Luna's initial post was unhelpful as most of this forum's members already understand and know this long before the poster bothered to post it.Audie wrote:Hopefully!Lunalle wrote: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.
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!
For your information, faith means to hold something or someone with trust or confidence.
This applies both to both religious faith and to trust in science, and the question becomes not about whether faith is good, but what kind of faith is Good. (That is, what is the ideal way to decide to hold trust an confidence in something?)
Furthermore, the foundation of rationality is not science, but philosophy, which is where science originally got its foundation, on top of the Christian's Biblical need to test claims and teachings to determine how truthful claims are.
In order to even have science at all, one must have faith that "truth" is self-consistent, let alone exists (a philosophic principle), that humans are capable of comprehending reality, and that there can, and do, exist tools to aid in making observations and verifying (or refuting) claims about reality, let alone that such tools have a degree of reliability.
Without believing in these foundational principles, science becomes impossible.
This is what Christians mean to say that both science and religion require faith.
On top of that, both science and religion depend on the existence of truth and the ability of humans to (somewhat) comprehend reality.Let's also not forget that, based on the nature of truth, both science and religion assume that there are underlying principles and rules to how reality operates.
Insomuch as this, science and religion both use the same kind of faith, but apply these foundational principles in different ways. Essentially, science and religion are two sides of the same coin.