scientific debate vs belief debate

[N2EY]

And, of course science has never been proven wrong......

And there it is there. Science has been proven wrong time and time again. How does that make science any different than religion? Except for the fact that religion isn't proven wrong nearly as often.

The difference is simple:

Science says: "We have the following conclusions based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. All of which are open to review and revision. New observations, experiments and reasoning may change any conclusion we now hold."

Dogmatic religion says "We have the following conclusions based on faith in a particular set of things. Either you believe or you don't."

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N5PAR]

Any religious debate on QRZ is locked pretty quickly but for some reason not until the non believers get there 2 cents worth in. As far as scientific debate on ORZ. To paraphrase a famous movie line. "Facts we don't need no stinking facts." All you need is a bunch of opinionated OFs who's experience of once working at MIT as a janitor makes them an expert of just about anything.

[KA5S]

That leaves Christianity out. That can't be proved by science.

Science does not recognize what we call proof. Everything is in doubt -- though often accurate enough to work with. One example from astronomy is epicycles; circular orbits with smaller circles added; close enough (EXCEPT for Mars!), until Kepler showed the orbits are not circular. Circular orbits were taken on faith -- IIRC from Aristotle, NOT the Bible -- as the perfect and therefore only possible orbit. But observation won.

Mathematics has proofs, though some recent proofs using computers are suspect because (if I remember correctly) they're too complex for humans to check! And Gödel showed in mathematics that no system can be proven in all its axioms using only those axioms.

From Wikipedia:

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems



My view is that what is written on the World we can eventually learn and write down ourselves -- but never more credibly than our ability at the time.

IMHO YMMV et cvm spirtivvs vodka. Amen!

Cortland
KA5S

[K1VSK]

Any religious debate on QRZ is locked pretty quickly but for some reason not until the non believers get there 2 cents worth in. As far as scientific debate on ORZ. To paraphrase a famous movie line. "Facts we don't need no stinking facts." All you need is a bunch of opinionated OFs who's experience of once working at MIT as a janitor makes them an expert of just about anything.

actually, it should read "at just about everything"

[K8MHZ]

The difference is simple:

Science says: "We have the following conclusions based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. All of which are open to review and revision. New observations, experiments and reasoning may change any conclusion we now hold."

Dogmatic religion says "We have the following conclusions based on faith in a particular set of things. Either you believe or you don't."

73 de Jim, N2EY

Is GW theory science? Where is the experimentation and the reasoning? Review and revision? How about cat fights and backpedaling.

Jim, I see your point, but I have been challenging both religion and science since I was first exposed to them. Neither are sacred in my book. I value the sanctity of life, not the prattle of scholars, zealots, politicians or lobbyists.

[N0WYO]

Science has a place and religion has a place. To argue one is the other, one might as well beat his head against a brick wall. BTW, has anyone actually witnessed the phenomena of which way the water spins in the toilet in Australia and the US?

[AE1PT]

As I don't have a top class degree from either Oxford or Cambridge, I will decline to offer my views on any scientific subject and let members of QRZ who are graduates of the University of California or even Harvard, debate in depth the views they hold

Mel G0GQK

That's right Mel. I have given up. We have so many biologists, attorneys, physicists, medical researchers, climatologists, intelligence analysts, psychologists/psychiatrists, media experts, public policy wonks, historians, international affairs professors, economists, agricultural specialists, military theorists, pharmacologists, anthropologists, sociologists, so on and so forth--the list is staggering--concentrated right here in Rag Chew.

Even more amazing is that it appears that a handful of people are all of these things wrapped up in one. That's a bigger deal than that three-in-one thing--and something we can objectively measure based upon the digital record held in "Big Data." We are truly blessed.

But wait, are not blessings something that is observed through the lens of faith--not scientific principle? It's all so confusing. Time to head back to my armchair and expound on philosophy. I hear an abyss that is calling my name...

[KA3JLW]

Mathematics has proofs, though some recent proofs using computers are suspect because (if I remember correctly) they're too complex for humans to check! And Gödel showed in mathematics that no system can be proven in all its axioms using only those axioms.

I don't believe Godel's incompleteness theorum puts any particular proof at risk, rather it says there are things that can't be proven within any set of mathemetics. I don't believe that therefore a given proof is suspect.

[N0WYO]

I hear an abyss that is calling my name...

Nah, it's just the wife telling you to dump the trash...

[KA3JLW]

And, of course science has never been proven wrong......

And there it is there. Science has been proven wrong time and time again. How does that make science any different than religion? Except for the fact that religion isn't proven wrong nearly as often.

It is that process of continual testing, of proving wrong, that makes the nature of the two beasts fundamentally different.

Using measurements, like science, I'd expect the fastest time in the 400 meters to change often, with new people and better times.

Using religion and dogma, I'd expect someone to tell me they were the fastest and for that (the person and a time) to remain static for as long as the religion suvives and says its so.