For all you anti-logic, science bashers.

A common complaint that "science bashers" raise in philosophical discussions is that certain arguments are "only theories" and as such, they cannot be taken credibly.

I have decided to dispell this unfortunate myth.

As we wrestle with the universe to pin down its secrets, we organize our ideas and findings into theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defintion:
Theory - an intregrated set of principles that explain and predict observed events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In everyday conversation, the word "theory" often means "less than fact". A middle ground between fact and guess.

To the scientist, facts and theories are different things. Facts are agreed upon statements about what we observe. Theories are ideas that summarize and explain facts.

However, theories do not only summarize, they also imply testable predictions called hypotheses. By making specific predictions, a theory "puts its money where its mouth is", so to speak.

Hypotheses allow us to test the theory, test relationships between events, and give direction to research.

Finally, the predictive feature of a good theory makes it practical. For example, the theory of gravity is practical because we can use it to make extremely accurate predictions in fields such as rocket science and cosmology.

Similarily, theories of quantum mechanics, relativity and evolution have exceptional predictive power, thue making them very practical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time.

- BBak

Good job, BBak!

I'd go one step further to mention that models are built upon theory, and models are (if good) accurate predictors of future observation.

Bible Thumpers seem to be wrong nearly 100% of the time in predicting the future (which is interesting since a monkey with a pencil will do just as well or better), whereas a good model built on sound theory allows for exactly the opposite: prediction of future events at a very statistically significant rate.

It's funny, but in the philosophy forum this thread already feels like a sanctuary :D

It's still philosophy. Very much epistomology.

Since I am responding, does that make me a science basher?

There really is no difference between the ideas between religious people and scientifically endowed people except that science is information taken by human experiment, rather than divine hearsay. But though, it still doesn't rule out either.

I'm not sure what comes to mind when you typed this Brady, but maybe the arguments against evolution? It's a theory, yes. Theories are called theories because they are agreed to be dependable groups of data. In my observation, "science bashing" has more to do with protecting one's own argument for the sake of it rather than being open to new ideas and opinions.

Fact, theory, belief, hypothesis, or even "lies" are to some degree, just mental representations of ideas, so they are categorized based on how people use those ideas. Religious people tend to have an aversion to "theories" and "facts" outside their scriptures. They often do not like the idea of inventing the wheel when it comes to discovering more, except when they can use it for their argument. A lot of sentiment is involved.

Nice post by the way brady

Quote:

---

There really is no difference between the ideas between religious people and scientifically endowed people except that science is information taken by human experiment, rather than divine hearsay. But though, it still doesn't rule out either. [/b]

---

Except, as brady said, scientific experiments are backed up by evidence. Religion is backed up by..... a fuzzy feeling people get when they think about <insert local deity here>. Religion also cannot make any accurate predictions about the world, and when it does try it's not too correct (still waitin on that jesus character, whats he like 2000 years late now?)

I think you missed out an important part of what makes a theory brady - they are falsifiable. A theory that does not have an avenue to be falsified is a useless theory. For example, since everyone always brings up evolution - the one major thing anyone ever has to do is find a recent fossil in strata dating to the cambrian period (in an area which has not suffered major tectonic disturbances, which would probably distroy fossils anyway).

I think he knows that theories are falsible. I just think he's bothered when religious fanatics try to use that falsibility as a window of oppurtunity to prove their point, rather than really seek out truth. Everything is potentially falsible, because science is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. We can predict cause and effect, experiment with those and mind, and prove it to ourselves, but we can't do anything to create what is already there.

I've merely taken the standpoint of religion as the innovation of their time, and it wasn't all useless. And I think a lot of our current scientific data will likely be revamped anyway in the future too. To take a look from an anthropologist's point of view, it really served people in their time. And if anything, most religions branch off from primary ones to make it more simple (such as hundreds of denominations being rooted into Jesus's story, such as Mormons, Christian, Catholics...etc)

Both religion and science are mediums of trying to find answers, basically. And I don't think one should try to overpower the other. After several millenia, it sure hasn't happened, just like trying to figure out the answer to all these religious debates.

It hasn't happened because the majority of people are inherently sheep. They want to be lead around. The don't want to have to think too hard or know stuff. They don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their lives and actions: (I can kill a thousand people in cold blood, but if I tell god I'm sorry, it I repent and are saved, it's all ok!) (The devil made me do it)(I can't solve this problem, but if I give it over to god he'll solve it for me) (...)

In short: If ignorance is bliss, they're happy all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
Bible Thumpers seem to be wrong nearly 100% of the time in predicting the future (which is interesting since a monkey with a pencil will do just as well or better)

---

HAHA

You know, I always intend to post something useful, then I forget what I was gonna say after laughing at something like that

brady nice thread for someone who got the definition of life wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AirRick101
There really is no difference between the ideas between religious people and scientifically endowed people except that science is information taken by human experiment, rather than divine hearsay.

---

This is a loaded statement.

Whenever someone makes a claim about religion like this, it seems pretty obvious that he or she is referring to one religion in particular. I'm not at all religious, so unfortunately I don't care enough to find the time required to point out the particulars on how wrong this statement is, or least how it is very poorly worded.

That you see religion and science connected in this way is an accident of appearances. For example, like I said, I'm not religious, but (here you'll see why I just had to repeat that) I was raised in Catholic schools, and never has there been any notion that the modern Catholic Church competes against science. The recent condemnation of neodarwinism by the new Pope, although disappointing, is harmless.

What's FAR more harmful is the system of coercive schooling we have adopted, that herds students like animals and locks them up like prisoners.

Finally, it's unfortunate that we have had to suffer religious people of the extremely foolish variety. Granted, the foolish are particularly prone to becoming dependent on religion, but that does not necessarily deface religion, any more than moths deface the flame.

*Any endorsement of fire worship in the last statement is completely unintentional.

**Oh yeah, Kim is right on, as per usual. I'm really not going to like the day when we disagree, because I have a feeling it'll be because I'm wrong.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

Answering that deductively is impossible. There is no certainty in science.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NirvanaStarseed)</div>

Quote:

---

brady nice thread for someone who got the definition of life wrong.[/b]

---

I stated the scientifically accepted definition of life. Sorry if I left out all the new age mumbo jumbo.

Wait, no I'm not.

Nice try at changing the topic by the way.

<!--QuoteBegin-evolo
There is no certainty in science.

---

Correct. "Cogito ergo sum". That's all we can be certain of. You can't be sure that the wall behind you exists until you turn and look at it.

However, with a few fairly safe assumptions (ie. we live in a universe with certain constants), the scientific method has proven quite effective. Where can you find evidence of that? The computer sitting right in front of your uncertain face.

[quote]I stated the scientifically accepted definition of life.[/brady]

No you didn't. You said that science concludes a rock is 'non living'. And in this you were mistaken.

And because I am correcting you on this issue does not mean it is automaticlly new age mumbo jumbo. It just means I have pinned down you illogic in regards to science.

Now all you need to do is show us where accepted science has proven that the rock is living (ie. has cellular mitosis, reproduces, etc.) and you won't look nearly as foolish as you do right now.

I think he meant

http://latinoreview.com/films_2006/u...mages/Rock.jpg

I'm sure his cells reproduce, though who would want them to?????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
For something to be considered scientifically alive, it has to exhibit ALL of the following phenomena at some point during its existence:
1) Growth
2) Metabolism (consuming, storing and transforming energy, excreting waste)
3) Motion (either moving itself or internal motion)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

---

That is the scientifically accepted definition of life. According to this definition, a rock does not qualify.

Quote:

---

Now all you need to do is show us where accepted science has proven that the rock is living (ie. has cellular mitosis, reproduces, etc.) and you won't look nearly as foolish as you do right now.[/b]

---

kim. I already gave links and explained it not long ago in another thread. In which brady had no answer for.

Even the entire biological community agrees it cannot say that a rock is nonliving. It cannot say that a computer is nonliving, and as a matter of fact there is nothing they can say is 'non living'. When you don't understand the core aspect of this subject of science (biology, definition of living). Its difficult to take this thread seriously. You can't talk about logical science accurately when you don't understand the concept of it yourself. As is evident in your belief a rock is nonliving. I know your not the only one with this misconception, but I picked on you cause your making a thread about logical science.

....... :wtf2: ?

He amazes me also, somehow. :o

my argument meant nothing here. omitted.

I understand very well what it takes for science to accept that something is living.

1) Growth
2) Metabolism (consuming, storing and transforming energy, excreting waste) (aka cellular mitosis)
3) Motion (either moving itself or internal motion)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

Please tell me where a rock falls into these? (Thanks for listing them all, Brady!)

So me that a rock reproduces.

my argument meant nothing here. omitted.

pOOp - that was directed at Nirvana more than you. I understood where you were coming from.

That was an argument that I tried back in gradeschool. And got the ***** slapped out of me for.

In short - it's intended to reinforce cellular decay. The process of being "used up" rather than "washed up" if you will.

If I take a rock and put it in a sealed chamber with air pumped in and feed and water it every day - it's not going to age and die like, say, putting NirvanaStarseed in a sealed chamber with air pumped in and feeding and watering him every day.

It still won't meet all the tests. Then again - NS probably doesn't meet the reproduction test, so we can just invalidate the whole theory. ;)

Actually Nirvana, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say and the biological definition of a living must have these factors.

1) Growth
2) Metabolism
3) Motion
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

This is a scientific fact, now if you can clear up what you are getting at I will reconsider my opinions again.