Method for accepting science

[Paradoxum]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

For me I am lucky enough to enjoy science and was good at it when I did it at school. Still I can't possibly accept or reject various theories based on my own full assessment of the theories. Nevertheless, based on my understanding of the scientific method and how science works I find it reasonable to accept scientific consensus as approximate truth. Of course this takes more than accepting what any one scientist says at any one time. This would also be my roughly my method for other subjects as well.

So what I want to ask to those who have high doubts about things like evolution and climate change, is why is this? Why do you consider it reasonable to accept the word of non-scientists or a tiny minority of scientists over the majority? Is this based on the assumption that you are able weed out the incorrect theories without the appropriate training?

 

[Jazer]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

I have been asking atheists this question for a long time.
Why do they reject science when it shows that the Bible is true.

 

[Michael]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

For me I am lucky enough to enjoy science and was good at it when I did it at school. Still I can't possibly accept or reject various theories based on my own full assessment of the theories. Nevertheless, based on my understanding of the scientific method and how science works I find it reasonable to accept scientific consensus as approximate truth.

Then why aren't you a "theist", since the VAST majority of humans agree on that "consensus"?

Is there something unique about "science" (as you practice it), vs "religion" as most people practice it?

 

[Paradoxum]

I have been asking atheists this question for a long time.
Why do they reject science when it shows that the Bible is true.

So... are you going to answer me?

Do they? I've never rejected a science because it shows the Bible is true. I pretty much accept the same science I did when I was a strong Christian, and back then I would have jumped at a chance to have science prove the Bible true.

Then why aren't you a "theist", since the VAST majority of humans agree on that "consensus"?

Is there something unique about "science" (as you practice it), vs "religion" as most people practice it?

Yes, the scientific method. If you show me a method for proving the truth or falsity of religious claims that has been demonstrated to be true then I there's a high chance I would accept the findings of such a method.

I also put a similar (though lesser) trust in historians and their findings.

Can you tell me how you work out who to trust/ what to believe, etc?

 

[Radagast]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

For me I am lucky enough to enjoy science and was good at it when I did it at school. Still I can't possibly accept or reject various theories based on my own full assessment of the theories...

So what I want to ask to those who have high doubts...

I'm speaking as someone "in the business," so to speak (a recent poll shows we have quite a few people in that category), and I tend to a kind of weak scepticism -- something like: "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you still need to convince me."

Key issues for me are:

(1) Compatibility with the big picture of what I already know (or think I know). Things like cold fusion, arsenic-based DNA, and faster-than-light neutrinos ring alarm bells with me (as with most people). Big claims require substantial evidence.

(2) General scientific quality. If I spot an error or two based on what I know, I put less faith in the bits I'm not competent to judge. "Creation science" generally has flaws I can recognise.

(3) Graphs. I can read a graph, and if the picture doesn't match the words, I become more sceptical. Graphs like this disprove denials of sea level rises, for example, but don't sit well with predictions of 1-metre sea-level rises this century.

(4) The presence of credible opposing arguments. If there are two sides, and both make equal sense to me, I tend (rightly or wrongly) not to be convinced by either side. I'm agnostic on string theory, for example.

 

[RickG]

So what I want to ask to those who have high doubts about things like evolution and climate change, is why is this? Why do you consider it reasonable to accept the word of non-scientists or a tiny minority of scientists over the majority? Is this based on the assumption that you are able weed out the incorrect theories without the appropriate training?

You know, there are many parallels with the rejection of evolution and climate change. Here's a short list:

• Most of the dissent is from non scientific sources
• Both are backed by the political right
• Their claims don't pass the mainstream peer review literature
• Most claims are based on opinion, not research
• Both will cite legitimate research stating it supports their position when in fact it doesn't
• Both frequently use "quote mines" to deceive
• Some of the claims presented are just plain lies
• Most non believers will never compare both sides of the issue
• And most telling, when shown deceit and deliberate misrepresentation, they ignore it.

 

[Radagast]

Most of the descent is from non scientific sources

Did you mean "dissent"?

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm speaking as someone "in the business," so to speak (a recent poll shows we have quite a few people in that category), and I tend to a kind of weak scepticism -- something like: "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you still need to convince me."

What area is your business in, if you don't mind me asking?

Key issues for me are:

(1) Compatibility with the big picture of what I already know (or think I know). Things like cold fusion, arsenic-based DNA, and faster-than-light neutrinos ring alarm bells with me (as with most people). Big claims require substantial evidence.

Well I more or less agree. I didn't that the the neutrinos were faster than light, but that is based on the fact that other scientists hadn't had time to prove or disprove it and because many scientists were skeptical. I knew it went against previous science, but it could just be that past science wasn't complete.

(2) General scientific quality. If I spot an error or two based on what I know, I put less faith in the bits I'm not competent to judge. "Creation science" generally has flaws I can recognise.

You are probably more competent than me in science, but when I see flaws in creationist arguments it is still with reference to science I have had to accept from others rather than my own complete understanding.

(3) Graphs. I can read a graph, and if the picture doesn't match the words, I become more sceptical. Graphs like this disprove denials of sea level rises, for example, but don't sit well with predictions of 1-metre sea-level rises this century.

I might try such a thing, but I can't be sure the graphs are put together to represent the truth or that I am able to read them with the proper background knowledge.

(4) The presence of credible opposing arguments. If there are two sides, and both make equal sense to me, I tend (rightly or wrongly) not to be convinced by either side. I'm agnostic on string theory, for example.

I agree. I'm also agnostic on string theory, but that is because many scientists are agnostic on it. I think I am right in thinking that it isn't claimed that string theory has been proven.

You know, there are many parallels with the rejection of evolution and climate change. Here's a short list:

• Most of the descent is from non scientific sources
• Both are backed by the political right
• Their claims don't pass the mainstream peer review literature
• Most claims are based on opinion, not research
• Both will cite legitimate research stating it supports their position when in fact it doesn't
• Both frequently use "quote mines" to deceive
• Some of the claims presented are just plain lies
• Most non believers will never compare both sides of the issue
• And most telling, when shown deceit and deliberate misrepresentation, they ignore it.

Probably all true

 

[Radagast]

What area is your business in, if you don't mind me asking?

Mathematics.

I knew it went against previous science, but it could just be that past science wasn't complete.

True. However, "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" is a good rule of thumb.

I might try such a thing, but I can't be sure the graphs are put together to represent the truth or that I am able to read them with the proper background knowledge.

True, one has to assume that the authors of a peer-reviewed article haven't made the data up (although once in a while, it turns out they did, and the paper is retracted).

Still, it's a great personal exercise to ask yourself: how could I check that? Here is a creative example.

I'm not keen on "it must be true because many people believe it." That's a fallacy, and I remember the story of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.

 

[Radagast]

Both will cite legitimate research stating it supports their position when in fact it doesn't

It's always helpful to chase up one or two random citations and see if they really do support the point being made in what you're reading.

 

[Jazer]

So... are you going to answer me?

There are a lot of problems with Science. With God He is always there for you. No matter what the problem, God has a solution. No matter what the question, God has the answer. Perhaps His solution is different from our solution, or He does not answer the questions as soon as we want an answer. But God is always there for us. With Science sooner or later your going to hear that they do not have any solutions for you and they do not have answers to your questions. With Science in the end you die. Even if they claim they can keep you alive a bit longer. With God we are told that we can live forever. With God we are told about Paradise. Science offers us better living, but Religion goes far beyond what Science can offer. Science says we well always have war. The Bible says that when Jesus returns we will beat the sword into a plow. Perhaps this means our money will go to feed the hungry and not toward killing people and wars.

 

[dougangel]

hi guys
I'm sick of people saying science is against the bible when all these scientists are christians or thiests
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
[William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
not a christian but believed in a creator

 

[Paradoxum]

Mathematics.

True. However, "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" is a good rule of thumb.

True.

Still, it's a great personal exercise to ask yourself: how could I check that? Here is a creative example.

I'm not keen on "it must be true because many people believe it." That's a fallacy, and I remember the story of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.

I wouldn't say that it is true because many people believe it, but I do think it is reasonable to accept the findings of those that follow the scientific method.

There are a lot of problems with Science. With God He is always there for you. No matter what the problem, God has a solution. No matter what the question, God has the answer. Perhaps His solution is different from our solution, or He does not answer the questions as soon as we want an answer. But God is always there for us. With Science sooner or later your going to hear that they do not have any solutions for you and they do not have answers to your questions. With Science in the end you die. Even if they claim they can keep you alive a bit longer. With God we are told that we can live forever. With God we are told about Paradise. Science offers us better living, but Religion goes far beyond what Science can offer. Science says we well always have war. The Bible says that when Jesus returns we will beat the sword into a plow. Perhaps this means our money will go to feed the hungry and not toward killing people and wars.

Isn't that a problem though? Science acknowledges it is fallible, but religion gives all the answers, so sure of itself. What if we don't know and religion tells us what we want to hear? Now I don't mind if people have a belief in God and Heaven, but I do have problems when people use their interpretation of their Holy Book or the world to fight against science. Now if you could show me a demonstrably sure method for the interpretation of the Bible and its application to the world then you might have a point. But until that time it is reasonable to use science as another aid to the interpretation of the Bible.

I don't think you answered my question anyway. If you reject the consensus of scientists, on what basis do you do this? If your answer is the Bible then I ask what makes your interpretation so sure?

hi guys
I'm sick of people saying science is against the bible when all these scientists are christians or thiests
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
[William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
not a christian but believed in a creator

I would like to point out that I never said science is against the Bible. At least, one can be a Christian and a scientist quite nicely.

 

[Jazer]

Isn't that a problem though? Science acknowledges it is fallible, but religion gives all the answers, so sure of itself.

I did not say religion gives us all the answers. I said God gives us all the answers. We need to have a relationship with God. This means we need to be born again and become a new creation in Christ. We put off the old and put on the new. Then we can think God's divine thoughts and we do not have to think fallen carnal man thoughts anymore. One pastor I studied under went though hundreds of scriptures talking about putting on the mind of Christ. So it may not be quick and easy.

 

[selfinflikted]

I said God gives us all the answers. We need to have a relationship with God. This means we need to be born again and become a new creation in Christ. We put off the old and put on the new. Then we can think God's divine thoughts and we do not have to think fallen carnal man thoughts anymore.

So where is all this new-found knowledge and divine thoughts? If all one has to do to get "all the answers" is have a relationship with god, why then don't all the ones claiming this very relationship have all the answers?

 

[Michael]

Yes, the scientific method. If you show me a method for proving the truth or falsity of religious claims that has been demonstrated to be true then I there's a high chance I would accept the findings of such a method.

But you didn't really describe a "scientific method". You aren't suggesting it's worth your personal time to "skeptically review" anything with the label "science" attached to it. Your position amounts to "faith in science" unless you take the time to understand the specific topic, and/or make your own decisions.

What "scientific method" demonstrates that "dark energy" exists and it's not just a "gap filler" in an otherwise falsified cosmology theory? Inflation?

 

[Nabobalis]

What "scientific method" demonstrates that "dark energy" exists and it's not just a "gap filler" in an otherwise falsified cosmology theory? Inflation?

It is a gap filler, no has said it is otherwise.

 

[Paradoxum]

I did not say religion gives us all the answers. I said God gives us all the answers. We need to have a relationship with God. This means we need to be born again and become a new creation in Christ. We put off the old and put on the new. Then we can think God's divine thoughts and we do not have to think fallen carnal man thoughts anymore. One pastor I studied under went though hundreds of scriptures talking about putting on the mind of Christ. So it may not be quick and easy.

Ok, but what has this got to do with science?

But you didn't really describe a "scientific method".

I didn't say my method was the scientific method.

You aren't suggesting it's worth your personal time to "skeptically review" anything with the label "science" attached to it.

I can try to, to the best of my ability and time, but I think people are fooling themselves to think that they can go through all the evidence and understand all the data, equations, etc, etc. Generally people have to take the word of others that know better than them on many things because we simply don't have time in life.

Your position amounts to "faith in science" unless you take the time to understand the specific topic, and/or make your own decisions.

Maybe it is faith in science, depending how you define it. I'm not scared of the word faith. I'm sure faith can be when put to reasonable use. I can try to understand how this or that theory makes sense and how they get there from the evidence, but normally means I have to work from some assumptions still because I don't have full knowledge of the subject.

I can try to give the evidence as I understand it for this or that theory, but I would think a large difference between beliefs of people comes from who they trust. It is important to ask who it is reasonable to trust, to what extent and why.

What "scientific method" demonstrates that "dark energy" exists and it's not just a "gap filler" in an otherwise falsified cosmology theory? Inflation?

Well I guess it could be either. I don't go round saying I know what dark energy is, but while dark energy seems to be the best (while completely still lacking) understanding of the problem I am happy to say it might exist. Do you not think my skepticism reflects that of scientists on the issue? No one knows what it is, but much weirder things seem to be true of the world.

 

[Michael]

I wouldn't say that it is true because many people believe it, but I do think it is reasonable to accept the findings of those that follow the scientific method.

I get the distinct impression that you're not actually clear about the "scientific method' and how it applies to 'big picture' sorts of issues. The "method" amounts to nothing more than "agreed upon dogma" when it comes to SOME scientific topics such as ASTRONOMY that do not produce any tangible goods. It's perfectly logical on the other hand to "have faith" in 'electrical engineering' as a "science" because it does in fact produce tangible goods like our computers that we use every single day.

Nothing however actually runs or depends upon on 'inflation', 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' other than the budgets of astronomers. What "scientific method' applies to such things?

Why do you 'lack belief' in God, yet 'have faith' in dark matter?

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

Dark matter FAILED a very important prediction recently. Did you notice?

Isn't that a problem though? Science acknowledges it is fallible, but religion gives all the answers, so sure of itself.

When was the last time you debated any astronomers over their faith in "dark" stuff?

What if we don't know and religion tells us what we want to hear?

What about if astronomers don't know and they just tell us we want to hear (we know something about it)?

Now I don't mind if people have a belief in God and Heaven, but I do have problems when people use their interpretation of their Holy Book or the world to fight against science.

I personally use science to "fight against" science, such as that last article/paper on the recent failure of mainstream theory.

The problem is that astronomers do not actually care that their theories FAIL consistently.

I would like to point out that I never said science is against the Bible. At least, one can be a Christian and a scientist quite nicely.

That's certainly true. I know of know particular "conflict' between my "religion" and "science". It all depends on how one "practices' science and religion.

IMO you're very NAIVE if you think 'large scale answers' (like cosmology or God) are based upon the 'scientific method'. They really are not. They are always based upon "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), without exception.

 

[Michael]

It is a gap filler, no has said it is otherwise.

Why not let it simply die a natural scientific death the way you'd do for a 'religious' belief that consistently failed such observational tests?

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

How can one actually "falsify" mainstream "scientific" theory when the mainstream simply IGNORES the data that they don't like?