justlookinla
Regular Member
Science becomes a philosophy, a worldview, for some. I'm only pointing out that one cannot always trust science for the truth.
Upvote
0
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.
No one is providing evidence for a philosophy.
Why do you have such a problem with uncertainty in science? The only way to remove all uncertainty (in science and most other aspects of life) is to be God.
So science does not (and should not) declare truths. You knock down another straw-man.
What would you offer as an alternative explanation? Your opinion of miracles?
Or religion, but it is religion is making the truth claims.Right, one cannot trust science for truth.
A methodology of testing that makes no claim of getting everything right the makes errors? Another straw-man constructed and burned down.The road of science is littered with error.
Or religion, but it is religion is making the truth claims.
A methodology of testing that makes no claim of getting everything right the makes errors? Another straw-man constructed and burned down.
Where did I say that?Science makes untruth claims?
Science is a self-correcting methodology. Pointing to the errors, rather than the corrections, is to build and burn yet another straw-man. Would you offer me religion?Bottom line, science cannot be fully trusted.
Where did I say that?
Science is a self-correcting methodology. Pointing to the errors, rather than the corrections, is to build and burn yet another straw-man. Would you offer me religion?
Your question is improperly formed. Is a description that is less than 100% accurate "untrue"? No.I didn't say you said that. I simply asked, science makes untrue claims?
Is that a no on the religion?Would you embrace the errors of science offered today?
We're not talking about philosophical worldviews though. We are talking about actual hard science.Science becomes a philosophy, a worldview, for some.
Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty. Here's a good explanation;I'm only pointing out that one cannot always trust science for the truth.
We're not talking about philosophical worldviews though. We are talking about actual hard science.
Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty. Here's a good explanation;
What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty
Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.
In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence. However, we can reach the best possible conclusion based on the most complete and modern evidence available.
That contrasts strongly with the knowledge claimed by many other people. Many people claim that they, or a book or books they endorse, hold all relevant knowledge and that such knowledge is absolutely and unquestionably true. The Bible, for example, is often held up as containing all knowledge, and as being literal and infallible Truth. No science book has ever been endorsed that way, nor should it ever be.
As an example, consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that we've gleaned from decades if not centuries of astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a theory that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least oughtn't be, any statement about absolute truth.
In contrast, some other people will answer that the world was created by a certain deity a certain number of years ago. If asked about their level of certainty, these people generally respond that they have absolutely no uncertainty. No scientist thinking about what he or she is saying will answer with that degree of certainty, regardless of the evidence available to them, nor will they lay that kind of claim to Truth. They may have a high level of confidence if there's abundant evidence, but they won't claim absolute Truth or absolute certainty.
It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.
Your question is improperly formed. Is a description that is less than 100% accurate "untrue"? No.
Is that a no on the religion?
Darwinism isn't used every day to develop vaccines and other medicines. Darwinism is a philosophical worldview, whereas vaccine development occurs apart from the view that humanity is the result of random/chance mutations producing new life forms.
Typical verbal gymnastics used in the exercise of evasion.
Is that a 'I don't have a clue if the science I embrace today is true or false'?
So if you believe in evolution tell us why.
We're not talking about philosophical worldviews though. We are talking about actual hard science.
Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty. Here's a good explanation;
What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty
Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.
In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence. However, we can reach the best possible conclusion based on the most complete and modern evidence available.
That contrasts strongly with the knowledge claimed by many other people. Many people claim that they, or a book or books they endorse, hold all relevant knowledge and that such knowledge is absolutely and unquestionably true. The Bible, for example, is often held up as containing all knowledge, and as being literal and infallible Truth. No science book has ever been endorsed that way, nor should it ever be.
As an example, consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that we've gleaned from decades if not centuries of astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a theory that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least oughtn't be, any statement about absolute truth.
In contrast, some other people will answer that the world was created by a certain deity a certain number of years ago. If asked about their level of certainty, these people generally respond that they have absolutely no uncertainty. No scientist thinking about what he or she is saying will answer with that degree of certainty, regardless of the evidence available to them, nor will they lay that kind of claim to Truth. They may have a high level of confidence if there's abundant evidence, but they won't claim absolute Truth or absolute certainty.
It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.
Pretty good post, only it seems to downplay the fact that some things are known very very well in science. Stuff like water is a molecule composed of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. Stuff like e=mc^2.
Sorry, what's Darwinism?
I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution. (See Thread title).
The Theory of Evolution is used every day to develop vaccines and medicines.
Well well.
If you don't believe in the effectiveness of science then you are being a hypocrite if you use the things developed by science.
So...if you are sincere, you won't use medicine, any powered transportation, any form of distance communication, any appliance in your home, your plumbing (including your toilet), etc. etc. etc.
So, how sincere are you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?