True knowledge?

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello.

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense.

He said not.

When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly.
.
.
.


So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello.

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense.

He said not.

When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly.
.
.
.


So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Thanks,

E.I.

It's possible, but that would constitute merely a true belief rather than a justified true belief. For instance, someone might infer that because the Sun and Moon are round, the earth is round. We might not say that such evidence is necessarily sufficient to make that kind of conclusion from a merely experiential point of view, but that person would be correct about the earth's roundness nevertheless.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello.

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense.

He said not.

When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly.
.
.
.


So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Thanks,

E.I.

The initial proposition you mention a Christian offering is--firstly--not a particularly mainstream Christian notion.

It's just plain silly from the onset, as I certainly can't find out about the yearly weather patterns around the area of Oslo, Norway or the mating habits of the arctic fox from the Bible.

So with that out of the way, I'd say it's entirely possible that an incorrect theory could yield a true prediction about something; but it'd be a fluke. Or at the very least we can see how previous scientific theories have been supplemented by newer and better theories (I'm thinking Newton and Einstein here).

Though I, like most Christians, don't have a problem with science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

Hello. I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

That must make, say, catching a train interesting for him.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense. He said not. When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly. . . . So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply. Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it? Thanks, E.I.

Yes. Even a bad theory will explain some of the data and produce some correct answers.

 

[cerette]

Nonsense, Christians are not against science. But there are scientific theories which are false, untrue, invalid. We don't agree with or believe those. But many things scientific are great, and a tool given us by God really.

 

[KWCrazy]

Nonsense, Christians are not against science. But there are scientific theories which are false, untrue, invalid. We don't agree with or believe those. But many things scientific are great, and a tool given us by God really.

Absolutely!

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It does not study the supernatural and cannot study it. It can neither prove nor disprove anything in the Scriptures. It can propose theories of origination but it can't prove them. It also can't overcome the simple fact that origination is scientifically impossible. Science as a field of study is neither good nor evil. However, it has been discredited by evil people who attempt to use it to attach the religious understanding of others.

Some, if you do not believe their false theories of origins, will immediately call you a science denying flat earther. This is because the truth is not in them. That's why they spend their time in Christian forums attacking the faith of Christians and using their misunderstandings of science as a cover.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

To Cerette...

This person is a Christian of the Young Earth Creationist, Bible-literalist variety and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his faith and belief in Jesus Christ. As I understand it, his problem with science stemmed from his unwillingness to compromise on what he called, 'the historical truth of Genesis'.

To ebia...

I see your point and my bad for not making things clearer.
Apparently, knowledge derived from the scientific study of nature that didn't agree with his literal take on scripture is anathema to him. What his understanding of the word, 'science' is however, I don't know.

To ViaCrucis...

In your opinion anti-science, evolution-denying Young Earth Creationism isn't a particularly mainstream Christian notion? Ummm... ok. But in my experience it's very well represented, here in the US. I also note that part of the Origins Theology area is specifically for YEC's.

To KWCrazy...

Could you help me out a bit please and explain what you meant by, "...believe their false theories of origins..."?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[BaconWizard]

Deleted: didnt realise only one non-christian per thread. Sorry

 

[ViaCrucis]

To ViaCrucis...

In your opinion anti-science, evolution-denying Young Earth Creationism isn't a particularly mainstream Christian notion? Ummm... ok. But in my experience it's very well represented, here in the US. I also note that part of the Origins Theology area is specifically for YEC's.

In the context of American Christianity it's certainly quite popular; in the context of Christianity in general, I'd say it's hardly representative of the mainstream. It's not heterodox, but it's hardly the safeguard of orthodoxy it pretends to be either.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rattus58]

Hello.

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense.

He said not.

When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly.
.
.
.


So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Thanks,

E.I.

For one... what was the example that was predicted that you used? Evolutionists and many science types have a habit of working backwards on specifics to "prove" their points only when applied broadly doesn't pan out.

There are a number of references between, specifically, Big Bang and Genesis that sorta correlate if you are a hyper-mathematician... and I'm not... but I was party to a conversation between those who were to hypothesize the relationship... and I found that interesting ... though proves nothing... as does the Big Bang... as doesn't abiogenesis... as does life from slime... all magical conditions... as is my assertion that we are created by an intelligent force and a new word I learned recently... theistic evolution... as opposed to my understanding of intelligent design which is similar for 40 years.

No one really knows the age of earth. Carbon dating and the rest are also based upon guesses as well.... and bias is ... well you know....

Aloha...

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Deleted: didnt realise only one non-christian per thread. Sorry

Why don't you message me privately, BW?

I'm happy to read whatever your input would have been.



E.I.

 

[Rattus58]

Why don't you message me privately, BW?

I'm happy to read whatever your input would have been.



E.I.

Well I'm interested in yours as well.... what was the situation you proposed to him that he couldn't answer because it was in conflict with his beliefs?

 

[KWCrazy]

Could you help me out a bit please and explain what you meant by, "...believe their false theories of origins..."?
Thanks,
E.I.

Evolution is their false theory of origins; that all living things originated from a single cell millions of years ago and evolved over time to make up all the plant and animal life on the planet. Evolution believers had ACTUALLY SAID that if you reject the theory of evolution then you shouldn't use a computer because you reject everything that ever came from science. We don't reject the observable facts of the world around us. We reject the unobservable theories of the natural auto-origination of everything from nothing.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

For one... what was the example that was predicted that you used? Evolutionists and many science types have a habit of working backwards on specifics to "prove" their points only when applied broadly doesn't pan out.

There are a number of references between, specifically, Big Bang and Genesis that sorta correlate if you are a hyper-mathematician... and I'm not... but I was party to a conversation between those who were to hypothesize the relationship... and I found that interesting ... though proves nothing... as does the Big Bang... as doesn't abiogenesis... as does life from slime... all magical conditions... as is my assertion that we are created by an intelligent force and a new word I learned recently... theistic evolution... as opposed to my understanding of intelligent design which is similar for 40 years.

No one really knows the age of earth. Carbon dating and the rest are also based upon guesses as well.... and bias is ... well you know....

Aloha...

Hey Rattus!

To answer your question, I called up this example on my iPad... Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...and expanded this diagram for him.
File:Cmbr.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Graph of cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE, the most-precisely measured black body spectrum in nature,[9] the error bars are too small to be seen even in enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve"

In a nutshell, scientists calculated that a certain type of radiation from just after the Big Bang should display a certain type of curve when plotted on a graph. When the data came in, the match up between their prediction and what was observed was identical. The error bars were smaller than the thickness of the plotted curve, meaning a perfect agreement. The best ever made in the history of science, btw.

My question to the science-denying Christian at this point was...
"If these scientists only have false knowledge about how the universe works, how could they possibly make a true (i.e., 100% accurate) prediction. How can falsehood produce true knowledge of this quality?"

Fyi Rattus, this isn't an example of scientists working backwards from the data they already have to hand. Nobody knew what the result of these observations would be. Therefore, it's a fully-confirmed prediction, in the 'truest' sense of that word.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Well I'm interested in yours as well.... what was the situation you proposed to him that he couldn't answer because it was in conflict with his beliefs?

Ah... we've cross-posted.

You'll be able to read that, right now.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Evolution is their false theory of origins; that all living things originated from a single cell millions of years ago and evolved over time to make up all the plant and animal life on the planet. Evolution believers had ACTUALLY SAID that if you reject the theory of evolution then you shouldn't use a computer because you reject everything that ever came from science. We don't reject the observable facts of the world around us. We reject the unobservable theories of the natural auto-origination of everything from nothing.

Ok. Thanks KWC.

Given that the example I've outlined to Rattus wasn't just observed, but was also predicted with 100% accuracy before it was observed...

...is that something you'd reject or accept?

(Please note that the radiation in question originated from 13.8 billion years ago. If it hadn't - the prediction would have failed.)

E.I.

 

[Rattus58]

Hey Rattus!

To answer your question, I called up this example on my iPad... Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...and expanded this diagram for him.
File:Cmbr.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Graph of cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE, the most-precisely measured black body spectrum in nature,[9] the error bars are too small to be seen even in enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve"

In a nutshell, scientists calculated that a certain type of radiation from just after the Big Bang should display a certain type of curve when plotted on a graph. When the data came in, the match up between their prediction and what was observed was identical. The error bars were smaller than the thickness of the plotted curve, meaning a perfect agreement. The best ever made in the history of science, btw.

My question to the science-denying Christian at this point was...
"If these scientists only have false knowledge about how the universe works, how could they possibly make a true (i.e., 100% accurate) prediction. How can falsehood produce true knowledge of this quality?"

Fyi Rattus, this isn't an example of scientists working backwards from the data they already have to hand. Nobody knew what the result of these observations would be. Therefore, it's a fully-confirmed prediction, in the 'truest' sense of that word.

Thanks,'

E.I.

I work with an astrophysicist.. and they are studying redshift drift as well as radio telemetry... I think they call it to measure frequency noise in space.... and as such suggest that the universe is still expanding. This doesn't surprise me that people who study the Bible wouldn't know about this, my wife doesn't, most all of my friends don't know or understand... and I'd surmise that of the 330 million people in America, less than 1/10 of 1% even know what we're talking about.

The Big Bang doesn't disprove Creation in the least, for the Bang itself was a "creation", if in fact that is actually what happened.

Aloha..

 

[EverettInterpretation]

I work with an astrophysicist.. and they are studying redshift drift as well as radio telemetry... I think they call it to measure frequency noise in space.... and as such suggest that the universe is still expanding.

Yes Rattus, that's my understanding too.
This expansion was first detected by Edwin Hubble in the late 1920's / early 30's and so when scientists run the clock backwards, they logically conclude that the early universe was denser and hotter than it is now.

Go back far enough and the radiation given off by the ultra-dense, ultra-hot universe just after the Big Bang follows the curve plotted out on that graph.

This doesn't surprise me that people who study the Bible wouldn't know about this, my wife doesn't, most all of my friends don't know or understand... and I'd surmise that of the 330 million people in America, less than 1/10 of 1% even know what we're talking about.

The Big Bang doesn't disprove Creation in the least, for the Bang itself was a "creation", if in fact that is actually what happened.

Well, I just wish you'd been there to tell this to my Fundamentalist friend.

Anyway, as far as I know, in 1994 some scientists were able to prove that Inflationary theory (the current best explanation for what we observe) can't be past-eternal. Or putting that in plain English, the process of Inflation had to have had a starting point. A universe (or multiverse) without a beginning isn't possible.

As to wether our particular part of it is that true point of origin...?

Aloha..

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Ok. Thanks KWC.

Given that the example I've outlined to Rattus wasn't just observed, but was also predicted with 100% accuracy before it was observed...

...is that something you'd reject or accept?

(Please note that the radiation in question originated from 13.8 billion years ago. If it hadn't - the prediction would have failed.)

E.I.

Hello again KWC.

Would it be possible for you to reply to my question please?

And I'd like to add another.

If scientists can't observe something directly in nature, but they make a prediction about it that is then confirmed by indirect lines of evidence, would you accept that they therefore have a good working knowledge of this unobservable?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[KWCrazy]

If scientists can't observe something directly in nature, but they make a prediction about it that is then confirmed by indirect lines of evidence, would you accept that they therefore have a good working knowledge of this unobservable?

Thanks,

E.I.

The problem lies not with the failings of scientists but with the limitations of science. We can only make assumptions based on what we see. We have no way of factoring in the creation of a universe in its maturity. We can age a man who was fully grown the instant he was created or the age of trees spoken into maturity a moment earlier. Let's look at the ultimate source of all truth and see what it says.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. So the planet was in darkness. In other words, there was no direct light shining on it. Then God created a light source, the planet was rotating, and the evening and morning were the first day.

On day four the light source is transformed into the sun, moon and stars. The stars are to be used for navigation, for signs and for seasons. That is not their exclusive purpose, but that is what they will be used for on earth.

So what of stars that man couldn't reliably see? What about galaxies far away? Did they exist already, or were they created on day four? It's possible that God created the entire universe on day four. It's also possible that God created OUR universe; our galaxy; on day four. Since everything was created in its maturity, stars which are thousands of light years away were created with their light already shining on the planet. If God created as His word said He did, then all other measurements of time are useless.

How old could the other galaxies be? 6,000 years? 900 quadrillion years? Does it matter? They Bible doesn't say because they don't have any direct connection to our existence. Could each galaxy be it's own creation? Could there be billions of other creations like ours out there? Maybe yes, maybe no.

We can make guesses about the un-observable, even create models that work quite well based on a mature universe because the universe was created as mature. Were it actually billions of years old there would be no discernible difference. Is this because God deceives us? How could He if He told us exactly how He created it. He also made sure we knew that he created man, not a baby and trees, not seedlings.

In the end, since we can't know for certain, it comes down to where you place your faith; in the men who study the world around us or in the God who created it.