Scientific theories rely on apparent memory as evidence?

[tonychanyt]

Understandably, an average person does not use the word 'theory' scientifically because the word has a colloquial usage. However, when a scholar explicitly uses the term 'scientific theory' not in the scientific sense, it is a wrong usage.

Prof Richard Swinburne said:

To establish a scientific theory, a scientist needs to show that the theory predicts certain events.

Right.

How does a scientist know that certain events have occurred? Well, either the scientist is currently observing them herself or remember having observed them or has had reports of others that they have observed them.

Emphasis added. Scientists collect data. They do not depend on their subjective memories of these data. They collect numerical measurements. They use these data to formulate their scientific theories.

How does a physicist know that certain events have occurred in a particle accelerator?

They rely on machines to detect them. These scientific instruments record a bunch of numbers. These data represent energy, momentum, trajectory, etc. They do not see these numbers directly with their eyes.

These three sources of our knowledge about particular events, one's own experience, one's memory, one's testimony from others provide the evidence that the events predicted by a theory occurred or rather since all of these source may mislead, it is apparent memory, apparent experience, and apparent testimony which provide the evidence that the events predicted by the theory occurred.

That's why scientists collect measurable evidence (think numbers) and do not rely on apparent memory.

Mary Baker Eddy called her religion Christian Science. I understand that people often use the word "science" in a way that has nothing to do with mathematics or statistics. I wouldn't do it. A scientific theory with nothing to do with numbers should not be labeled as such. Swinburne did not describe a proper scientific theory here as he had claimed. He used the term scientific theory wrongly.

I'd advise Christians not to learn Big Bang Theory and Evolution from Christian apologists.

 

[okay]

I'd advise Christians not to learn Big Bang Theory and Evolution from Christian apologists.

Amen!

I am guessing that I am in the minority, but I don’t find the apologetics project in general to be very compelling most of the time. In graduate school I decided I should learn something about it since I was a believer who was working with many non-Christians studying physics and engineering at the highest levels, but quickly became disillusioned.

I want to learn science from mainstream scientists with legit credentials, regardless of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Likewise for biblical scholarship.

Cheers.

 

[tonychanyt]

I don’t find the apologetics project in general to be very compelling most of the time.

Agree. It is compelling to those who are already believers.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd advise Christians not to learn Big Bang Theory and Evolution from Christian apologists.

Might as well have Kim Jong Il advise you on democracy.