Method for accepting science

[Michael]

If it is proven, it is true.

Ya, and until then it's an "act of faith" on the part of the believer.

Per definition.
And since science relies upon evidence for the solid theories, no faith is required. Per definition.

Absolutely not so. There's no direct evidence for any SUSY particle but particle physicists keep spending money and time looking for them and writing about them anyway. There no direct evidence for the existence of gravitons, but QM proponents "believe" in them, and write about them anyway. There's no direct evidence to support the claim that dark energy can accelerate so much as a single atom either. These are all acts of faith on the part of the believer based on SUBJECTIVE interpretations of the world around us, nothing more.

 

[Naraoia]

Absolutely not so. There's no direct evidence for any SUSY particle but particle physicists keep spending money and time looking for them and writing about them anyway. There no direct evidence for the existence of gravitons, but QM proponents "believe" in them, and write about them anyway. There's no direct evidence to support the claim that dark energy can accelerate so much as a single atom either. These are all acts of faith on the part of the believer based on SUBJECTIVE interpretations of the world around us, nothing more.

Why would they spend so much time and money looking for SUSY particles if they had faith in their existence?

(No equivocation of different meanings of faith, please. We mean "positive belief without evidence", not "this sounds right, let's see if it is right". As others have pointed out, the latter is how all scientific hypotheses work.)

 

[Elendur]

Ya, and until then it's an "act of faith" on the part of the believer.

If you need to prove everything you're a fool.
Do you know the weight of the term?

Absolutely not so. There's no direct evidence for any SUSY particle but particle physicists keep spending money and time looking for them and writing about them anyway. There no direct evidence for the existence of gravitons, but QM proponents "believe" in them, and write about them anyway. There's no direct evidence to support the claim that dark energy can accelerate so much as a single atom either. These are all acts of faith on the part of the believer based on SUBJECTIVE interpretations of the world around us, nothing more.

I refer to:
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The lack of evidence is a foundation for most definitions of faith.
Don't confuse hypotheses with theories.
Hypotheses don't require evidence, theories do.
Therefore theories need no faith.
Per definition.

 

[Michael]

I refer to:
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

faith (f

th)n.1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

The lack of evidence is a foundation for most definitions of faith.

Astronomers are confident about their "dark energy" sky deity. It's a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, but rather it's based on a highly subjective interpretation of the observation of redshift, and plasma redshift (a valid scientific alternative) has already been demonstrated in a lab on Earth. Dark energy doesn't even have a known source, let alone an identified control mechanism, let alone have material support in the lab. It's a pure act of faith.

That faith based behavior isn't limited to astronomy either. Susy theories have been studied by particle physicists for a very long time, but no such particles have even been seen in the lab.

Don't confuse hypotheses with theories.
Hypotheses don't require evidence, theories do.

The distinction in terms is purely arbitrary. Lambda-CMD is considered a "theory', but it's based upon three different hypothetical entities, none of which enjoy empirical support.

 

[Elendur]

Astronomers are confident about their "dark energy" sky deity. It's a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, but rather it's based on a highly subjective interpretation of the observation of redshift, and plasma redshift (a valid scientific alternative) has already been demonstrated in a lab on Earth. Dark energy doesn't even have a known source, let alone an identified control mechanism, let alone have material support in the lab. It's a pure act of faith.

That faith based behavior isn't limited to astronomy either. Susy theories have been studied by particle physicists for a very long time, but no such particles have even been seen in the lab.

Again with the astronomy.

The distinction in terms is purely arbitrary. Lambda-CMD is considered a "theory', but it's based upon three different hypothetical entities, none of which enjoy empirical support.

Weird, they're arbitrary but yet they fill a function...
I say you're either lying or not aware of what arbitrary means.
arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Michael]

Why would they spend so much time and money looking for SUSY particles if they had faith in their existence?

Why would they spend so much time and money looking for them if they lacked belief that they even existed in the first place? Your question is backwards IMO. I don't spend my time and my money on things that I lack belief in. Why would anyone do that? Your argument is just silly IMO.

(No equivocation of different meanings of faith, please. We mean "positive belief without evidence", not "this sounds right, let's see if it is right". As others have pointed out, the latter is how all scientific hypotheses work.)

You're attempting to walk a tightrope here in terms of the meaning of "positive belief without evidence'.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, there is only 'evidence' for the observation of 'redshift'. There is no 'evidence' for acceleration or even expansion. The positive belief in expansion and acceleration are highly subjective INTERPRETATIONS of the redshift phenomenon. There is no 'evidence' that it's even the correct INTERPRETATION of that data. There is ABSOLUTELY no 'evidence' of dark energy based on empirical experimentation. Not only isn't there any actual evidence for acceleration, there is no 'evidence' that "dark energy did it', even if there WAS any actual evidence for acceleration.

Astronomers hold "positive belief" that the universe is expanding and accelerating *IN SPITE OF* the empirical evidence actually. There is now (as of last year) real empirical evidence that plasma redshift is simply a quantum effect that is created as light passes through current carrying plasma. It's actually been observed now in the lab. In essence, their "positive belief" in "dark energy" is in direct conflict with known facts about plasma physics, facts that now enjoy supporting evidence from real experimentation. That's about as much of an "act of faith" as it can get.

 

[Michael]

Again with the astronomy.

I could just have easily picked on particle physicists and SUSY theory, or QM proponents and gravitons.

Weird, they're arbitrary but yet they fill a function...
I say you're either lying or not aware of what arbitrary means.
arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Well, let's see:



ar·bi·trar·y (är

b

-tr

r

)adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:



Lambda-CDM is considered an example of a "Big Bang *THEORY*". However it requires a total of three supporting HYPOTHETICAL entities. Dark energy makes up 70 percent of that theory and it's considered to be a "hypothetical entity", so why wouldn't the whole 'theory" also be a "hypothesis"? The whole theory/hypothesis game in astronomy today is based on subjective judgement and the distinctions between hypothesis and theories are virtually non-existent.

 

[Elendur]

I could just have easily picked on particle physicists and SUSY theory, or QM proponents and gravitons.

And I don't care about your anecdotes.
If you can't argue from the definitions, don't argue about them.

Well, let's see:



ar·bi·trar·y (är

b

-tr

r

)adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:



Lambda-CDM is considered an example of a "Big Bang *THEORY*". However it requires a total of three supporting HYPOTHETICAL entities. Dark energy makes up 70 percent of that theory and it's considered to be a "hypothetical entity", so why wouldn't the whole 'theory" also be a "hypothesis"? The whole theory/hypothesis game in astronomy today is based on subjective judgement and the distinctions between hypothesis and theories are virtually non-existent.

All the whited out text is irrelevant.
Sure, in the media the distinction might be close to non-existent, but media isn't there to be precise.
And now you've changed the source of the argument.
You changed it from the distinction of hypotheses and theories to some sort of anecdotal thing.


So to sum it up:
Theories need no faith. Per definition.
The difference between hypothesis and theory isn't arbitrary. Per definition.

You haven't presented an argument to show something else.

 

[Michael]

So to sum it up:
Theories need no faith. Per definition.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who's definition? Yours? I went to Wiki, and the word "faith" isn't mentioned there. It said absolutely nothing about "Theories need no faith'.

Evidently that "Theories need no faith" mantra that you have going has nothing to do with the definition of a scientific theory. Apparently it's a "act of faith' on your part. You're acting as though the "big bang theory" has been proven in the lab or something. Unless you've got some dark energy, an inflation genie, and some new exotic form of matter hiding in your back pocket, there is no physical distinction between a 'theory' and a 'hypothesis" in astronomy today.

 

[Elendur]

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who's definition? Yours? I went to Wiki, and the word "faith" isn't mentioned there. It said absolutely nothing about "Theories need no faith'.

First sentence:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Evidently you don't know how to define terms. A definition doesn't contain reference to things it doesn't use.
Why not complain that it doesn't mention water? Toes? LED's? I can go on and on what it doesn't mention.

Evidently that "Theories need no faith" mantra that you have going has nothing to do with the definition of a scientific theory. Apparently it's a "act of faith' on your part. You're acting as though the "big bang theory" has been proven in the lab or something. Unless you've got some dark energy, an inflation genie, and some new exotic form of matter hiding in your back pocket, there is no physical distinction between a 'theory' and a 'hypothesis" in astronomy today.

And again to the astronomy, are you a slow learner?

As for the part that is actually relevant:
I have provided with arguments based on the definitions.
You tried to use what a definition doesn't define as a basis for your argument along with anecdotes.

My "mantra" as you called it, is backed up by the definitions, your "mantra" isn't. Simple.
Btw, did you abandon the argument about the distinction?

 

[Michael]

WMAP Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.

Note that plasma redshift has been documented in the lab already, so even the "belief" in expansion and acceleration are "acts of faith" on the part of the believer. Therefore even the "belief' that the universe ever HAD an 'origin' is also an "act of faith"! Most telling however is the fact that three HYPOTHETICAL ENTITIES are used to support/explain big bang "theory". There is absolutely no empirical or working distinction between a theory and a hypothesis in astronomy today. Both terms are used interchangeably, but the term 'theory' gets the most airplay.

 

[Naraoia]

Why would they spend so much time and money looking for them if they lacked belief that they even existed in the first place? Your question is backwards IMO. I don't spend my time and my money on things that I lack belief in. Why would anyone do that? Your argument is just silly IMO.

What is silly is your complete misuse of "faith" and "belief" in this context. Of course scientists hope they'll turn out to be right. You are correct, they wouldn't bother otherwise. But that's not the same as some sort of religious faith in their correctness.

And I note that you still ignore that this is a general feature of science. Probably every scientist who ever had a hypothesis had at least a hope that it would be correct, and none of them knew that it was before they made the relevant observations. Neil Shubin and co. went on a long, difficult and probably expensive search for a hypothetical animal no one's ever seen. Do you fault them for "believing" in Tiktaalik?

 

[Michael]

First sentence:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

That statement doesn't even apply to "big bang theory' because no "experiment" (with real control mechanism) on Earth actually supports it, whereas plasma redshift experiments actually REFUTE it. It's based on entirely upon PURE OBSERVATION and subjective interpretations.

Evidently you don't know how to define terms. A definition doesn't contain reference to things it doesn't use.

In other words I caught you inserting in your own beliefs into the definition and you don't want to cop to it.

Why not complain that it doesn't mention water? Toes? LED's? I can go on and on what it doesn't mention.

Because you didn't insert your own "beliefs" into that definition and mention water in the process, that's why. Your claim about FAITH not being related to a scientific theory was YOUR OWN claim, and has nothing to do with the actual definition.

And again to the astronomy, are you a slow learner?

No, I'm simply noting that astronomy makes no distinction between a "theory' and a hypothesis.

My "mantra" as you called it, is backed up by the definitions,

No, it's not. You're the one that wrote that sentence, it didn't come from the definition. You made it up. The fact that there is more "confidence" associated with a 'theory' doesn't mean it's not an "act of faith". I can be a confident theist, or a tentative theist, but both are "acts of faith".

Btw, did you abandon the argument about the distinction?

What distinction? There is none. The "big bang theory' isn't even actually a "theory" because it requires three different HYPOTHETICAL entities to make it work! Astronomers don't even attempt to differentiate the various "hypothesis" from their theory in the first place!

 

[Michael]

What is silly is your complete misuse of "faith" and "belief" in this context. Of course scientists hope they'll turn out to be right. You are correct, they wouldn't bother otherwise. But that's not the same as some sort of religious faith in their correctness.

You're splitting hairs by comparing it to religious faith. FYI, astronomers are THE most "zealous" bunch of 'scientists' that I know of in terms of their emotional attachment to their beliefs. They get mortally offended when confronted with skepticism, and they react very emotionally and personally to such criticism. They attack individuals rather than ideas and they get really upset when you attempt to promote another cosmology theory on their websites.

And I note that you still ignore that this is a general feature of science. Probably every scientist who ever had a hypothesis had at least a hope that it would be correct, and none of them knew that it was before they made the relevant observations. Neil Shubin and co. went on a long, difficult and probably expensive search for a hypothetical animal no one's ever seen. Do you fault them for "believing" in Tiktaalik?

It's not so much the fact that astronomers "entertain" ideas that lack empirical support that I find offensive. What I am offended by is their irrational attitude toward empirical physics like PC/EU theory *WITHOUT* stuffing it full of metaphysical entities. It's the UNWILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES, and their public reaction to such alternatives, that I find disgusting. I don't fault anyone for "having faith' in something they can't yet demonstrate. IMO 'faith" is a natural part of life and a natural part of science. "Faith' isn't a dirty word to me personally (probably any theist). It's only atheists that seem to think that "science' doesn't require "acts of faith". Faith is every bit as much intertwined in "science" and applicable to science, as it is intertwined and applicable to "religion". both science and religion can require "acts of faith" on the part of the believer in things that often have no empirical support whatsoever. That isn't ALWAYS true in "science", but it's true in MANY cases.

 

[Elendur]

That statement doesn't even apply to "big bang theory' because no "experiment" (with real control mechanism) on Earth actually supports it, whereas plasma redshift experiments actually REFUTE it. It's based on entirely upon PURE OBSERVATION and subjective interpretations.

Then maybe you should argue that the BB theory isn't a theory?
And that's not a discussion I'm interested in with you, FYI.

In other words I caught you inserting in your own beliefs into the definition and you don't want to cop to it.

Can you explain further what you mean?
As for "my belief", I inserted none. See post #463.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7655153-47/#post60848293

Because you didn't insert your own "beliefs" into that definition and mention water in the process, that's why. Your claim about FAITH not being related to a scientific theory was YOUR OWN claim, and has nothing to do with the actual definition.

Again, evidently you don't know how definitions work.
See post #463 for why faith is no part of theories.

No, I'm simply noting that astronomy makes no distinction between a "theory' and a hypothesis.

Even if astronomy doesn't, it doesn't matter. The distinction is there.

No, it's not. You're the one that wrote that sentence, it didn't come from the definition. You made it up. The fact that there is more "confidence" associated with a 'theory' doesn't mean it's not an "act of faith". I can be a confident theist, or a tentative theist, but both are "acts of faith".

I refer to #463.
How nice of you to not refute the latter part of that sentence.

What distinction? There is none. The "big bang theory' isn't even actually a "theory" because it requires three different HYPOTHETICAL entities to make it work! Astronomers don't even attempt to differentiate the various "hypothesis" from their theory in the first place!

Yes. There is. I gave you a (not the) distinction in post #463
As for the part I whited, don't you see how that doesn't come close to the matter? (A hint, it's anecdotal)

 

[Michael]

Then maybe you should argue that the BB theory isn't a theory?

IMO it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". The confidence level might go up with the term "theory" vs. hypothesis, but even theories are falsifiable so they too are all 'acts of faith" on the part of the believer. Astronomy just happens to blur the distinction between terms more than most.

I think you're just reluctant to accept the fact that 'faith' is every much a part of 'science' as it is a part of 'religion'. I think that concept bothers you so you simply refuse to accept it. Atheists seem to attach a negative stigma to the term "faith' whereas theists typically do not.

Again, evidently you don't know how definitions work.
See post #463 for why faith is no part of theories.

Regardless of how many times you repeat that false mantra ("faith is no part of theories), it's still a false statement and the Big Bang THEORY demonstrates that theories require 'faith' too. None of us were around 13.7 billion years ago. Any 'beliefs' we might hold about the universe, where it came from, when it formed, ect are all "acts of faith' by the person holding that belief. One isn't required to hold belief in ANY cosmology theory by the way, some folks just choose to 'have faith' in one cosmology theory or another.

Even if astronomy doesn't, it doesn't matter. The distinction is there.

The distinction doesn't exist in the real world of actual "science' today, certainly not in astronomy. It's more of a "hypothetical" distinction. Since even theories however are still assumed to be 'falsifiable' just like any hypothesis, they also remain 'acts of faith' on the part of the believer. The confidence level may change, but the act of faith is still there.

Essentially I think this conversation is going in circles because you refuse to accept reality as it's 'practiced in real life by real 'scientists" (in this case astronomers) and you have some idealized notion of 'science' that simply isn't true. Inflation and dark energy are more impotent in the lab than your average concept of 'God'! Since inflation doesn't even necessarily exist anymore, even assuming their theory is true, there cannot ever be an 'experiment' to verify it's existence, so any belief in inflation must necessarily be an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. That's simply a fact.

 

[Elendur]

I thought I would clean things up. You keep cluttering up with references to unnecessary stuff.

Argument 1:
Your side: Scientific theories requires faith.
My side: Scientific theories doesn't require faith.

Argument 2:
Your side: The distinction between theory and hypothesis is arbitrary.
My side: The distinction between theory and hypothesis isn't arbitrary.

__________________________________________

Argument 1:

Definitions:

Theory:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Evidence:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.


Sources:
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
evidence - definition of evidence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


A THEORY needs to be tested, as in confirmed.
If something has been confirmed it has EVIDENCE.
FAITH is a belief that doesn't rest on EVIDENCE.
Since a THEORY needs EVIDENCE it isn't a FAITH.

Per. Definition.



__________________________________________

Argument 2:

Definitions:

Theory:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Hypothesis:
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

Sources:
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A HYPOTHESIS only is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
A THEORY is an explanation for a phenomenon, supported by observations and experiments.
Therefore there is a clear, reasonable distinction between the terms HYPOTHESIS and THEORY.

 

[Michael]

Theory:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

The only "body of facts" that we have relate to the observation of the redshift of photons. There are are no observations that can only be explained with expansion or acceleration. There are known alternatives to expansion and acceleration. The INTERPRETATION of the redshift phenomenon is subjective to start with. More importantly, plasma redshift, the leading alternative to expansion and acceleration, has already been verified in the lab. Any "belief" one might hold in expansion and/or acceleration of the universe, confidently or otherwise, is necessarily an act of pure faith on the part of the believer. Space never expands in the lab. Dark energy never accelerates anything in the lab either. Inflation doesn't do squat in the lab. Current carrying plasma however does cause redshift in the lab.

Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Astronomers are certainly 'confident' in their beliefs. They trust their ideas. They have no logical proof or material evidence however that EXCLUSIVELY supports their claim, and there is at least one PROVEN (in the lab) alternative. What else can you call that but "faith'?

Evidence:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.

The only "evidence" we have is evidence that photons experience redshifting over a distance. That's the only EVIDENCE that we have to work with. Everything else, every subjective interpretation of that phenomenon is an ACT OF FAITH unless and until in enjoys empirical support. Only plasma redshift enjoys such support. Dark energy is an "act of faith"

As much as I know how important it is to you to cling to that false belief of yours that faith isn't involved in scientific theories, in the actual real world of physics, it is. Faith is not only a part of some scientific theories, it's a full 96 percent of what makes up mainstream cosmology theory today. Dark energy, inflation and dark matter are TOTAL DUDS in the lab. Only one of those three hypothetical entities could even potentially gain empirical support in my lifetime. The very fact that a "theory" is composed of three different "hypothetical entities" blows away your claim that there any real distinction between a theory and a hypothesis.

 

[Elendur]

Did you read my post?

Argument 1:
Your side: Scientific theories requires faith.
My side: Scientific theories doesn't require faith.

Argument 2:
Your side: The distinction between theory and hypothesis is arbitrary.
My side: The distinction between theory and hypothesis isn't arbitrary.

You're taking up a whole lot of unnecessary stuff. Don't you know how to argue?
Also, clean up your post.

 

[Michael]

Did you read my post?


You're taking up a whole lot of unnecessary stuff. Don't you know how to argue?
Also, clean up your post.

From my perspective at least, the real problem is related to pure denial on your part. You simply REFUSE to acknowledge the fact that big bang THEORY includes three different "hypotheses", and it requires several "acts of faith" in a number of "hypothetical" entities.

I could hand you papers that demonstrate that plasma redshift does explain the very same redshift features, and it enjoys laboratory support, but you're not interested in the topic or the facts apparently. What's the point?

As I said earlier, unless you have some dark energy, dark matter and a cute little inflation faerie hiding in your back pocket, any belief they exist are simply 'acts of faith' on your part, or anyone's part that puts their faith in such nonsense.