• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What is Science?

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

I have seen Bradley's answer.

I agree totally with the science part of his answer.

The second paragraph is not of interest right now.

You stated he did not answer your questions, the one above. I would like to answer them the best that I can from my background.



Yes but a qualified yes. Within reasonable spans of time, it is and has been an accurate predictor of the future, with near absolute accuracies.



Although I do not want to talk about what I am not schooled or familiar with, in science for at least the last 2000 years or so, it very well predicts what is going to happen in the future.

Not in my field, it seems that history repeats itself, and we are presently in the throws of No Nation that is a Super Power, stays that way forever. Once, India was the worlds richest and most powerful country in the world, I am told, but. I am no historian.

LOVE,
Think for a moment about the argument you just made. Here it is in outline form.

1. Yes, the past is a good guide to the future.
2. Why? Because it has been a good guide to the future in the past.

What's the assumption? The assumption is that since it has been a good guide in the past, it will continue to be a good guide in the future. But wait – that's what we're supposed to prove in the first place. So your argument starts by assuming that the past is a good guide to the future and then uses that assumption to prove that the past is a good guide to the future.

On your own list of fallacies this is Begging the Question, a formal logical fallacy.

In short, you cannot prove that the past is a good guide to the future by saying "This principle worked in the past and will, therefore, work in the future" because this is circular logic. It is no different from saying:

N384X.jpg
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I know a guy that designed his house on a napkin. Does that mean he never built the house and it does not exist, because he wrote out his plans on a napkin when he was out eating dinner?
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Think for a moment about the argument you just made. Here it is in outline form.

1. Yes, the past is a good guide to the future.
2. Why? Because it has been a good guide to the future in the past.

What's the assumption? The assumption is that since it has been a good guide in the past, it will continue to be a good guide in the future. But wait – that's what we're supposed to prove in the first place. So your argument starts by assuming that the past is a good guide to the future and then uses that assumption to prove that the past is a good guide to the future.

On your own list of fallacies this is Begging the Question, a formal logical fallacy.

In short, you cannot prove that the past is a good guide to the future by saying "This principle worked in the past and will, therefore, work in the future" because this is circular logic. It is no different from saying:

N384X.jpg

Hi,

No circular logic is not what you stated. It is not. In circular logic saying things worked in the past for some time frame of reference, is an unproven item not a proven item.

Circular logic says something that is not true, and then expect the listener to accept that as a true statement from which all other things are talked about.

Circular logic starts with an unproven statement, not a proven one.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

The point of knowing God exists or not, is not for everyone. The point of everyone agreeing that God exists is also not the point. The point also is not for everyone. I would like it to be though. I would.

The fact that I know God is Real, is really something that I know. I also know some things that no one else knows, but all people might be like that. All people have something in their lives that they know about, that few if any others know.

I did not try to falisify the Bible in my world of work and words. I tried to prove that the Bible is not Real, it is not what it purports to be. I tried to prove that the Bible is wrong somewhere, not falsifiy it. That word is foreign to me. It sounds more like a Philosophy word, and may have a direct equivalent in science, or it may be used in science now, but it was not a word used when I worked in science. So, I'd rather not use it, in reference to my work.

What would have convinced me the Bible is false, is anything that I understood exactly what was meant in their wordings in The Bible, and, it was contrary to any proven science but, but proven science that I also fully understood, and I fully intended and did present my findings then to the world.

When I was done, I had two items that I could prove did not happen that The Bible said did happen****


**** Only in peer review, what I thought was wrong by sending my work off to any major religion that would look at it, was that I did make two errors in my findings, and actually I only had two provable items that would prove to me and the world that the Bible is and was a work of fiction, rather than what I actually found.

So the long story is, I found only two items, but upon review after two religious groups the Baptists and The Roman Catholics got back to me, was I had made errors. Those two items were now Plausiby correct.

Are you sure you understand controlled experiments? Only one thing is changed in a controlled experiment, and the results are tallied.

In my case, the first of those is all I remember any more. The control was similar in nature to the way things always work, like in a a person's year, in happiness and satisfaction and interactions with others. And then changing but one thing, doing that because it is stated in the Bible and assumed to be said directly by God, therefore it is doing it because God said it, and not knowing at all how it would work out.

Rather than a year's worth of interactions, I chose the responses in happiness and satisfation and interactions over a 35 year period, which I knew being a natural researcher as it is just something we notice and categorize. I chose my parent's level of happiness and satisfaction and the same interactions, as I had 35 years of results in working with and for them at times in both family, business and now a daughter relationship. I had all of that for an issue that I had always done. I always honored my mother and my father. I have always done that.

Then, I chose honor the father and thy mother, because God was supposedly to have said that and it was simple enough for me to understand, almost. Almost, as when I ran the experiement, I realized almost instantly that I did knot really know the definition of the word honor.

I ran it for two weeks anyway, expecting to shut it down, for that error, as not even a single item, not even a word can be not understood, in a controlled experiment. Everything has to be understood. Everything.

In two weeks, that was no longer a problem, as I could feel if that makes any sense yet, what the word meant, and what I could feel is what it meant.

100% of the results matched what would be expected of God did actually say that, and more. I was not their primary caretaker. My brother and his wife were, as the family business was passed on to my brother to run, and he actually loved his mom, and his dad. He actually did.

I ran that experiment till I had enough pain versus satisfaction results. In my entire life, I have never ever not had problems with some of things I did with my dad and my mom. I that year and a half, that 18 months of secret, yes secret experimenting, not once were they not happy with the results. And, like I said, they knew nothing. No one did. I could not taint the results, by letting anyone know.

When it came time to stop that first experiment, the results were so good, that I left it running telling no one, but I went on to each of the other four and ran them, one at a time.

Later, I was the go to person for my mom and dad. I live more than 500 miles from them. All issues on what to do with them and how to treat them came to me. Yes, they are both dead now, both dying years apart. Yet, till they died, even with each of them on thier death beds separately, I was the go to person, because of that first controlled experiment, where I had to feel honor, as that word I soon found out, I did not know what it meant in practice, when I was sure that I did, when I designed that experiement.

I compared 35 years of results, to only 1 1/2 years of results. The only change was doing that because it is said in That book that God said that.

Is this any help?

LOVE,
Oh yes, I understand controlled experiments. You, however, do not understand falsifiability.

By "falsifiable" I mean that it is possible, at least theoretically, to show that a theory is wrong. If, for example, I dropped a ball and it floated upward, that would show that the laws of gravity are wrong. In fact, any deviation in the movement of the planets from very specifically calculated values would show problems with the laws of gravity.

Thus, we say that the laws of gravity have high informational content. Very specific, testable predictions are made. By way of comparison, the claim that chanting "nam-myoho-renge-kyo" will fix your karma, thus leading to a better life is not testable. No specific, testable predictions can be made. Now that does not mean that Buddhism is automatically wrong. What it does mean, however, is that Buddhism is not a subject of scientific inquiry.

So in order for you to claim that the Bible is a subject for scientific inquiry, you need to show that the Bible has high informational content. You must show that the Bible allows us to make novel, testable predictions about what will happen in the physical world so that scientists can repeatedly observe the physical world and thus determine whether the Bible's predictions are accurate.

So while I may admire your commitment to investigating the Bible, we cannot say that every serious investigation into a subject is a scientific investigation. There is no reason to believe that the Bible specifically, or the existence of God, in general, is a subject of scientific inquiry.
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

No circular logic is not what you stated. It is not. In circular logic saying things worked in the past for some time frame of reference, is an unproven item not a proven item.

Circular logic says something that is not true, and then expect the listener to accept that as a true statement from which all other things are talked about.

Circular logic starts with an unproven statement, not a proven one.

LOVE,
The claim that "the past is a good guide to the future" is an unproven statement.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Think for a moment about the argument you just made. Here it is in outline form.

1. Yes, the past is a good guide to the future.
2. Why? Because it has been a good guide to the future in the past.

What's the assumption? The assumption is that since it has been a good guide in the past, it will continue to be a good guide in the future. But wait – that's what we're supposed to prove in the first place. So your argument starts by assuming that the past is a good guide to the future and then uses that assumption to prove that the past is a good guide to the future.

On your own list of fallacies this is Begging the Question, a formal logical fallacy.

In short, you cannot prove that the past is a good guide to the future by saying "This principle worked in the past and will, therefore, work in the future" because this is circular logic. It is no different from saying:

N384X.jpg


Hi,

In science terms and not any other as I do not really know religion and I do not really know and understand Philosophy, nor debate, nor writing as you can tell, but science and God and not all things in either of those two areas:

For the last 2000 years gravity existed. It will exist for the next 2000 years also barring any changes from my proven work on God, and in His allowing it to continue unabated for that period of time, and in allowing for us humans to have that, but also expecting no extinctions like occurred in the past, so that humans still exist then and, feel it, but apart from that, for the billiions of years that the sun has gone from a collection of hydrogen, helium and some other elements, it too will exist under the unfluences of gravity and so will the earth.

I say gravity having existed for probably 13.5 Billion years or so, is an Absolute predictor that it will continue at least for another billion years or more, God willing.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Hi,

In science terms and not any other as I do not really know religion and I do not really know and understand Philosophy, nor debate, nor writing as you can tell, but science and God and not all things in either of those two areas:

For the last 2000 years gravity existed. It will exist for the next 2000 years also barring any changes from my proven work on God, and in His allowing it to continue unabated for that period of time, and in allowing for us humans to have that, but also expecting no extinctions like occurred in the past, so that humans still exist then and, feel it, but apart from that, for the billiions of years that the sun has gone from a collection of hydrogen, helium and some other elements, it too will exist under the unfluences of gravity and so will the earth.

I say gravity having existed for probably 13.5 Billion years or so, is an Absolute predictor that it will continue at least for another billion years or more, God willing.

LOVE,

Hi,

This set of time, seems to be a good indication barring changes from God, that the past indeed does predict the future, with a degree of certainty appproaching the Absolute, meaning absoslute certainty as the time prediction of the future asked for, is shortened and shortend, until it approximates Zero, without actually reaching zero.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Oh yes, I understand controlled experiments. You, however, do not understand falsifiability.

By "falsifiable" I mean that it is possible, at least theoretically, to show that a theory is wrong. If, for example, I dropped a ball and it floated upward, that would show that the laws of gravity are wrong. In fact, any deviation in the movement of the planets from very specifically calculated values would show problems with the laws of gravity.

Thus, we say that the laws of gravity have high informational content. Very specific, testable predictions are made. By way of comparison, the claim that chanting "nam-myoho-renge-kyo" will fix your karma, thus leading to a better life is not testable. No specific, testable predictions can be made. Now that does not mean that Buddhism is automatically wrong. What it does mean, however, is that Buddhism is not a subject of scientific inquiry.

So in order for you to claim that the Bible is a subject for scientific inquiry, you need to show that the Bible has high informational content. You must show that the Bible allows us to make novel, testable predictions about what will happen in the physical world so that scientists can repeatedly observe the physical world and thus determine whether the Bible's predictions are accurate.

So while I may admire your commitment to investigating the Bible, we cannot say that every serious investigation into a subject is a scientific investigation. There is no reason to believe that the Bible specifically, or the existence of God, in general, is a subject of scientific inquiry.

Hi,

And I do not have to understand what falisify means. I have to understand what terms are used in my job. I have to understand proof. I have to understand the words used by the other scientists I worked with from Material Science, to Crystalography, to Chemistry and every other scientific discipline that I worked with such as Mechanical Engineers, none of which used falsify, they used proof, and data.

I had to have the data to prove my point. And, I actully had to have a proof that stood up. I could be totally right, but if I couldn't prove it, I could not say it. And, no, being half right and half wrong was not allowed.

My work is based on proofs. Science is based on proofs, not falisifications. It what I cannot prove wrong, in my guesses and no one else can prove wrong either, that result in item, like Newtons work. And, if you want to prove him wrong on anything, you prove him wrong, not falisigfy him wrong.

Yes, it is very much like math, with their proofs. That may be where the concept came from. Please adjust to proofs.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Oh yes, I understand controlled experiments. You, however, do not understand falsifiability.

By "falsifiable" I mean that it is possible, at least theoretically, to show that a theory is wrong. If, for example, I dropped a ball and it floated upward, that would show that the laws of gravity are wrong. In fact, any deviation in the movement of the planets from very specifically calculated values would show problems with the laws of gravity.

Thus, we say that the laws of gravity have high informational content. Very specific, testable predictions are made. By way of comparison, the claim that chanting "nam-myoho-renge-kyo" will fix your karma, thus leading to a better life is not testable. No specific, testable predictions can be made. Now that does not mean that Buddhism is automatically wrong. What it does mean, however, is that Buddhism is not a subject of scientific inquiry.

So in order for you to claim that the Bible is a subject for scientific inquiry, you need to show that the Bible has high informational content. You must show that the Bible allows us to make novel, testable predictions about what will happen in the physical world so that scientists can repeatedly observe the physical world and thus determine whether the Bible's predictions are accurate.

So while I may admire your commitment to investigating the Bible, we cannot say that every serious investigation into a subject is a scientific investigation. There is no reason to believe that the Bible specifically, or the existence of God, in general, is a subject of scientific inquiry.

Hi,

It looks like I did not read you all the way through, before commenting.

None of us, in science lasted long, if we did not do work on our own, that no one gave us permissions to do.

None of us, was ordinary. ALL THINGS ARE UNDER THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE, including God, Religion, people's actions and Philosophy. Nothing is outside the scope of science, and no permissions are needed to observe test and explore, except from God.

From my work. From my work. From my work. From my work God does not allow everyone to test whether or not He exists. It is actually in That Book.

Also God does not allow repeated tests on the same subject. As, a result when just anyone makes up a test for God, He does not have to answer it, even if the answer is yes.

In a way people are like that too, under testing, in some special cases. It is up to the researcher to do his or her part right.

All things are under the scope of science. They are. God is and you are. I am.

I thought that was obvious to everyone, that all things that are, are in the realm of science for some people. I know things outside of my field. I am a researcher, not a theologian, nor a Ph.D. Psychologist nor a Pscychiatrist, yet I know some things in those fields too, from experimentation.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Bradly Capel

Active Member
Dec 2, 2015
239
52
37
UK
✟651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

And I do not have to understand what falisify means. I have to understand what terms are used in my job. I have to understand proof. I have to understand the words used by the other scientists I worked with from Material Science, to Crystalography, to Chemistry and every other scientific discipline that I worked with such as Mechanical Engineers, none of which used falsify, they used proof, and data.

I had to have the data to prove my point. And, I actully had to have a proof that stood up. I could be totally right, but if I couldn't prove it, I could not say it. And, no, being half right and half wrong was not allowed.

My work is based on proofs. Science is based on proofs, not falisifications. It what I cannot prove wrong, in my guesses and no one else can prove wrong either, that result in item, like Newtons work. And, if you want to prove him wrong on anything, you prove him wrong, not falisigfy him wrong.

Yes, it is very much like math, with their proofs. That may be where the concept came from. Please adjust to proofs.

LOVE,
Is English a second language for you?
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I know a guy that designed his house on a napkin. Does that mean he never built the house and it does not exist, because he wrote out his plans on a napkin when he was out eating dinner?
What the heck does that mean?
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

In science terms and not any other as I do not really know religion and I do not really know and understand Philosophy, nor debate, nor writing as you can tell, but science and God and not all things in either of those two areas:
Okay.

For the last 2000 years gravity existed.
Speculation.

It will exist for the next 2000 years also barring any changes from my proven work on God, and in His allowing it to continue unabated for that period of time, and in allowing for us humans to have that, but also expecting no extinctions like occurred in the past, so that humans still exist then and, feel it, but apart from that, for the billiions of years that the sun has gone from a collection of hydrogen, helium and some other elements, it too will exist under the unfluences of gravity and so will the earth.
More speculation.

I say gravity having existed for probably 13.5 Billion years or so, is an Absolute predictor that it will continue at least for another billion years or more, God willing.

LOVE,
Everything you said above is a statement of faith. I get it. Just don't expect me to reclassify statements of faith as statements of fact.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What the heck does that mean?
You must be young enough so you think everything is designed on a CAD program instead of on paper. Do you know what blueprints are? The reason they call them "blue" prints is they use to use ammonia to make copies and they came out blue. I say "they" but I actually use to do drafting and we made copies that way. It was my job to take the blueprints from the architect or engineers and then make shop prints with all the measurement so we could actually build what was on the design - plans.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

It looks like I did not read you all the way through, before commenting.

None of us, in science lasted long, if we did not do work on our own, that no one gave us permissions to do.

None of us, was ordinary. ALL THINGS ARE UNDER THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE, including God, Religion, people's actions and Philosophy. Nothing is outside the scope of science, and no permissions are needed to observe test and explore, except from God.

From my work. From my work. From my work. From my work God does not allow everyone to test whether or not He exists. It is actually in That Book.

Also God does not allow repeated tests on the same subject. As, a result when just anyone makes up a test for God, He does not have to answer it, even if the answer is yes.

In a way people are like that too, under testing, in some special cases. It is up to the researcher to do his or her part right.

All things are under the scope of science. They are. God is and you are. I am.

I thought that was obvious to everyone, that all things that are, are in the realm of science for some people. I know things outside of my field. I am a researcher, not a theologian, nor a Ph.D. Psychologist nor a Pscychiatrist, yet I know some things in those fields too, from experimentation.

LOVE,
We have a covenant relationship with God. The Bible is filled with promises. If we do our part then we can be sure that God will do His part. Even there are books of scriptures of the promises of God. Here is an example of a promise from God:

But those who trust in the Lord will find new strength.
They will soar high on wings like eagles.
They will run and not grow weary.
They will walk and not faint.

Our part is to trust in God. So often they test for prayer but there is no promise for those who pray. The promise is for those who trust in God. Jesus did teach us how to pray: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done". So when we pray we simply ask God for what we know He wants to give us. These are the sort of things we need to know if we want to get results.
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You must be young enough so you think everything is designed on a CAD program instead of on paper. Do you know what blueprints are? The reason they call them "blue" prints is they use to use ammonia to make copies and they came out blue. I say "they" but I actually use to do drafting and we made copies that way. It was my job to take the blueprints from the architect or engineers and then make shop prints with all the measurement so we could actually build what was on the design - plans.
I remember Nixon as president. I remember when gas stations put out green, yellow, and red flags to indicate whether they had gas, were rationing gas, or just didn't have any to sell. I remember when you could only buy gasoline on days controlled by whether your license plate number was odd or even.

So yes, I remember blueprints.

That still doesn't mean that I know to make of someone who has muddled thoughts and spews something out in a post that is apropos of nothing.

The point of my post is that you cannot start with a premise and then use that premise to prove that the premise is true.

You cannot say "The Bible is true. The Bible says it is true. Therefore, we can prove that the Bible is true." This is bad logic.

You counter with some off-the-wall claim about a guy drawing a house on a napkin and building it later. This has absolutely nothing to do with circular logic, blueprints, or building houses.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Just don't expect me to reclassify statements of faith as statements of fact.

Hi,

You don't belong anywhere in a science discussion, at this time.

Your time being spent on logic, while this is about science, is not correct, nor useful.

We are talking about science here, not Philosophy.

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Is English a second language for you?

Hi,

English per se is more like a fourth language for me. Science is a language. Troubleshooting is a language. Engineering is a language. Research is a language. ~~ is a language. ~visions~ is a language. ~my words~ is a language. ESL is a language. American is a language. S**** is a language. Semiconductors is a language, and so on and so forth.

It appears you only have one language. It is Philosophy. The other language you seem to posess is contention.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Is English a second language for you?

Hi,

English per se is more like a fourth language for me. Science is a language. Troubleshooting is a language. Engineering is a language. Research is a language. ~~ is a language. ~visions~ is a language. ~my words~ is a language. ~feelings~ is a language. ESL is a language. American is a language. S**** is a language. Semiconductors is a language, and so on and so forth.

It appears you only have one language. It is Philosophy.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

You don't belong anywhere in a science discussion, at this time.

Your time being spent on logic, while this is about science, is not correct, nor useful.

We are talking about science here, not Philosophy.

LOVE,
In that we completely agree -- there is no room for logic in science. Science is completely irrational.
 
Upvote 0