Dale]

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.

I an Unitarian Church, I head the following.

A man, identified as a scientist, said: "Science cannot have truth. Only a religion can have truth."

In other words, science can only accumulate evidence for one theory or another, for the leading theory and for competing theories. But there is no final truth in science. For that you are in the realm of philosophy or religion.

That isn't what Creationists expect to hear, but there it is.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Welcome MrsFoundit!

Science is the study of creation.

Okay, and truth is?

 

[MrsFoundit]

I an Unitarian Church, I head the following.

A man, identified as a scientist, said: "Science cannot have truth. Only a religion can have truth."

That isn't what Creationists expect to hear, but there it is.

This is not what a lot of people think. I see no reason to believe it is particular to Creationists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Okay, and truth is?

Truth about what?

 

[Dale]

Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved. Since science has a given presupposition that the natural universe is all that there is or can be, God is automatically left out of it and no matter what it finds out it is already a given that God is not an option. That doesn't mean science is not useful. It has done some great things and I expect it will do more, but the bottom philosophy is that God is absent. Truth is something else. You cannot find or define truth without some other ground to stand upon. Science is self-contained and it cannot reach outside of itself to find any truth. It isn't that it won't find truth but that it can't. A foundation of science is that it is its only truth and no other brand is allowed. That limits it considerably. In order to find what you are looking for you must search in the right places. I'm not going to find an elephant in my closet no matter how many times I may go and look. Truth transcends natural reality and truth will not be limited by it. It requires a different set of eyes altogether.

Section: "Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved."


Absolutely False. No foundation whatever for this claim.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Section: "Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved."

Absolutely False. No foundation whatever for this claim.

The OP, asks "How do you define science? How do you define truth?" If someone personally defines science as quoted, that is not a false claim, it is perfectly acceptable response to my request for ideas.

 

[MrsFoundit]

A foundation of science is that it is its only truth and no other brand is allowed. That limits it considerably.

"Although signs of scientism can be found in writings as early as the seventeenth century, they have become far more prevalent since the nineteenth century with the rise of scientific positivism, a view that originated with Auguste Comte. Its three central assertions are that (1) science is our only source of genuine knowledge about the world, (2) it is the only way to understand humanity’s place in the world, and (3) science provides the only credible view of the world as a whole. Scientism subsumes scientific materialism (and, thus, scientific realism and science), but it is normally equated by its proponents with science itself. "Four Dimensions of the Scientific Tradition | Metanexus

Materialist philosophy / scientism is not actually science itself.

This link covers the point more - "Turning to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Dr. Kastrup makes a poignant argument against the presumption of random mutations and their function in the development of species" This philosopher goes toe-to-toe with materialist science... so far he's undefeated |274| - Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point . My purpose here is to provide articles which elaborate on the difference between world view and science, and describe the common conflation of the two.

I agree with you about "truth".

 

[section9+1]

Section: "Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved."


Absolutely False. No foundation whatever for this claim.

Then it does a really good job of hiding whatever it is trying to do. I don't see science coming up with any answers that say God did it. If you are Unitarian I am not interested in carrying on about anything with you.
The liberal church is the world's best friend.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

The OP, asks "How do you define science? How do you define truth?" If someone personally defines science as quoted, that is not a false claim, it is perfectly acceptable response to my request for ideas.

It could be both, couldn't it?

 

[Elisha's Bear]

If you are Unitarian I am not interested in carrying on about anything with you.

Not very nice.

The liberal church is the world's best friend.

Pretty quotable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Section: "Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved."


Absolutely False. No foundation whatever for this claim.

Simply add the adjective/clarifier "worldly/carnal/fleshly" before the word science and it is truth.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Not very nice.

Jesus is not nice (in the world's view),
and did not tell His permanent disciples to try to be 'nice'.
Rather, instead of taking part in the deeds of darkness, expose them;
and OPEN REBUKE is
BETTER than hidden (quiet/silent) love (like trying to be nice imitated) ....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My purpose here is to provide articles which elaborate on the difference between world view and science, and describe the common conflation of the two.

The world view and science is often the same. (not Godly, not righteous, not truth, and not seeing God , and not seeking God, and not seeking truth)

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Jesus is not nice (in the world's view),
and did not tell His permanent disciples to try to be 'nice'.
Rather, instead of taking part in the deeds of darkness, expose them;
and OPEN REBUKE is
BETTER than hidden (quiet/silent) love (like trying to be nice imitated) ....

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