The uselessness of science

[PaulSacramento]

According to some:
Science doesn't prove anything and is not in the business of proving anything.
Science doesn't address anything either.
So, of course, the question MUST be asked:
If science is not in the business of addressing ANYTHING much less PROVING anything, what good is it?

[RickD]

Who's the genius who claims that science doesn't address anything?

[EssentialSacrifice]

When science disproves something, isn't that a form of proof of something ?

[1over137]

According to some:
Science doesn't prove anything and is not in the business of proving anything.
Science doesn't address anything either.
So, of course, the question MUST be asked:
If science is not in the business of addressing ANYTHING much less PROVING anything, what good is it?

What the verb address here means really?

[PaulSacramento]

Who's the genius who claims that science doesn't address anything?

That's isn't important right now ( but I am sure you can suspect).
One of the many ways that skeptics that have put their "faith" in science get around the whole issue that science is NOT always right NOR does science even state that any of its conclusions should be viewed as "indisputable" , is to say things like, "science doesn't prove anything" or "science isn't in the business of proving things" or "science doesn't address anything".
BUT for people like me who hold science very dearly ( I am mechanical engineer and working on my bach. in physics) that crap pisses me off.
Science is quite simply this:


The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

[RickD]

Who's the genius who claims that science doesn't address anything?

That's isn't important right now ( but I am sure you can suspect).
One of the many ways that skeptics that have put their "faith" in science get around the whole issue that science is NOT always right NOR does science even state that any of its conclusions should be viewed as "indisputable" , is to say things like, "science doesn't prove anything" or "science isn't in the business of proving things" or "science doesn't address anything".
BUT for people like me who hold science very dearly ( I am mechanical engineer and working on my bach. in physics) that crap pisses me off.
Science is quite simply this:


The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

Ok. I can understand someone saying that science doesn't prove things. ES's quote, notwithstanding.
But to say that science doesn't address anything? That's just ridiculous. That's what science does. Science uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain, or address natural phenomena.

And Paul,

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, I don't think he said that science doesn't address anything.

But maybe I'm wrong. Do you have a quote?

[PaulSacramento]

When science disproves something, isn't that a form of proof of something ?

Science, supposedly, isn't in the business of disproving either...

[RickD]

When science disproves something, isn't that a form of proof of something ?

Science, supposedly, isn't in the business of disproving either...

[PaulSacramento]

Who's the genius who claims that science doesn't address anything?

That's isn't important right now ( but I am sure you can suspect).
One of the many ways that skeptics that have put their "faith" in science get around the whole issue that science is NOT always right NOR does science even state that any of its conclusions should be viewed as "indisputable" , is to say things like, "science doesn't prove anything" or "science isn't in the business of proving things" or "science doesn't address anything".
BUT for people like me who hold science very dearly ( I am mechanical engineer and working on my bach. in physics) that crap pisses me off.
Science is quite simply this:


The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

Ok. I can understand someone saying that science doesn't prove things. ES's quote, notwithstanding.
But to say that science doesn't address anything? That's just ridiculous. That's what science does. Science uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain, or address natural phenomena.

And Paul,

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, I don't think he said that science doesn't address anything.

But maybe I'm wrong. Do you have a quote?

You may be correct, what was said was:

Science doesn't address everything, so the claim everything has a cause is not a claim backed up by science.

Which, to be honest, is semantics since the CONTEXT was clear that what was being discussed is what is observable and, to be even more honest, I am getting tired of these little games that are played by people that use science to DISPROVE everything that can BUT are the first to say that science isn't about that as soon as science can't disprove something, know what I mean?

[PaulSacramento]

Science is, in reality, ALL about proving things.
Proving a hypothesis, proving a theory, proving an observation, about making statements that can be read as laws.
Are these views set in stone? NO.
Are the irrevocable? NO.
Are they 100% for sure? never to be disprove? NO.
In fact science goes out of it's way to try and disprove what has been proven.

[RickD]

Paul,

The whole conversation is pointless. Kenny has been shown numerous times, that philosophy proves that anything that begins to exist, has a cause. Instead of dealing with that, he goes off track to say that science doesn't prove that "everything has a cause". It's just ridiculous. The real issue Kenny needs to deal with is the philosophical one. Instead of dealing with that, he just waves his hand at that, and argues about something else.

It's like this...we show Kenny that 1+1=2. Instead of dealing with that fact, he goes off and argues that there may be other numbers somewhere that we don't know about yet, so we can't know that 1+1=2.

And yes, it's frustrating. If I were a member here, I'd just ignore it. But as a moderator, I can't. I've never seen someone who just refuses to deal with reality like he does. When jlay said he was being obtuse, that sums it up perfectly.

ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless;

[abelcainsbrother]

When it comes to science? I treat it the same way I do for anything that comes from man.I believe we should always believe God over man first and knowing what we know about man and history man can be right but he can also be wrong.man can seem so right and true and even seem to have evidence to back it up and yet over time be proven totally wrong.We can look backin time and examine thoughts,beliefs,philosophies,etc and realize how right they thought they were and yet how wrong they turned out to be.

This is why it is just not wise at all to believe anything man says is true over God just like the bible tells us.But also the bible warns about great deception in the last days so that the elect of God could be decieved and we are in the last days so this means more than ever we need to take the truth very seriously.So for science? I treat it just like i do for anything man says is true i go by science on a case by case basis based on evidence when it comes to science.Science can be right but it can also get things wrong so I go by science on a case by case basis based on evidence.

Based on doing this I reject evolution and it is based on a lack of real evidence that demonstrates life evolves.If scientists cannot make life evolve? it did not happen on its own.

[LittleHamster]

Here is a possible reason why science may not help....http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ience+will

'Reason' seems to work rather well for science.

'Faith' seems to work rather well for salvation.


relevant quote.........

"Listen, philosopher, to what I tell thee: we believe, that the Almighty God from out of nothing did create by His Word and His Spirit both heaven and earth, and all the world both visible and invisible. The Word is the Son of God, Who didst come down upon the earth on account of our sins; he wast born of a Virgin, He lived amongst mankind, and suffered and died for our salvation, and then He arose, having redeemed by His sufferings the Original Sin, and He hath resurrected with Him the human race. We believe, that He is One in Essence and Equal-in-Dignity with the Father, and we believe this without any sly rationalisations, since it is impossible to grasp this mystery by human reason"

- Saint Spyridon (c. 270 – 348 AD)

[Philip]

To be terribly redundant, ya can't just throw out science as irrelevant to the things and methods of God. In fact, science itself is all about studying - what - THE THINGS OF GOD! God made us rational beings with a yearning to learn, discover, the ability to invent technology that enables incredible (no, not always accurate) levels of discovery. AND, let's not forget that the ONLY reason we can do ANY science to show things that are beyond reasonable doubts is because God built consistency into His universe, its design, its functionality. Experiments can help validate hypotheses precisely because of how God put the universe together. So, HE gave us the intelligence, the curiosity, the ability to design and use tools, and the intelligence behind all of that. So, yeah, people sometimes dismiss how science reveals God far too casually, IMHO.

[LittleHamster]

Science is great! I love science (as do many other members of this forum). I guess a lot of us started in various scientific fields hoping to find the answers to the mystery of life. There was a great joy in writing that first scientific publication

Consider this perspective:

Let's say you send your children off into the backyard garden. As a father, how would you expect them to know you better?

By studying the garden? By getting caught up in Scientific Materialism ?

Definitely not. They should, at least, begin by studying themselves -- "Know Thyself".

Knowing and understanding your true self will definitely help. Even Studying the relationship between you and your children brings you closer to knowing God (remember, we are made in his image).

Then, when Christ sends you the Holy Spirit -- the teacher -- the advocate -- the comforter, then the next stage of learning begins.