Fundamentals of Science

[1over137]

Lunalle, I would say scientists have faith in that the world is describable by equations, laws. Do you agree?
So, I would say fundamentals of science is that there can be science. The reason why there can be science, I think, lies outside science. What do you think?


Arthur, what do you research in? Which field of physics?

[PaulSacramento]

One can not function without faith.
Faith is an integral part of being human.
If a scientist believes that science will one day find the answers to all, then he is showing faith in science and, any honest scientist will tell you this, all scientists have faith in science.
I know I do.

[Lunalle]

Lunalle, I would say scientists have faith in that the world is describable by equations, laws. Do you agree?

Applicably, yes, allowing for a certain margin of error.

So, I would say fundamentals of science is that there can be science. The reason why there can be science, I think, lies outside science. What do you think?

I'm not sure I understand you here. I don't think it is accurate to say the fundamentals of X is that there can be X. The belief that there can be X must be acknowledged before defining the fundamentals (or methods) of X.

The reason why there can be science, is independent of what science does, logically, yes.

One can not function without faith.

I agree.

Faith is an integral part of being human.

I agree.

If a scientist believes that science will one day find the answers to all, then he is showing faith in science and, any honest scientist will tell you this, all scientists have faith in science.

I take offense to this judgement.

I know I do.

I don't, so according to you I'm dishonest, and not a scientist... Fortunately, you're in no position to enforce your belief. Do you see the closed mindedness, and attempt to force your belief on others, which is a product of faith?

[PaulSacramento]

One can not function without faith.

I agree.

Faith is an integral part of being human.

I agree.

If a scientist believes that science will one day find the answers to all, then he is showing faith in science and, any honest scientist will tell you this, all scientists have faith in science.

I take offense to this judgement.

I know I do.

I don't, so according to you I'm dishonest, and not a scientist... Fortunately, you're in no position to enforce your belief. Do you see the closed mindedness, and attempt to force your belief on others, which is a product of faith?

I an not sure if you truly don't understand my point or if you are just being argumentative.

[Lunalle]

I an not sure if you truly don't understand my point or if you are just being argumentative.

I doubt I understand your point. I think you're painting my opinions in black and white, and judging them as such, when they are actually varying shades of grey.

We were on the same page until this:

...any honest scientist will tell you this, all scientists have faith in science.

Who are you to judge the honesty of every scientist? Who are you to say all scientists have X?

I've laid out my point many times, and I think we're just going round and round. Here is my point, yet again:
Too little faith has bad results, too much faith has bad results.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Too little faith has bad results, too much faith has bad results.

Here I fixed your quote: Too little faith in the right things has bad results, too much faith in the wrong things has bad results.

Dan

[Lunalle]

Too little faith has bad results, too much faith has bad results.

Here I fixed your quote: Too little faith in the right things has bad results, too much faith in the wrong things has bad results.

Dan

Hey Dan, thanks for making the change. I respect you trying to find a middle ground. With that said, I think your change takes away from the meaning of what I said. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to give an example how too much faith in the right thing, is not always good.

Say you grow a garden to feed your family through the winter. You have absolute faith that your garden will provide for your need of food. Say your neighbour doesn't have the faith you do, so they give you some food. Now, say your faith was justified, your garden does end up supplying you with food for the winter. But, what happened to the food your neighbour gave you? Did you let it spoil, because you didn't take care of it, because you had faith in your garden? Did you sell it? Did you give it away? How is your neighbour going to feel about supplying you with food, you did not use?

This is just a simple example of how too much faith, even if it turns out to be justified, can have bad results. You could have (should have, in my opinion) eaten the food your neighbour gave you (strengthening your neighbourly relationship), and given the extra food from your garden, to someone who had less (provide for the less fortunate).

Unfortunately, people often have so much faith in something, that they become more concerned about showing their faith, then about things like their relationships. Whether or not whatever they put their faith in is true, this leads to bad results.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Well I can agree with you up to a point, the Bible actually teaches this principle.
A good example is the story of the man who built his house in the sand and the man who built his house on the rocks.
Where I disagree with you is ultimately our faith should be in God and God alone, God being the ultimate power you can never have to much faith in him.

What your describing is really just common sense with day to day living and is not really relevant to the divine.

Christianity teaches us relationships are most important, so I would agree with your last statement, but again a relationship with God is of upmost importance.
Dan

[Lunalle]

You are right, with two notable exceptions. I'm sorry to pick on you Dan.
1) There is no valid justification for infinite faith (to say you can't have too much faith in X)
2) There is no divine.

This is a clear case of selective favoritism. What you're saying is I'm right to say ultimate faith is bad, except for the one thing you have ultimate faith in. That's just terrible.

On a better note, "What your describing is really just common sense with day to day living "... yes, I agree. That's what I do, I live day to day!

Cheers!

[Danieltwotwenty]

You are right, with two notable exceptions. I'm sorry to pick on you Dan.
1) There is no valid justification for infinite faith (to say you can't have too much faith in X)

God exists, so yea there is justification.

2) There is no divine.

You entitled to your opinion, I don't share it.

This is a clear case of selective favoritism. What you're saying is I'm right to say ultimate faith is bad, except for the one thing you have ultimate faith in. That's just terrible.

No I am saying you can't apply the same rules for the material to the immaterial, from the finite to the infinite, from natural to supernatural etc... etc..

If God is everything that the Bible says then he is worthy of infinite faith, the material world is not.

You came here to prove your theorem but the problem is, is that your theorem has a presupposition built in which excludes the supernatural, which is a positive affirmation that the supernatural doesn't exist.
Since your trying to prove your theorem to super naturalist's you would need to first prove the supernatural does not exist, which you have failed at have so far.

Your theorem is nothing new, the Bible has stated that too much faith in the natural material world is dangerous.

[Lunalle]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, not cool!

You are right, with two notable exceptions. I'm sorry to pick on you Dan.
1) There is no valid justification for infinite faith (to say you can't have too much faith in X)

God exists, so yea there is justification.

2) There is no divine.

You entitled to your opinion, I don't share it.

This is a clear case of selective favoritism. What you're saying is I'm right to say ultimate faith is bad, except for the one thing you have ultimate faith in. That's just terrible.

No I am saying you can't apply the same rules for the material to the immaterial, from the finite to the infinite, from natural to supernatural etc... etc..

Well, right. Are you immaterial? Are you infinite? Are you supernatural? I'm not.

If God is everything that the Bible says then he is worthy of infinite faith, the material world is not.

You came here to prove your theorem but the problem is, is that your theorem has a presupposition built in which excludes the supernatural, which is a positive affirmation that the supernatural doesn't exist.
Since your trying to prove your theorem to super naturalist's you would need to first prove the supernatural does not exist, which you have failed at have so far.

Your theorem is nothing new, the Bible has stated that too much faith in the natural material world is dangerous.

I came here to find logically valid justification for belief in God, which I still have not yet found. I've also come here to point out that as to date, there is no logically valid justification for such belief. You can't prove God, and I can't disprove God, because God doesn't exist... just like anything else anybody makes up. "You need to first prove X doesn't exist" doesn't work in reality. If it did, I'd be a quintillionaire, because hey - you can't prove I'm not.

[Danieltwotwenty]

This is a clear case of selective favoritism. What you're saying is I'm right to say ultimate faith is bad, except for the one thing you have ultimate faith in. That's just terrible.

No I am saying you can't apply the same rules for the material to the immaterial, from the finite to the infinite, from natural to supernatural etc... etc..

Well, right. Are you immaterial? Are you infinite? Are you supernatural? I'm not.

Point being?

I came here to find logically valid justification for belief in God, which I still have not yet found.

From what I have seen that is not the case, I see very little question asking and just you pushing your own worldview/ideologies at us which at least you honest about in your next sentence below.

I've also come here to point out that as to date, there is no logically valid justification for such belief.

Which you haven't succeeded at all, the only thing you have proven is a complete lack of understanding of what you are attacking.

You can't prove God, and I can't disprove God, because God doesn't exist... just like anything else anybody makes up. "You need to first prove X doesn't exist" doesn't work in reality. If it did, I'd be a quintillionaire, because hey - you can't prove I'm not.

You can't prove to a blind man that the colour red exists and neither can he disprove it and just because he thinks it does not exist does not mean that it doesn't. You are the blind man but in this case you are spiritually blind, we all know God exists and he is as real to us as the sun is in the blue sky and just because you are blinded to his existence does not mean he is not there.
This is why the burden of proof lies with you as well as us, your theorem requires the non-existence of the supernatural, so it is now up to you to prove it or as Christopher Hitchens says "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I like this quote from C.S.Lewis "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Dan

[TheArtfulDodger]

Arthur, what do you research in? Which field of physics?

I do theoretical/computational astrophysics. In the past I worked on supernova remnants, but the future is pretty wide open, which is partly why I like astro research so much as it is still possible to have a pretty diverse set of interests.

By the way, it's The Artful Dodger, as in the character from Oliver Twist, not Arthur, haha. But you can call me Arthur if you like!

theorists had faith in the physical laws, they would not doubt them, and they would never be improved upon. This would directly hinder progress.

Scientific progress is made because of curiosity, and because of doubt. I would like to encourage you to read the work of Stephen Hawking. He is a theorist (among other things) who makes it very clear that everything does NOT obey physical laws.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they have faith in the specific physical laws themselves, but in the idea that physical laws are even possible or make sense to search for.

And it's always iffy getting information from popular science books as they necessarily take out much of the backbones of the theory in order to explain it to a layman. Simplifications are unavoidable and things aren't presented exactly as they stand because that's not what the target audience wants. When you read something like that you are taking the author completely on his word. However, I don't doubt the usefulness of such books, but I wouldn't use them as sources for why I believe something.

I've also already stated that too little faith has bad results, and too much faith has bad results

Then we agree on that front, if by faith you mean faith without evidence.

I came here to find logically valid justification for belief in God, which I still have not yet found. I've also come here to point out that as to date, there is no logically valid justification for such belief. You can't prove God, and I can't disprove God, because God doesn't exist... just like anything else anybody makes up. "You need to first prove X doesn't exist" doesn't work in reality. If it did, I'd be a quintillionaire, because hey - you can't prove I'm not.

That is not how it works. Are you claiming that the numerous theorems that have be slavishly proven in mathematics for "there does not exist a ____" were pointless and unnessessary? Non-existence is quite a strong condition that requires an argument to back up.

[Lunalle]

theorists had faith in the physical laws, they would not doubt them, and they would never be improved upon. This would directly hinder progress.

Scientific progress is made because of curiosity, and because of doubt. I would like to encourage you to read the work of Stephen Hawking. He is a theorist (among other things) who makes it very clear that everything does NOT obey physical laws.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they have faith in the specific physical laws themselves, but in the idea that physical laws are even possible or make sense to search for.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree.

And it's always iffy getting information from popular science books as they necessarily take out much of the backbones of the theory in order to explain it to a layman. Simplifications are unavoidable and things aren't presented exactly as they stand because that's not what the target audience wants. When you read something like that you are taking the author completely on his word. However, I don't doubt the usefulness of such books, but I wouldn't use them as sources for why I believe something.

I agree with this as well.

I've also already stated that too little faith has bad results, and too much faith has bad results

Then we agree on that front, if by faith you mean faith without evidence.

Cool, yes I do.

I came here to find logically valid justification for belief in God, which I still have not yet found. I've also come here to point out that as to date, there is no logically valid justification for such belief. You can't prove God, and I can't disprove God, because God doesn't exist... just like anything else anybody makes up. "You need to first prove X doesn't exist" doesn't work in reality. If it did, I'd be a quintillionaire, because hey - you can't prove I'm not.

That is not how it works. Are you claiming that the numerous theorems that have be slavishly proven in mathematics for "there does not exist a ____" were pointless and unnessessary? Non-existence is quite a strong condition that requires an argument to back up.

I am not a mathematician, and I don't know what theorems you are referring to. I do not claim they are pointless and unnecessary, but I will claim they are based on logically invalid justification. It is impossible to logically "prove" something doesn't exist. There is no logically valid justification for the claim. Yes, it is logically impossible to prove God doesn't exist. I can make an argument that God (or anything else for that matter) doesn't exist, but it will not be logically valid.

[Audie]

Hey all, it seems that a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of science. I lay blame for this entirely on the education system. I know I was shocked at the inaccuracy of my "science education" when I got out of high school.

First of all, I would like to present some terminology.

Hypothesis - Untested idea about the nature of how things work.
Theory - Verified (by multiple tests) idea about the nature of how things work, including method of verification.
Law - Verified mathematical equation used to make predictions as accurately as possible.

Now, for some fundamentals.

Scientific theories are published explanations of our best understanding of how things work.
Scientific theories are the pinnacle of enlightenment in science.
Scientific theories are not regarded as "true", but as "the best way to explain it given our current understanding".

Scientific hypothesis, theories, and laws are all open to question, and are updated as new information is presented (so long as this new information meets certain requirements).

Scientific hypothesis, theories, and laws are not static. Ex. They are not equally accurate in every setting in this universe.

Hopefully this helps some people better understand the fundamentals of science.

Hopefully!

I see the talk soon turned to faith.
Do you think maybe some other words besides "faith" might be more appropriate?

The word seems so loaded with different meanings!