Do you think the public understanding of Science is getting better or worse?

Until today we see horoscopes being published on the newspapers and magazines even it has been debunked for like 300 years back.

We have creationist fighting all over USA to allow schools to teach creationism aka intelligent design alongside evolution.

We still have billions of people on Earth who still thinks the world was created 6000 years ago and claims carbon dating is wrong even when science have more than 1 way/method to determine the age of something.

We have people attacking science just to protect their beliefs. People giving up rationality and reasoning because of religion.

The $1million dollar reward of James Randi which is offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific control is safe until today and yet people still continue to believe in telekinesis, homeopathy, fengsui, faith healing, dowsers and many more.

the common spin is that science are weak and they will point out some fraud and apparent incompleteness of science and proceed to science cannot replace such or such mumbo jumbo they believe in while never proving their stuff ever work.

i think it is getting worst, the age of reason have not really arrived.

This post has been edited by robertngo: Oct 11 2010, 07:29 AM

Untill the day Science proof god does not exist, there comes the day science reigh completely

Science indirectly already prove that God doesnt exist. all the theory leaves no room for the existence of God. and the burden is not on us, its up to you theists.

Then why ever increasing of people converted in to religion of abrahamatic(monotheism god concept)

The age of reason had came and gone, Robert.

Reasons dont provide answers to everything. That is why the need to cling back to the age of belief where some indroctirnation helps to reinforce blind faith that can provide answers to everything.

proof?

looks like bad news for humanity

That is provided that reason can provided solution to all problems. Lets say you got vodoo-ed. Medical science cant detect what is wrong with you. So in pain an desparation you are willing to try anything. Even something as stupid as, "I need to molest you to heal you" comming from a bomoh will do.

so basically its false hope and it makes people happier. its the same with a drunk man is happier than a sober one.

Solution will eventually appear when enough logic and reasoning is applied.

Just look at the numbers of asian converted to islam/chritianity

that shows people are getting more and more stupid.

no offense

Nope, solution based on sound reason and logic had not always been the choice.

The choice is what they perceived to be the right antidote.

can you define stupid and intelligent in this context?

IF god are mighty compassionate, then why summons natural catastrophic just to strike fear upon us

To get your obedience I guess.

people who refuse to use logic and choose not to be rational when they actually can, thats stupid.

So are you saying your God is evil(proof that God doesnt exists and if God exists he is evil is there) but want humans to do good stuff?

Have you encountered such people?
The rational people I know had never chose to act otherwise (ignorance omitted).

yes actually, they call themselves man of faith.

The moment they become man of faith the already reject reason and embrace faith. They are no longer capable of reason.

Is there anyway to make these people to embrace logic and reason again to actually contribute to humanity trough science?

1) Science had to address to all their needs for that to happen

2) Science should be easily assessible to all but it get less assessible as we progress.

Just these two points will do for now.

What else do they want from science? Science already gave them happiness, longer life, cure to many diseases, making life easier by technology such as machinery and many more.

Science is already easily assessible, people just choose to ignore it since there is an easier escape, God.

---

Added on October 11, 2010, 12:16 pmsomewhat related to this thread.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum...lumn11_ST_N.htm

This post has been edited by Kal-el: Oct 11 2010, 12:16 PM

Science is not accessible to those with low IQ. Just look at the early1900s. What do they learn in science then? Some stuff on electricity, motor, steam engine. Today the have to learn all that and more. As we progress knowledge increase thus making it accessible only to the "intelligent". Where can the non intelligent go? Hope & Pray.

This post has been edited by faceless: Oct 11 2010, 12:28 PM

lol-ed at the "intelligent" part

LOGIC is only one set of thinking and resoning methodology.. it is not the absolute

whats absolute?

I dont get the humour. Everyone had a different IQ.

This post has been edited by faceless: Oct 11 2010, 03:21 PM

IMHO, nothing as everything is relative

Public understanding of science is definitely getting better.

200 years ago, 100% of all the people in Europe believes the world was created 6000 years ago. Today, that percentage is slightly less than 100%. See, it is improving?

Besides, not all religions insists that the world is 6000 years old.

Anyway, it is fashionable to position science as diametrically opposed to religion. Science is supposedly anti-religion. It's one or the other. Either you believe science or you believe religion. I do not think this is reasonable. You can believe both, you can believe neither, or you can believe parts of both.

People's beliefs are not always logical. They can hold conflicting beliefs, without having to resolve every single conflict. They will just tell themselves that perhaps they do not understand either well enough, and just "temporarily" put the conflict aside. "Temporary" is in quotes because the frequently do not go back to it later.

You also cannot argue people out of their beliefs by pure raw logic alone. If you consider your father an honourable man who never lies, when presented with actual evidence that he has lied, you will not start calling him a liar. You will simply make up an excuse to explain away that one instance. Perhaps he did it to spare someone's feelings. So he was actually being kind ... This is why pointing out conflicts between science and the bible (or within the bible itself) will not turn a strong christian into an atheist.

Yes, some people believe in telekinesis. That does not mean ALL people believe in telekinesis. If the fraction who does not is changing, that shows there is change. But I do not agree that simple believe or disbelieve in telekinesis shows a greater or lesser understanding of science. You will have to ask each person why they believe or disbelieve telekinesis is possible or not possible. Their answer will show how much science they understand. If you ask a person who do not believe in telekinesis, and the best he can come up with is "it's not scientific", this is hardly any better than the person who believes, but cannot explain why. They both show an equal lack of understanding.

Anyway, the average person today definitely knows more science than the average person of 200 years ago. It might be still very shallow, but it is certainly an improvement.

Scientific evidence today shows that the earth is probably a lot older than 6000 years old. But everything in science is provisional. It is true until a better theory comes along. We should also not close our mind to things we do not yet understand. For an example, I point you at the direction of the moon. In the middle ages, scientific theory as it stood then says that celestial objects are perfect and without blemish. Yet, you and I can look at the moon today and see that it is definitely not perfect. We do not need telescopes. 600 years ago, without all the pollution, the view would have been clearer.

When there is disagreement between theory and actual observation, do you disbelieve your observation or amend your theory? The strongest argument against homeopathy is not a scientific explanation of why it wouldn't work. It is actual observation. Proof (or the lack thereof) of it's efficacy.

Noetic science.

There is no such thing as believing in science.


and this is to answer your science + religion = fine. Quoted from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum...lumn11_ST_N.htm







how about bad quotes from the bible? Such as stoning a women to death if she doesnt bleed during her wedding night, endorsing slavery, lowering status of women in the society, killing all non christians and many more. All this was accepted last time but why not now? Pardon the analogy, but if you find some chocolate in a pile of dung you wont eat it right?




Im not generalizing but the number of people who abandon rational thinking and logic is alarming, people like James Hydrick cheated thousands of people into believing in him for his own profit. There are lots of proof that telekinesis doesnt work, same thing goes to dowsing when tested under proper scientific controls. Isnt this a good reason to not to believe in all this crap?







What do you think of people who are exposed to scientific knowledge but simply chooses not to acknowledge it because its against their religion?

the beauty of science is scientists are always asking themselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?". Religion doesnt like to be proven wrong and it always attacks science when the truth is uncovered.

This post has been edited by Kal-el: Oct 12 2010, 01:21 AM

People who know science will know science is not always right. Science at times needs to make assumptions. Although these assume cant be proven wrong today, it does not mean they cant be proven wrong tomorrow. Since the curent assumption cant be falliable they are to be accept for science to progress. From Galeleo to Newton to Einstien so many theories and laws had been proven wrong and updated. Could you blame their skeptiscm in science? It is the same thing you are doing to those embrace religion and reject science. Although as Dkk said, no one person can totally reject science in this day and age.

This post has been edited by faceless: Oct 12 2010, 08:31 AM

That's because the supermarkets are full of dung-free chocolate. The real world is not like that. When all chocolate has dung in it, you're forced to choose.

To "abandon" requires that first they accept it, and then reject it later. My point is they were never with you to begin with.

There is this well know problem about proving negatives. Just because you've never seen a purple cow is not proof that there isn't one in a small farm in a remote village somewhere. Proving that Uri Geller is a fraud is not the same thing as proving that paranormal phenomenons are all fake or impossible. Maybe another person could really do it? We leave the door open, give them the opportunity.

Of course, after a while, people get sick of the negative results and may be reluctant to give their time to listen to yet another claim. But we keep the door open, which is why Steorn's Orbo got so much publicity and money.

IIRC, last year, there were people in Malaysia selling this device that attach to car engines. It uses electricity generated by the car to break water into oxygen and hydrogen, which is later recombined to generate energy. Supposedly, you'll save a percentage of your fuel consumption. This even got on TV. After a while, the whole thing was quietely forgotten.

It is their right to choose what they want to believe in. It is their life. You are counting believers, but I am counting only understanders. If they understand and still do not acknowledge it, I count them amongst the rank of people who understand science. One of *MY* guys.

That's the idealized scientist. But they are people too ...

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
— Max Planck

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/107032.Max_Planck

i don't object science but i'm against the atheism...i believe in god btw

so you think there is a guy in the sky who created the whole universe and is watching every single action that you do and reading your thoughts 24/7 until the day you die and will punish(for eternity) or reward you based on your actions and thoughts.

you sir need help.

Generally I agree with Kal-el...
I have met many people, whom logic is within their grasp, but they avoid it. If I do not call them dumb, then I'd have to call myself smart, which I am reluctant to.

"Stupid is as stupid does" they say, so if one chooses to suspend logic for their belief, then indeed they are dumb for that instance.

You can throw them point after point. Why a certain Scheme (MLM,etc) is false, and they keep repeating "Look at the benefits!" Like as though how grand the "promise"/"claim" has anything to do with it's plausibility.

They are completely rational people, until the topic covers their belief. It happens to everybody, I've learned to struggle with my own beliefs.

I disagree.

Truth is indeed Absolute. As they say, if it is not absolute, then how can you absolutely say it isn't?

It's only our grasp of logic that may be incomplete.

We failed to realise that though our grasp of knowledge (perimeters of logic) is not absolute,
logic is still the best methodology/tool we use in making sense of the very reality we exist in.

We do it in our day to day lives, in our very thought process, not just scientist are doing it, even religious people are doing it, in fact in participating in this forum, we are all using it to convey our ideas, and to determine what ideas are acceptable and what are not.

Logic is the main method/tool we use, and it even encompasses all other methods of understanding. Even in belief we use logic.

Before we believe in someone or some idea, we always question, who they are, what are they claiming, how plausible the idea is. In otherwards, we use logic to differentiate plausible, from BS.

Belief without logic is simply Random choice.

Belief because the opposite is unacceptable, is denial. (Death of loved one, lost of job, etc)

Belief because we wish something to be, is wishful thinking. (Wants to own a private harem)

Belief because we feel strongly about something is delusion. (Thinks one can fly off the roof, if they believe hard enough.)


To say that logic cannot be utilized because we have limited knowledge, is to say 1 + 1 = 3 is acceptable, 1 + 1= 4 is also acceptable, because we have no way of knowing that it is indeed 100% false.

---

Added on October 12, 2010, 4:31 pmWhat about atheism do you object?

You object that people don't believe in God? Then what about the other religions?

You have a false understanding of the word atheism.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 12 2010, 04:35 PM

There's no need to use the appeal to rididcule fallacy just because people doesn't share the same believe as you.
Isn't this suppose to be a discussion thread rather than attacking people? Why does one need help just because their believe is different from you?

@TheDoer

No, truth can be relative and subjective too. Depending on what you define truth as. (Note: I'm not trying to say there's no absolute truth, I am merely trying to say truth is not absolute.)
For example, wouldn't it be true to say that a 100 years old person is old? Yes, it is true, but it's relative, not absolute.

it is impossible to learn all science now as d scope is getting wider every now and then

-

wronmg, will edit later

This post has been edited by Kal-el: Oct 13 2010, 01:48 AM

i went to kinokuniya (which i think is the most well stocked bookstore in msia) the other day and there was 1 whole section for astrology vs 2-3 rows for astronomy.

so its okay for people to have delusions as long there is a large number of people believing in the same thing too?

so whats your point?

we have news about djins and bomohs published in our newspapers instead of science discoveries. Its actually a very sad to see all this

No, in no way am I implying that. I am just trying to say that if you want to point out something, do it intelligently (i.e. give reasonings) as to allow us to simulate our thinking. Not just ridicule someone. Yes, ridiculing someone ALWAYS works, but, if so, then you are no different from MLM etc.
I'm in this thread to seek for intelligent argument, not people attacking each other.

fair enough

i am a believer. a muslim specifically. by learning science, it help me to increase my faith to God where i can see the greatness of His creation in universe. each of the creation amaze me on how it impossibly be done by human

?? How can you say you're not saying there's no absolute truth, at the same time say, truth is not absolute?

Filling in the blanks for you,
so you're saying there exist some truth which are absolute and some truth which are not absolute?

Ironically, I took that saying from a theist.
Ok, in the scenario I mention, it may be possible.

But I assure you it's not so.

Truth does not change, only the angle that changes. it's like a crossword puzzle. Across, "S" spells super. Down "S" spells stupid. The truth does not change, only the conditions change.

For eg. Ali goes to the dentist, John goes to the dentist. Ali says it's pain, john says it's not.

Does this mean that truth differs? No. The truth is, Ali felt pain because he went for a tooth extraction, and the doctor did not use any relief medication. Whereas John simply went for a check up. It is one truth, one not so simple truth, which answer depends on the premise.

A 100 year old person, is old, depending on the definition of "old".This is the absolute truth. In the definition that Old, as in reaching the last 10% of the average lifespan of homosapiens on planet earth during the year 2010? Then the answer becomes clearer.

Can you think of anything else where truth is not absolute?

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 2:56 pmI'm guilty, I bought a deck of tarrots there.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 3:01 pmFair enough,

You sound like a reasonable person.

I understand Kal-el's grief though, his probably frustrated, because most statements from theist get more and more "out of this world" so to speak.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 13 2010, 03:01 PM

Okay, let's say this
Mathematically,
absolute truth => truth
however, converse is false, truth =/=> absolute truth
I am merely saying, there are more than just absolute truth. Absolute truth is a subset of truth. Truth consist of many other type of truth. Just like the example I gave you, which is a relative truth.
I mean, imagine someone who is 1000 years old, will the person think that 100 years old is old? Yes, the 100 years old guy is still within 10% group. But to the 1000 years old guy, he is not old.
Einstein Theory of Relativity also implies that there are many truth which are relative.
Okay, let's define 1000 kg as heavy. Now, a book is only 500gram, which is not heavy. However, if a book is travelling near light speed, then its mass increases by many many many times. So, now, the book is defined as heavy. So, question is, is the book heavy? In this case, isn't it conditional truth?

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 13 2010, 03:22 PM

Science too many assumption where the assumption close to the black box behaviour - that is what I believe start from foundation after read the Scientific Blunders and my New Scientist age.

Note what I mentioned:
You will have to redefine the statement in that case.

A 100 year old man is considered old, for the average human being, without consideration of the existence of a 1000 year old man. For the freak occurance of a 1000 year old man, 100 years is indeed not old. But for the rest 100 years is considered old.

This is the absolute truth. It's multi dimensional. The only reason we do not understand it, is because we do not know the premise: There is a man who is 1000 years old and the question was the relative age of the man compared to 100 year old man.


Does a 100 year old man, call a 99 year old man, old? Yes, because the premise, is a certain percentage of the average lifespan of human beings within his knowledge. This is the premise he used to answer the question.

As long as the premise remains the same, the truth will forever be the same. It is absolute. The only difference is a lack of knowledge, lack of premise.

A lack of knowledge, a lack of premise, does not change the truth, it only obscures it.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 4:54 pm

People tend to think of Truth as either having 1 answer, or is ever changing. But they are neither.

It is a single tree with numerous branches. Each never changing.

People who see things in black & white tend to think, that in an argument, definately 1 person is wrong.

People who see truth as being relative, accepts both parties in the argument as being true.

A person who sees the truth as being a fix conclusion to a combination of premises, will try to see what premises are missing, and what premises are applicable to our case, in order to make a decision.

Eg.

A goes down the road, and sees that the road is block.
A turns around and goes the otherway, along comes B.

B doesn't believe A and continues to go down the road.

If A and B were ppl who believe that there is only 1 truth, they'd think each other are idiots, and only themselves as being right.

If A and B thought that truth is relative, and let each other be, then heck, they may have missed out on something.

If A and B realise that truth is absolute, and that there is missing information between the 2 of them, then they might start discussing it.

A: I saw a tree fell over, you won't be able to pass.
B: Oh really? I think you mean that banyan tree at the curve?
A: Yes.
B: I guessed it. It was scheduled to be brought down. There is actually a detour, but not many people knows about it, it's down this way too.

Is truth absolute? Or limited to ones perception?

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 5:04 pmok, another example with relative truth.

A, wishes to measure his house, he ask for some long measuring tape from his friend B.
B, takes his longest tailor's measuring tape.

A: "That's not long you dipstick."
B: "Yes it is, just look, you can extend it way beyond arms length."

Both of them are right, but the truth is not interchangeable. It is fixed, based on the premise.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 13 2010, 05:04 PM

Yes, if the premise remains the same, the truth will be the same. But in reality, the premise always change. Hence, a truth cannot be absolute. A truth is only absolute at that moment, for that premise.
I guess it boils down to, how do we define absolute truth?
Okay, for me, absolute truth is the answer, that no matter the circumstances, the answer would not change. Even if the premise change, absolute truth would not change.
One example of absolute truth in my opinion would be:
MATHEMATICALLY, "1+1=2".
So, no matter what the circumstances, 1+1 will still be 2. The equation will work under all circumstances in mathematics.

When we talk about absolute, ain't it mean that it will always be the same, never changing?

So, in your opinion, if we have ultimate knowledge, then all truth will be absolute? Btw, your 1st example is not relative truth. For that case, there's already one true answer, just that neither know.
Your second example, however, is relative truth. Yes, I admit that if you define every single detail, then perhaps truth will be absolute.
However, in your case, truth is very strictly defined. If truth in our world is that strictly defined, then your argument on absolute truth will be true. But when I say RM1 million is a huge sum of many, I doubt people will say I am not telling the truth. So, in my definition of truth, your truth falls under a subset of my truth.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 6:05 pmHypocrite!!

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 6:24 pmAdd-on,
regarding the 100 years old thing. I am trying to imply, our definition for old, is relative to the other people. As you say, percentile.
If average life-span increased to 200 years old, 100 years old is no longer old. We say 100 years old is old because we compare with people around us.
If there's no young people, neither will there be old people. That's what I mean relative. It is true because relative to other people, 100 years old is old.

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 13 2010, 06:25 PM

i tought this thread discuss our societies outlook on science. It turn out to be theist vs atheist tered.

well I noticed that quite a portion of public just take everything around them for granted without having to consider or appreciate the role the science played in creating them, e.g. electronic stuffs, technology,
for example one might post on lowyat with his computer and internet access yet he claimed science is rubbish.

at first I can't believe the fact that there is still human that don't believe in science.
one of the reason that give rise to this situation, i think, is the failure of education.
what is being taught is just not enough.
in science text one is never taught 'you must believed in what you learn in your science classes'
they just learn it like any other subjects, such as moral?
learning it doesn't mean necessary to practice it,
and too little they get to learn in school,
what they learnt are just simple facts, which I think is not enough powerful enough to establish science as the central believe in them.
to them science might just as well be like religion,
and you can choose between different ones to believe in and practice.

we have to emphasize more on d structure and also nature of science, besides learning all the vital components of it,
we have to teach our man the real meaning of science and differentiate it from religion and other teaching,
and show them that science is the real truth, and establish a correct set of scientific-based 'logic' in their mind.
only then our man will be cleared of the mist and confusion that trapped them in the false beliefs.

---

Added on October 16, 2010, 11:29 amand of course there are always people who tends to misinterpret scientific facts, this contribute to the branch of pseudo-science, and when our people is not well equipped with sufficient and mature knowledge, they will get the wrong teaching as well

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Oct 16 2010, 11:29 AM

I vote for worse
Other than people just wan to against the science, there are also people who mislead people using all types of scientific terms, especially to those who weak in science.

Consider 2012 or doomsday,
we can find alot of articles talking about how true it is.
But along the article, we can find alot of scientific terms supporting how disaster happen,
and we wont know how those terms actually work.
While we can see alot of beleivers of 2012 and keep increasing all the time.

I have the same question but unfortunately, it seems many just ignorant about how science actually revolve around them.

Speaking of how science revolve all around us, we have to know that:
- We eat medicine when we get ill for faster recovery, or go for operation for serious injury; we can pray to recover faster but our condition will get worst if we dont go through medical recovering.
- We have to use vehicle to transport to one place to another; we cant just pray and hope that we can reach one destination, and in the next moment, tadah, we are there.
- We all know that people come and go in this world. Sometimes we hope that people will stay on in this world but we all know that praying or not, those who have to go will still go. Consider a terminal patient with last stage of cancer. Those who dont go after praying or not, always has scientific explanation.

Even all of us understand that science and logics work all around us,
sometimes people just dont wan to accept that but choos to throw away their rationality to think that those reasons are just lied and excuses to against the idea of someone much omnipotential on the above.

Science is not somewhat anti-religion at the first place.
It just that when there are too many theories and facts against the concept of religion,
people tend to get offended and against science and everything related to it.
Many even go as far as thinking that science is another religion, those who believe in it are just lack of intelligent like others.



I dont think education plays a part in people fail to accept science.
I know there are lot of people who distrust science can actually score a good grade in science, as well as people who got a good grade in maths says that problem solving is rubbish methodology.

This post has been edited by anti-informatic: Oct 16 2010, 02:42 PM

I do think that the public understanding of science is improving (largely due to the mainstreaming of education) but it seems that there are clusters of ignorant people who will never embrace the truth that science brings. Not surprisingly, a large proporton of these people are those who have been indoctrinated by religion.

I've read so many comments on various discussion boards all over the internet, saying things like 'science reaffirms my belief in God' or 'science proves that God exists' but really, that just shows how perverse religious indoctrination is in warping our prized reasoning capabilities. If science does not go hand in hand with religion, they will either try and force science to take the shape of religion, or discard that scientific theory outright regardless of the sheer mountain of evidence behind the scientific theory.

Let me give you this classic example I had while debating with a creationist. After typing out close to 2000 words on evolution, the undeniable proof of its validity and providing solid examples on it, the creationist replied "If evolution is true, why don't we see monkeys giving birth to humans?" People like this make me lose all hope in humanity.

And btw, Richard Dawkins ftw

C'mon people, this thread is not just about religion/faith/whatever vs science...
What about:
- Movies & tv shows potrayal of the science nerd/mad professor/crazy scientist?
- teen culture -cool crowd (athletes, artists) vs uncool nerd/class geek
- (as posted by several other posters) the failure of education system -producing talents or slaves
- political systems -democratic processes that can outvote/outlaw scientific facts
etc.

Again my plea: no more creationist vs evolutionist or atheist vs theist or Quran/Bible/Veda vs quantum theory etc.
:sigh:

The distrust of science is increasing. Environmental problems, the Korean cloning scandal, super viruses and diseases, the slowing pace of breakthrough discoveries...

It seems the common person on the street is getting more and more frightened about the practical applications of science.

Correction to your statement: "So in my definition of truth, my definition of absolute truth falls under a subset of my truth.

to which I have to agree, our definitions are different, that is why our conclusion is different.

What I am trying to say is that, truth overall is absolute, it is not 1 Dimensional like how many perceive it. If we do think in that way, then we are damn to think that anything is possible. Alas it is not true, and I see you do agree with me. 1 + 1 will forever remain as 2.

Back into context of our discussion. In my definition: Truth is absolute, therefore, if science explains something to be this way, and we have no other premise to say otherwise, then the most reasonable way to come to a conclusion is to conclude that 1 + 1 =2 and nothing else, until the premise has been updated.

We can't say. God exist relative to.... something.

The prob is, woo believers use "presupposition"

They first come with an answer (the moon is bright) then work their way back to an answer (there must be a moon goddess whose power makes the moon shine). Even though science has adequately explained the phenomena, and holes have been poked into their reasoning, they choose to believe it, and think that truth is subjective.

It is not!

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 18 2010, 09:43 AM

I find it disturbing that some ppl who believed in God and condemn science (namely evolution and big bang) is being selective to start with, without realising it is the same discipline n principle being used in daily scientific application such as - the internet - how electric signals travels thru cables from one end to the other - uses the same scientific workflow as evolution and big bang).

Science is a tool attempting to explain any occurrence. Big bang theory and theory of evolution is currently still a theory and hence subjected to disapproval.
However, if one day, science managed to actually absolutely proved them, then I doubt anyone will argue anymore (just like the fact that Sun is the center of Solar System and Earth is round, while there were objections in the beginning, we don't find people objecting it now).
If we blindly accept what science gave us, without asking why is it so, then, science may very well provide many false information.

Imagine, this scenario,
A came up with a theory, and he showed the reasonings behind why his theory is true.
If everyone were to accept without questioning, or testing, then even if there's a flaw in his theory, no one will know the truth. Only with arguments and controversies can one attain true knowledge of a subject.

Another thing is, there are many branches of Science. One can believe in one branch and disapprove of another. Why is it disturbing? When we choose course in a university, ain't we being selective too? Just because you reject TOE or big bang doesn't mean you don't believe in science. And two fields of science can be independent or mutually exclusive.
Also, would you mind showing evidence that internet uses the same scientific workflow as evolution and big bang? I don't see any direct connections between them.

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 18 2010, 08:26 PM

Evolution and Big Bang is not without evidence. And theory, is not about just making assumptions. There is a huge amount of bodily evidence to support them. A good example is Albert Einsteins 'Theory of Relativity'. As theoratical as it might sound to you (this is not like your everyday theory of how your tshirt can end up at ur ex house) its application ranges from space travel to hi-tech communication. That is how solid the theory status in science is. It is not simply given to any sort of assumptions.

Theory "denotes the most powerful status that an explanation can attain".

They dont accept it without questioning, unlike what u believe. They constantly testing the validity of the theory in order to find the ultimate truth.

Of course Science has many branches and unlike what u believe, they contribute each other instead of contradicting. They are consistent in its laws and theory. A geologist can converse with a cosmologist on how the earth being shaped up. There is of course the things that they do not know yet. Science never claim they know everything. Thus this healthy community contributed to constantly question each others approach to the problem given. They seek out for evidence and vindicating their theory, like what Einstein did.

And theory is achieved through "comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigourous observation, experimentation and logic" - quoted from QualiaSoup 'Skewed views of science'
- This workflow is used to all scientific community and its the backbone of it all. That is the relationship between studying the light behaviour travelling in the fibreoptic cables for high speed internet AND the theory of evolution and big bang.
And you are selective if u accept science when u use the internet but rebuke at evolution and big bang without bringing forward any argument to support ur doubts - because that is unscientific.

yet another "still a theory" argument. please understand what is scientific theory and what is philosophical theory then come back.

I guess you were unable to comprehend what I mentioned.
Firstly, let's ask ourselves. Why some people questioned TOE and Big Bang Theory while no one questioned Einstine theory of relativity?
If TOE and big bang has indeed been proven beyond doubt, then why is there still doubt? Do you see people doubting the earth is round? Or that the Sun is center of solar system?
Don't be mistaken, I have nothing against TOE or big bang theory. However, I view it as a possibility (a high one in fact). You, however, have concluded that they are the answer, and won't open your mind to other possibilities. TOE and Big Bang Theory still has some controversies, which leads to doubts.

Also, in which part did i mention that different branches of Science contradicts each other? I merely trying to say, selective is because people have more understanding on one branch over the other. Hence, why condemn people for being selective? They are afterall, not expert in the field(neither are we). So, are you trying to imply just because one is selective, then one shouldn't use anything at all from studies of Science?

And I am asking you to back what you said, " without realising it is the same discipline n principle being used in daily scientific application". Either your sentence is misleading, or you meant what you say. I want to know, what you mean by same discipline and principle? How are internet and big bang theory or evolution theory the same? What's your backing on your statement?

Edit: My apologies, by saying still a theory, I did not mean that all theories are questionable. I am trying to say, they still pose a space for arguments.

---

Added on October 19, 2010, 12:03 amA theory can still be disproved. For example, Newton's corpuscular theory of light is among one which has been proven false.
Also, I apologize for not choosing my words careful enough. I am not trying to use "still a theory" argument. I am trying to say, still subjected to some controversies.

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 19 2010, 12:16 AM

I hate to say this but it's due in part of religion. Religion was opposed to the idea of the earth revolving around the sun. It took several hundred years and several near-deaths of prominent scientists but eventually we reached the point where it is no longer debatable (ie we built telescopes and went into space).

Evolution is still a touchy subject because the core principles of many religion is that a higher power created us in the higher power's image. Once someone starts to disprove this, naturally defenders of religion will leap to discredit it. The problem for creationists and religion is that evidence supporting the theory of evolution continue to surface as predicted by the theory. For some it can be difficult to take when the fundamental pillars of your existence is being questioned by mathematical values and fossils dug up from the ground.

Einstein's theory was questioned many times (still are) when it was first published in 1915. He predicted things based mathematical calculation results (note the difference from prophets that predicted the end of days with no scientific basis) that could not be independently verified until 1919. Even then, debate continued to rage. It was not until the 1970s that more accurate verifications could be made, in fact a recent discovery in 2003 solidly confirmed it.

Many of us who have accepted evolution because, as someone mentioned; it's a theory that has supporting evidence. It is also the best theory so far, until the next one comes along. For us, to deny the theory of evolution also means to deny the other branches of science that leads to it. It is not as if the theory of evolution sprouted over night with no prior foundations. Yes, there are many assumptions still but even the pope himself had said the theory of evolution can no longer be disproved.

In fact, mapping out science to show how each branch is dependent on each other is a science itself.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/mapofscience/
http://scimaps.org/maps/browse/
http://mapofscience.com/wat.html#

As I mention, I view it as a possibility, not as the final answer. Because if we accept it as a final answer, then we won't be any different from those who reject TOE. Once we accept something as final, it would be very difficult to change our thinking even if someone else proved it false.

Also, another thing I would like to mention is, I believe evolution happen, and this happen is beyond doubt. However, the question that arise is, does macro evolution happen (as Darwin's TOE suggested)? Or only micro evolution have occurred?

"I hate to say this but it's due in part of religion. Religion was opposed to the idea of the earth revolving around the sun. It took several hundred years and several near-deaths of prominent scientists but eventually we reached the point where it is no longer debatable (ie we built telescopes and went into space).
"
That's why I mean, until it can reach a point where it is no longer debatable, there exist other possibilities, no?

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 19 2010, 09:33 AM

True, we have to question science, but in a scientific manner. And not, because the bible says that we came from Adam and Eve, etc etc.

Look at Galileo, the europeans at that time simply disbelieved and shunned him, simply because his idea (that the earth revolves around the sun) was against church belief.

About TOE, it was disbelieved for so long, but now even the papalcy has acknowledge it's plausibility, so why are people still denying it, based on their belief alone?

p.s. Actually there are still a bunch of people who can until today say that the world is flat, look up the flat earth society. Nothing in this world is certain, but how we derive our information is what ensures we are right most of the time.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 19 2010, 09:41 AM

@Searingmage
I might have misunderstood u. Sorry.

I say TOE and Big Bang is the same with the science behind the internet is because both uses the same "comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigourous observation, experimentation and logic"
Thats why I say by rejecting TOE and Big Bang and at the same time accepting the science behind the Internet as being selective. And also think about the science in medicine that u rely on every time u get sick. It uses the same principle.

Of course everything (not only theories) are disputable BUT there is no dispute unless u can bring about something to dispute about.

For example -

Why do you say Evolution is wrong? Why do you say Big Bang is wrong? Do you have evidence to back up your claims?
Why it is only TOE and Big Bang?
Is it because u believe in the Bible and it is going against ur faith? Are u rejecting a theory that has a huge body of evidence and study put onto it and expecting people to accept our biblical argument that has no solid evidence wutsoeva?

Just examples.

That is not accurate. Science thrives on controversy, even einstein theory of relativity. There are areas of scientific development that challenge the core ideas in relativity, like the speed of light is variable and time is not relative. Based on my understanding, TOE is firmly established as mainstream science, more so than the big bang theory. It has a lot more evidence and supported by cross science disciplines. That said, no scientists I read will stop questioning TOE or any scientific theory and regarded them as the final TOE (theory of everything).

So why particularly TOE is singled out as a highly doubtful science theory and many people are reluctant to accept it's findings? The reason may well lie in religious belief. There are some who find that the ideas we come from "chance" and "monkey" are simply disgusting.
No, in science an established theory means much more than the layman quip " It's just a theory". Yes, a theory can still be proven to be false or inaccurate. But there is a big difference between the false and inaccurate. Let's take an analogy. If you start with a theory, say by looking at the sky the sun appears to run around the earth, so stating that sun rotates around the earth. This of course is proven to be false. So the theory is abandoned and replaced by a new theory supported by some observations that earth rotates in a circular orbit around the sun. When more observations pour in, more data is acquired, more accurately we understand the law of gravitation, we found that it is not exactly in a circular orbit. It's in an elliptical orbit. You may then ask how true is this elliptical orbit if we were to take into account slight perturbation due to relativistic effects and so on.

Hence, TOE is correct to conclude human and monkeys shared some ancient ancestor some millions years but controversies that are raging within the scientific community are mainly the details like how each humanoid fossil is linked, what causes speciation, what were the environment etc ...

debatable need to mean debatable with scientific evidence and study, not like the creationist argument that did not produce evidence but demand to be treated as am legitimate theory.

just a video to share

might be related....

The birth of science and philosophy is regarded to have sprang in 585 BC, for about that era, a pre-Socratic philosopher named Thales made a profound impact of assumption that broke with the world view of his day. He was the first to postulate that all things were made of a single substance “water” and that the processes of advancement might arise from within the search of testable explanations and predictions about the substance itself. Thus, he was dubbed the “Father of Science.”

And thanks to the sciences, today we have volumes of encyclopedias about all these disciplines and subjects, that each of us can use to expound the larger implications of the subject matter and to clarify how we think the meaning of all the facts taken together. Now imagine the fact that most of these informative reference works were accumulated during the lifetime of many great scientists and philosophers, which they shared with us of what they have researched and pondered in the largest possible perspective, and is now available to all of us, PhDs. We are already living in a whole new world unimagined by our great grand ancestors.