Scepticism towards science

[DechCJC]

It's actually interesting, a lot of the things that pupils learn in school nowadays about science is actually incorrect, in fact some times it's very far from the truth. But Science is about looking for answers, not just going with blind faith. Actually had an interesting talk with my Physics teacher, about how it's very likely that nearly everything we're learning could very well be incorrect - But that doesn't matter, we're open to whatever provides the most evidence - At the moment, we're going with what we have the strongest evidence for - There is none for a God (or no decent evidence anyway).

There could very well be a God, but if it is real then I very much doubt that it's the same God that the bible mentions.

[Ssith]

I have more faith in mathematical based sciences then I do in the evolution based sciences.

relevant: http://xkcd.com/435/

[GreatSageCorban]

Are you saying you trust results in physics more than ecology and evolutionary biology? I'm not really sure what you're shooting for here. Most people would agree, simply because there's more precision, less uncertainty, and so on. Complex biological systems aren't as amenable to certainty, and that's fine.

I'm specifically speaking on the evolution side. I just think it's closer to theory then it is to fact. The reason I state that is simply because we can't physically observe the changes. Speaking in the terms of time, we're looking at a very micro scale, and trying to apply that to a macro. The further back you go, the less reliable the information becomes. You'll constantly have new evidences, changing opinions/theories, and biases. Where in mathematical application, there is no denying the truth.

Mathematics is science, Evolution/Historical is more of 'evolving' educated guesses. That's all I'm saying.

[Spectral]

I just think it's closer to theory then it is to fact.

Congratulations on being the umpteenth person in the thread to use words that you don't know the meaning of then, I guess. I'm really confused by people's desire to argue about things that they never even started learning about.

[The Stormbringer]

Why isn't there any?

Why are is it so easy for people to just accept ANYTHING that starts with "scientist have herpaderped that 75% herpaderp" while every time the word "God" is mentioned it's unreasonable? Hell, they will even quote WIKIPEDIA and feel confident about that.

This came up again after I saw the stupid ending of Bioshock: Infinite. Instead of making something reasonable out of it, they go the good old "multidimension-timetravel" nonsense route. And people seem to love it?! How can people seriously believe in timetravel nonsense and infinite dimensions, but when they hear somebody mention Alaa or God or any other religion they instantly go "nope, can't be".

I love scepticism and I love that people don't blindly follow into religion, but why do they follow blindly into WIKIPEDIA and "scientists have proven...". Isn't this exactly the same thing? Someone else telling you how things are, even though you don't know it yourself?


Sorry for my fury, it's just this entire timetravel nonsense... Everytime I see this mentioned and somebody responding with "timeparadoxon" I get this huge urge to eradicate the entire planet from all...

Because there's mathematics that support the ideas of time travel and infinite dimensions. There's also observed evidence that support the ideas. Religions don't typically have this, as it's all based on faith, ancient documents, and personal experiences.

[GreatSageCorban]

Congratulations on being the umpteenth person in the thread to use words that you don't know the meaning of then, I guess. I'm really confused by people's desire to argue about things that they never even started learning about.

Fine, call it an educated hypothesis, my point is still the same.

[Spectral]

Fine, call it an educated hypothesis, my point is still the same.

No, it's not, and your point is wildly off base. You've demonstrated that you don't know what a theory is. Again, I really don't understand why people that don't care enough about a topic to even learn the basics feel like they should probably argue about it.

[imabanana]

Age of the world according to the bible is open for a lot of interpretation.

Anything in the bible is open for a lot of interpretation. Hell, there are even people who read the bible as "aliens created us", explaining every single fact in it by seeing aliens behind everything (and really, I'd recommend anyone to read Raël's freely available books, more imagination/fun it it than in many books).

This is what's fun with the bible (and about every single "sacred text" from almost any religion), you could create hundreds of totally different religion using this a foundation. From the most open to the most extremist.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm specifically speaking on the evolution side. I just think it's closer to theory then it is to fact. The reason I state that is simply because we can't physically observe the changes. Speaking in the terms of time, we're looking at a very micro scale, and trying to apply that to a macro. The further back you go, the less reliable the information becomes. You'll constantly have new evidences, changing opinions/theories, and biases. Where in mathematical application, there is no denying the truth.

Mathematics is science, Evolution/Historical is more of 'evolving' educated guesses. That's all I'm saying.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Can a mod freaking sticky this link please?

---------- Post added 2013-04-16 at 10:07 AM ----------

Mathematics is science, Evolution/Historical is more of 'evolving' educated guesses. That's all I'm saying.

They are BOTH science. They are both developed by the scientific method. They are both testable and based on empirical evidence. Neither requires faith or speculation. Math just happens to be more precise.

[GreatSageCorban]

No, it's not, and your point is wildly off base. You've demonstrated that you don't know what a theory is. Again, I really don't understand why people that don't care enough about a topic to even learn the basics feel like they should probably argue about it.

I understand fully what 'scientific theory' is. To suggest otherwise is insulting. The fact that it also is used in a non scientific application has either escaped you, or your using it as a cop-out to passively dismiss everyone as morons.

Let me pull the same response to you:
"No, I'm not wildly off base. My IQ is 134, and you just can't possibly conceive the miss givings I have. Perhaps you should go back to school before even talking to me."

[minteK917]

Another thread about science, another day where a bunch of people dont understand what a theory is. Im not sure why most of you waste your time arguing with so many simpleton, just leave them be.

OP, you are some kind of strange lunatic... you wanna know the difference between bioshock infinite and your bibble.. bioshock calls itself a fiction. Multiuniverse and time travel are all hypotesis of possibility in the physics world, no one in the scientific community or the world takes them for granted, unlike your god which has even less clue to support it. I personnally decided to believe in the egyptian gods, i mean they are older then yours?

[Adam Jensen]

Another thread about science, another day where a bunch of people dont understand what a theory is. Im not sure why most of you waste your time arguing with so many simpleton, just leave them be.

Because they are so often in charge of our schools and try to dilute science with religious crap like creationism on the basis that evolution is "just a theory" or "has never been proved." And they get away with it because too many people don't understand what a theory is or that science doesn't set out to "prove" things (a fact I learned as a senior in high school, if not before.)

[minteK917]

The whole timetravel nonsense just shows how easy it is to stop people from doubting and sympathising with stupid concepts by simply calling them "SCIENCE FICTION". If people would call it "Bible fiction" everybody would start shouting at how irrational it is.

Games with Heaven vs Hell are some bible fiction... some of them have done pretty well? Science fiction is the genre that use science in a fictional way... you dont know what theory means, but at least know what fiction means?

[Grizzly Willy]

I understand fully what 'scientific theory' is. To suggest otherwise is insulting. The fact that it also is used in a non scientific application has either escaped you, or your using it as a cop-out to passively dismiss everyone as morons.

But you demonstrated that you don't actually understand, though. You used the "theory not a fact" argument. I don't really care what your IQ is, if you get fundamental information like that wrong your position is going to flawed no matter what.

[Deleted]

I'm specifically speaking on the evolution side. I just think it's closer to theory then it is to fact.

I understand fully what 'scientific theory' is. To suggest otherwise is insulting.

Does this mean you insulted yourself?

Oh and I generally find that when someone has to bring their IQ into something, instead of addressing any points being made, they're not as smart as they think the test tells them they are.

[GreatSageCorban]

But you demonstrated that you don't actually understand, though. You used the "theory not a fact" argument. I don't really care what your IQ is, if you get fundamental information like that wrong your position is going to flawed no matter what.

If you would read further, you'd notice that I mention that theory has other applications. You'll also notice I specifically did not say "scientific theory". Theory is a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.

Does this mean you insulted yourself?

Oh and I generally find that when someone has to bring their IQ into something, instead of addressing any points being made, they're not as smart as they think the test tells them they are.

Irony. Look it up. What point am I supposed to be addressing exactly? The point that you have all been harping on the use of the word "Theory" rather then any actual statements? Especially (ironic) when what your attempting to shame me on, is with me imitating your responses.

[Felya]

Mathematics is science, Evolution/Historical is more of 'evolving' educated guesses. That's all I'm saying.

If you get deeper into math, it can seem similar. I do not see an intangible espect to evolution, that do not exist in dealing with things like divergent number sets.

[GreatSageCorban]

If you get deeper into math, it can seem similar. I do not see a tangible espect to evolution, that do not exist in dealing with things like divergent number sets.

First, thank you for speaking to me directly, rather then just dismissing me. The only thing I was getting at was areas of study, (sic: Quantum Mechanics/physics/theory and others) I really get the feeling that they'll be proven correct by scientific endeavors like the LHC. Where when your looking at evolutionary processes, it becomes harder and harder to know if your correct as you try to look further back into time. (Similar to the big bang. Though we might get more evidence as our observable universe continues to expand.)

That is all. I wasn't dismissing evolution, simply saying it may be more malleable, *which is why it is harder for me to put my faith into it.

*original statement in bold.

[zorkuus]

If you would read further, you'd notice that I mention that theory has other applications. You'll also notice I specifically did not say "scientific theory". Theory is a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.

This is a thread on science. Your common speak everyday definition has little merit. So it's a fair call if people point out you don't/didn't know the meaning of theory in science. If you did you would not have used such broad definition of the same word in a topic like this. This suspicion is further validated by your misuse of other words in a scientific context, such as 'fact' or 'hypothesis'.

[Adam Jensen]

If you would read further, you'd notice that I mention that theory has other applications. You'll also notice I specifically did not say "scientific theory". Theory is a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.

You're moving the goal posts. Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore it falls under that definition of the word "theory."

---------- Post added 2013-04-16 at 11:23 AM ----------

Irony. Look it up. What point am I supposed to be addressing exactly? The point that you have all been harping on the use of the word "Theory" rather then any actual statements? Especially (ironic) when what your attempting to shame me on, is with me imitating your responses.

We're harping on the word theory because there is a major difference between saying evolution is an "educated guess" verses, "a scientific, well supported explanation for the phenomenon that was observed based on testable empirical evidence." When people say theory as in "educated guess," they are making evolution look like it has no basis in fact, like it was just made up and some people do this out of malice (creationists) and others do this out of ignorance. So yes, the correct use of terminology is VERY important here.