Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[sk8Joyful]

Knowledge is testable, subject to disproof.
Knowledge can be improved, changed, sharpened. Knowledge is subject to evidence.

Faith is not testable.
You have faith in things you can't know.

They are different.

As a Christian, we have THE advantage

We are not limited to only the traditional scientific method.

In addition we can Apply, in our scientific experiments,
this: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE
of things (that to an atheist, & others less practiced are not yet) SEEN.

If you exercise faith of sufficient Conviction you CAN SEE the Outcome...

Atheists don't have that advantage.

 

[Grizzly]

As a Christian, we have THE advantage

We are not limited to only the traditional scientific method.

In addition we can Apply, in our scientific experiments,
this: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE
of things (that to an atheist, & others less practiced are not yet) SEEN.

If you exercise faith of sufficient Conviction you CAN SEE the Outcome...

Atheists don't have that advantage.

I wasn't trying to make this an atheist vs. christian argument.

But knowledge and faith are indeed different. If you know something, you don't need faith. Knowledge (and the scientific method) are our best means of interrogating the natural world. Faith is needed to believe in things in the supernatural, where science, by definition, is silent.

 

[juvenissun]

Astrology maybe?

According to the definition, astrology is a science because it is a system to interpret observed data, the stars.

 

[Grizzly]

According to the definition, astrology is a science because it is a system to interpret observed data, the stars.

I think it falls into the category of pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RickG]

According to the definition, astrology is a science because it is a system to interpret observed data, the stars.

Pseudoscience, not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowledge is testable, subject to disproof.

And why is knowledge 'testable, subject to disproof'?

Are you implying that knowledge starts off wrong, then is tweaked until it fits?

 

[AV1611VET]

One criterion of both hypothesis and theory is that they must be scientifically falsifiable, by a specific criterion of empirical observations.

And herein lies a glitch, in my opinion.

Falsifiable -- but not falsified -- right?

So as long as scientists can rate something falsifiable, they've done their part, haven't they?

That's why you guys have a backlog of junk waiting to be falsified.

The moon is an excellent example.

You're up to six -- that's 6 -- natural theories (or hypotheses, depending on who you talk to) now as to how we got our moon.

How long will it take before these falsifiable ... guesses are falsified?

What are you waiting on? Christmas?

I'm tired of hearing how things should be falsifiable, but no one is doing any falsifying.

If they're falsifiable, falsify them -- don't sit and yak about it, while your backlog grows.

The truth of the matter is though, you can't; and you can't because you walk just so far by sight, then myopia grinds your silly methods and observations to a halt, and you have to either shelve it, or continue on by faith.

 

[Grizzly]

And why is knowledge 'testable, subject to disproof'?

Are you implying that knowledge starts off wrong, then is tweaked until it fits?

It can start off wrong - but it doesn't have to.

 

[Grizzly]

The moon is an excellent example.

You're up to six -- that's 6 -- natural theories (or hypotheses, depending on who you talk to) now as to how we got our moon.

How long will it take before these falsifiable ... guesses are falsified?

What are you waiting on? Christmas?

I'm tired of hearing how things should be falsifiable, but no one is doing any falsifying.

If they're falsifiable, falsify them -- don't sit and yak about it, while your backlog grows.

The truth of the matter is though, you can't; and you can't because you walk just so far by sight, then myopia grinds your silly methods and observations to a halt, and you have to either shelve it, or continue on by faith.

Are you mad because we haven't figured out how the moon got where it is?

 

[AV1611VET]

It can start off wrong - but it doesn't have to.

It can start off wrong?

Can you name one thing you guys ever got right the first time?

Just one?

 

[sk8Joyful]

I wasn't trying to make this an atheist vs. christian argument.
But knowledge and faith are indeed different.

If you know something, you don't need faith.
Knowledge (and the scientific method) are our best means of interrogating the natural world.

Faith is needed to believe in things in the supernatural, where science, by definition, is silent.

Yes, as Christian scientists, we know that in REAL reality
there's no such thing as supernatural.
You only call it that, because you refuse, to accept God's realm.

Since the only world you are willing to admit to,
is what you perceive with your 5 physical senses, if that much,
you are left with: Knowledge is testable, subject to disproof.
iow, you start off Wrong: what a predicament!

Were you to Start out RIGHT , you could forego all
that ridiculous back-peddling; and actually get somewhere.

This is why we know that science is but in its infancy; and you have not yet even begun to scratch the surface of all there is to KNOW...

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you mad because we haven't figured out how the moon got where it is?

Absolutely not -- just the opposite.

I think it's funny, and I praise the Lord every time you guys have to give up and file something under FALSIFIABLE.

That shows me your science can't even begin to touch such out-of-reach concepts as creatio ex nihilo and Genesis 1.

 

[sk8Joyful]

It can start off wrong?

Can you name one thing you guys ever got right the first time?

Just one?

You don't really expect them to conjure up ONE thing, do you?

God only knows how they keep screwing up, everything!

Just look at the pit-viper jungle of CHRONIC medicine; that, they call their finest achievement

 

[Habakk]

Absolutely not -- just the opposite.

I think it's funny, and I praise the Lord every time you guys have to give up and file something under FALSIFIABLE.

That shows me your science can't even begin to touch such out-of-reach concepts as creatio ex nihilo and Genesis 1.

No that is not within the realm of science because science follows the scientific method. The scientific method revolves around that which is observable and empirical within the natural world. Because of this, the assumptions within scientific methodology will always default to naturalistic ones.

Science is only a tool, a very powerful tool but nevertheless just a tool. Creatio ex nihilois a supernatural phenomenon and science can neither prove or disprove anything supernatural and so it is silent. This is totally outside the remit of scientific methodology because scientific methodology uses naturalistic observations and measurements. looking at the empirical data of the universe, science will only be able to postulate a naturalistic causation.

The problem we have is that some people are under misconceptions about science in that they wrongly associate it with proof or disproof. Also scientific falsification should not be viewed in this vein of proof/disproof either.

Quantum mechanics has resulted in the application of a lot of the electronics and chemistry we see today. However at some level quantum mechanics is in conflict with relativity hence all the talk about TOE (Theory of Everything not to be confused with ToE) or the unifying theorem. As any unifying theorem would involve being able to correctly represent infinity mathmaticaly, this would seem at the moment out of our grasp.

Ask ten physicists “what is mass?” and you should get ten almost identical answers. Ask the same ten physicists “what is the nature of matter?” and then you will probably get ten different explanations. We simply don’t really know what the true nature of the building blocks of the natural world is. Quantum theory, super symmetry string theory and particle physics only go so far to glimpse into this mystery. Science is a wonderful tool, and not denying the spectacular advance, let’s not forget we only know a small fraction and we only think we know that.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't really expect them to conjure up ONE thing, do you?

Actually, I expect someone to come on here and say, "We predicted [whatever], then found it just where we predicted it!"

Yet they claim the Bible's predictions (prophecies) are always after-the-fact, retconned, or vague.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creatio ex nihilois a supernatural phenomenon and science can neither prove or disprove anything supernatural and so it is silent.

How do you know?

Weren't the phases of the moon considered supernatural at one time?

Don't get me wrong, I believe creatio ex nihilo is a supernatural phenomenon too, but then I don't cater to science like you guys do, either.

I've made this point several times in the past, and it is worth repeating here, since you mentioned science can neither prove nor disprove anything supernatural:

If I sponsored a shrewdness of scientists to go find the Loch Ness Monster, and I overheard one of them saying that Nessie is just a legend, I would demand that scientist be immediately removed from the shrewdness, and replaced with one who is optimistic.

 

[Habakk]

How do you know?

Don't get me wrong, I believe creatio ex nihilo is a supernatural phenomenon too, but then I don't cater to science like you guys do, either.

I’m a creationist in that I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth by the power of his word alone. However I am also a scientist.

Also if any claim is made that creatio ex nihilois a natural phenomenon then the question will be asked about empirical "footprints" of creation.

 

[davedajobauk]

Except science is also a religion.

I think a dictionary should be used upon these words [Science & Religion]


The claim being made [above] cannot be proven

One, is the search for FACTS and, the UNDERSTANDING of, those studies

The Other, is 'Faith' [for the Christian] in the Holy Trinity\ no proof possible [?]
In one's belief-in, the Sovereign of All -Creation and in The Son and, The Holy Ghost
Acknowledging [evidence-unseen] His Supreme Majesty, is Universal

dave

 

[Nabobalis]

A
The moon is an excellent example.

You're up to six -- that's 6 -- natural theories (or hypotheses, depending on who you talk to) now as to how we got our moon.

How long will it take before these falsifiable ... guesses are falsified?

More evdience/facts so we can rule them out one by one. KInd of like a very slow version of House.

 

[AV1611VET]

KInd of like a very slow version of House.

I know of one house that is going to come crumbling down when Jesus comes back.

A house literally built on sand.

QV please with silicon.