Question on basic Science

[SuperChristian25]

I seem to understand that science deals with knowledge and that you have to observe the event occurring, then gather evidence to explain the event. Science is the search for truth. I've heard people say science measure uncertainty, nothing can be proven in science. Who in the world would do science via uncertainty? That's absurd.

Real science involves knowing. It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.. in this present state..otherwise it is not science.

What's your take on this?

 

[sfs]

When people say that nothing in science is proven, they mean that all scientific knowledge is tentative; it represents the best explanation we currently have for something. In this it differs from math, where you can prove with complete certainty that something is true or false. This isn't really a limitation of science, though: it's a limitation of human beings. All human knowledge is fallible. We say that someone has been proved guilty of a crime in court, even though there's always the possibility that the judge and jury got it wrong. And just like in court, some scientific conclusions are so well supported that there's really no chance they'll be completely overturned.

On the scope of science, I think your idea is mistaken. Science is not confined to studying events in the here and now that can be directly observed. Science can study any physical event that leaves evidence, since as long as there is evidence, there is a way of testing proposed explanations against the data. Thus geologists study the center of the Earth, which they can't directly observe, astronomers study stars that exploded millions of years ago, and geneticists study mutations that happened many generations ago.

 

[SuperChristian25]

On the scope of science, I think your idea is mistaken. Science is not confined to studying events in the here and now that can be directly observed. Science can study any physical event that leaves evidence, since as long as there is evidence, there is a way of testing proposed explanations against the data. Thus geologists study the center of the Earth, which they can't directly observe, astronomers study stars that exploded millions of years ago, and geneticists study mutations that happened many generations ago.

That's their interpretation of it. It is a belief. Science is based on observable evidence that does not require faith. I can't test millions of years ago because I can't observe it. At least that's how I understands it. So I don't know why they called it science. They can have these theories about it but in the end it's just theories. Theories are not proven. What I'd like is for scientists to show me here and now in front of my own eyes, that these things actually happen.

 

[Nithavela]

At least that's how I understands it.

Your 'understandsing' is wrong. Oh so very wrong.

And I do not believe you are here because you try to learn what is right.

 

[Loudmouth]

I seem to understand that science deals with knowledge and that you have to observe the event occurring, then gather evidence to explain the event.

That isn't quite it. Science gathers observations to test the explanation. You do not observe your hypothesis or theory. You test it. sfs mentions some good examples, such as gathering observations to test your theories dealing with the inner Earth.

With respect to past events, we use the evidence they left behind to test our explanations (i.e. theories and hypotheses) of what happened in the past. Take forensic science as an example. We can use evidence that a criminal leaves at a crime scene to test theories of what happened during the crime. In the same way, we can use the fossil record and the genomes of species to test theories of what happened in the past.

Science is the search for truth. I've heard people say science measure uncertainty, nothing can be proven in science. Who in the world would do science via uncertainty? That's absurd.

All theories are considered to be tentative and incomplete. As soon as you accept a theory as the absolute "truth" you are no longer doing science. The word "truth" carries too much philosophical baggage which makes it a poor word to use within science. Rather, we talk about theories and models, and how well they are supported.

Real science involves knowing. It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.. in this present state..otherwise it is not science.

Repeatable refers to the observations, not the theory. For example, if a DNA technique produces consistent results for multiple investigators then it is considered a scientific observation and a repeatable observation. That means if multiple investigators find the same DNA sequence for a given genome then that fits the criteria of being repeatable within the scientific method.

 

[HitchSlap]

I seem to understand that science deals with knowledge and that you have to observe the event occurring, then gather evidence to explain the event. Science is the search for truth. I've heard people say science measure uncertainty, nothing can be proven in science. Who in the world would do science via uncertainty? That's absurd.

Real science involves knowing. It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.. in this present state..otherwise it is not science.

What's your take on this?

Applying your logic to say, a crime scene, we would never be able to come to a reasonable conclusion based on physical evidence?

 

[Michael]

I seem to understand that science deals with knowledge and that you have to observe the event occurring, then gather evidence to explain the event. Science is the search for truth. I've heard people say science measure uncertainty, nothing can be proven in science. Who in the world would do science via uncertainty? That's absurd.

Real science involves knowing. It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.. in this present state..otherwise it is not science.

What's your take on this?

My take is that there is a distinction between what you're calling 'knowing' (via experimentation and empirical physics), and the over broad term 'science'. Science also dabbles in "hypothetical" constructs like string theory, and graviton theory, etc. These hypothetical constructs don't actually qualify as 'knowing', whereas you might make an argument that empirical physics (like a computer) involves a certain amount of 'knowing'.

There is however a distinct difference between my cell phone and hypothetical constructs like string theory in terms of what can be demonstrated in a lab, under controlled conditions.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's their interpretation of it. It is a belief. Science is based on observable evidence that does not require faith. I can't test millions of years ago because I can't observe it. At least that's how I understands it. So I don't know why they called it science. They can have these theories about it but in the end it's just theories. Theories are not proven. What I'd like is for scientists to show me here and now in front of my own eyes, that these things actually happen.

Are you a young earth creationist?

 

[Michael]

That's their interpretation of it. It is a belief. Science is based on observable evidence that does not require faith.

That depends on the field of science, and the issue in question. Belief in electricity does not require faith. Belief in SUSY particles however requires an act of faith on the part of the believer, and the lab results thus far haven't been kind to the "believers".

I can't test millions of years ago because I can't observe it. At least that's how I understands it. So I don't know why they called it science. They can have these theories about it but in the end it's just theories. Theories are not proven. What I'd like is for scientists to show me here and now in front of my own eyes, that these things actually happen.

I'd say you have a relatively 'naive' view of the whole realm of science. You're not likely to see a graviton here and now in front of your own eyes, in fact nobody has ever seen one.

 

[SuperChristian25]

That isn't quite it. Science gathers observations to test the explanation. You do not observe your hypothesis or theory. You test it. sfs mentions some good examples, such as gathering observations to test your theories dealing with the inner Earth.

If geologists can't directly observe it then it can't be tested it could it?

With respect to past events, we use the evidence they left behind to test our explanations (i.e. theories and hypotheses) of what happened in the past. Take forensic science as an example. We can use evidence that a criminal leaves at a crime scene to test theories of what happened during the crime. In the same way, we can use the fossil record and the genomes of species to test theories of what happened in the past.

That's different from the real science. The real science is here and now. Building computer, building bridges, cars, tech, etc.. I'm talking about real science. not faith.

All theories are considered to be tentative and incomplete. As soon as you accept a theory as the absolute "truth" you are no longer doing science. The word "truth" carries too much philosophical baggage which makes it a poor word to use within science. Rather, we talk about theories and models, and how well they are supported.

I see. So science has no truth, just theories. You find that exciting? If it has no truth then forget it!

 

[SuperChristian25]

Your 'understandsing' is wrong. Oh so very wrong.

And I do not believe you are here because you try to learn what is right.

How am I wrong?

It takes a very long time for stars to die and explode... has anyone actually observe this?

 

[Nithavela]

Are you willing to learn something or are you just here to spew your naive, malinformed opinions?

 

[Nithavela]

How am I wrong?

It takes a very long time for stars to die and explode... has anyone actually observe this?

We have observed stars in all their ages, yes. Not one star in all ages, but different stars with similiar properties, but at different ages.

And not all stars explode, by the way.

 

[SuperChristian25]

Applying your logic to say, a crime scene, we would never be able to come to a reasonable conclusion based on physical evidence?

That's different from the actual science of knowledge that I'm referring to. But sure, we could draw inference to the best explanation of what likely happened. Same with history. So using your question we can say Jesus resurrection is a science too then?

 

[SuperChristian25]

We have observed stars in all their ages, yes. Not one star in all ages, but different stars with similiar properties, but at different ages.

And not all stars explode, by the way.

Ok how do you know a star is how old?

For most stars it takes many billion years to explode... how is that possible when man have only been in here less than 2 million years? Even the 2 million is a guess.

 

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

All theories are considered to be tentative and incomplete. As soon as you accept a theory as the absolute "truth" you are no longer doing science. The word "truth" carries too much philosophical baggage which makes it a poor word to use within science. Rather, we talk about theories and models, and how well they are supported.

​

I see. So science has no truth, just theories. You find that exciting? If it has no truth then forget it!

I think what LM is trying to explain is that 'science' tends to change over time, and it's not set in stone. For instance, our understanding of gravity has changed between Newton and Einstein, but Newton's formulas are still quite useful for space travel inside our solar system. You might call gravity itself a 'truth', but any 'theory' on how gravity works is not form of 'truth', it's just a conceptual way to explain the experience of gravity.

 

[Nithavela]

Ok how do you know a star is how old?

With science!

Stellar age estimation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HitchSlap]

That's different from the actual science of knowledge that I'm referring to. But sure, we could draw inference to the best explanation of what likely happened. Same with history. So using your question we can say Jesus resurrection is a science too then?

Yes.

 

[HitchSlap]

How am I wrong?

It takes a very long time for stars to die and explode... has anyone actually observe this?

Yes.

 

[Loudmouth]

If geologists can't directly observe it then it can't be tested it could it?

Theories are testable. Observations are repeatable. It is completely wrong to say that theories need to be observable or repeatable. It is also wrong to say that observations need to be testable. Please keep them straight.

That's different from the real science. The real science is here and now. Building computer, building bridges, cars, tech, etc.. I'm talking about real science. not faith.

Fossils are in the here and now. Genomes are in the here in now.

I see. So science has no truth, just theories. You find that exciting? If it has no truth then forget it!

Science does not claim to have absolute truth, no. I have often found that those who claim to have absolute truths are the farthest from them. Instead, science accepts that humans are fallible and that our theories and models could be wrong. If doubt is a problem for you, then science is probably not going to be that enjoyable. If you need a dogmatic belief that is never questioned then theology and creationism are a much better choice.